>> smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. > Calm down. That is not true. It pretty much is. Bitcoin's solution to scripting exploits was to wea

>> smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. > Calm down. That is not true. It pretty much is. Bitcoin's solution to scripting exploits was to weaken scripting. It would have been impractical to use BTC for defi and more work was undergoing to fix those problems. The weasels snuck in at the beginning and now that we can do without them they're already in the walls. > Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. For trading there are a couple of options (aside from Tether, which is a scam) for pegging a trade to USD. For on/offramp, you are sorta right. If I want to trade for strawberries I need someone holding strawberries, and I have a risk he'll give me raspberries. > Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees On/off ramps don't require centralization, they only require one legally bound actor, and we can all pick our fave. You may trust a lawyer near you, I may trust my local gold bullion store for up to $5k at a time, etc. Low fees are far better achieved by a channel or rollup based solution, where the assets are essentially on-chain the entire time. > and because people are willing to trust others. This is bad argument. You're trying to make trust virtuous even though removing the need for trust is far better for society - removing risk and friction for everyone.