Always excited to see more competition and innovation for decentralized exchanges, but your whitepaper seems (at least in places) poorly researched, notably Blocknet has working and verifiable atomic swaps functioning already.
The concept is nice.
However, in the video you do not explain what happen to coins currently linked to pending orders.
It is clear that coins not on orders are store in private wallets on user's pc...
but pending orders?
Are the coins tied to the pending orders sent somewhere? hence the "distributed" nature?
Exactly. The coins are sent to our nodes to perform the exchange. But even this situation is better than the order on the centralized exchange.
For each order, you get a cryptographically signed guarantee before sending anything to the nodes. It ensures that your money will not just disappear, and that we cannot just change your order willy-nilly, for example, to get you the price worse than you asked for, stealing the difference.
So, at each point in time, both passive and active funds are accounted for. Passive (not on the orders) is safe on your computer, and for active (on the orders) you get a crypto guarantee.
So only money on the orders is at risk, but:
1) Users can hold us accountable, because they know and can prove exactly how much they've sent (if you have an insured centralized exchange, you can't provably claim your money, you have to trust their compromised database);
2) In the next versions we plan to only keep the top of the orders, not the whole order book;
3) We have more ideas on security that we are testing right now.
But even the current setup is already much safer than centralized exchanges.
That's not really decentralized, is it?
Show Posts
