Will the LN's Atomic Swaps eliminate the need for centralized exchanges?

[Wind_FURY]

i am fairly certain that centralized exchanges that work with decentralized cryptocurrencies will eventually cease to exist. lightning network and atomic swaps and all the other progress that we are making in the decentralized exchange front is only one part of the reason, the bigger reason in my opinion is that the centralized exchanges have ensured their own eventual demise by providing terrible services that aren't even safe.

I believe not if it gives up efficiency and speed. The same debate can be applied here as it has been on "DAPPS". Not everything should be censorship-resistant and trust-minimized.

[gentlemand]

I believe not if it gives up efficiency and speed. The same debate can be applied here as it has been on "DAPPS". Not everything should be censorship-resistant and trust-minimized.

The track record exchanges have is so dire and hateful that anything that reduces the need to go anywhere near them is worth a little extra ball ache, that's if there is any with a fully developed system.

The case for a decentralised dog walking app is non existent. The case for an exchange that doesn't get hacked, steal your money, freeze you or get shut down is very, very, very strong.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe not if it gives up efficiency and speed. The same debate can be applied here as it has been on "DAPPS". Not everything should be censorship-resistant and trust-minimized.

The track record exchanges have is so dire and hateful that anything that reduces the need to go anywhere near them is worth a little extra ball ache, that's if there is any with a fully developed system.

The case for a decentralised dog walking app is non existent. The case for an exchange that doesn't get hacked, steal your money, freeze you or get shut down is very, very, very strong.

I was thinking more about the active day traders. They would not use an exchange that's inefficient, and slow just for the purpose of "decentralization". Plus hacks, and stolen coins cannot be prevented by decentralization.

[eternalgloom]

In my opinion, this is just wishful thinking op. The reason why so many people including me prefer centralized exchanges over decentralized platforms despite the hacks and scams over the years is due to the ease of usage and regulatory authority which is somewhat comforting.

Why would anyone actually want a centralised exchange if there's another option? You're willing to risk the total loss of your coins for 'ease of use'? Something in wallet and on chain will be effectively instant and foolproof.

And you don't have to send photos of your username written on your penis to anonymous strangers if they decide to deprive your of your own money because their piece of shit software triggered something.

Because they're lazy and gullible, they'd rather trust advertising and keep using what they're used to, than to try out something different and new.
I mean, I don't actually agree with @Haunebu, since there will be a point in time when it will be far easier to use atomic swaps than centralized exchanges.

I just think that centralized exchanges will try anything to keep their customers there and they will in part succeed probably.
Just because a lot of people won't know any better.

[gentlemand]

Plus hacks, and stolen coins cannot be prevented by decentralization.

Eh?

I can think of multiple exchanges that would've wiped me out had I lingered on them. If Id' never had a need to go anywhere near them this wouldn't be an issue.

An exchange is a vastly juicier hacking target than oneself so the odds of coins being hacked or stolen by the exchange are considerably higher when they're under the control of a place with a big fat target on it back.

Agreed on traders. That's a circle that possibly can't be squared.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus hacks, and stolen coins cannot be prevented by decentralization.

Eh?

Yes. Decentralization doesn't assure anything that it's hack-free, and it will only be a matter of how large the pay-day will be. Remember the DAO.

[Kakmakr]

Things will become very interesting when things like this starts to take off, because governments has been open to Crypto currencies, because there are some degree of control, when people trade and convert fiat currencies via regulated centralized exchanges. The moment when they realize that the new atomic swap will reduce the control, it might become a problem for them.

It remains to be seen if people would be willing to adopt LN on a large scale for that to happen and if the problems with the LN can be solved before that happens. 

[Abiky]

i am fairly certain that centralized exchanges that work with decentralized cryptocurrencies will eventually cease to exist. lightning network and atomic swaps and all the other progress that we are making in the decentralized exchange front is only one part of the reason, the bigger reason in my opinion is that the centralized exchanges have ensured their own eventual demise by providing terrible services that aren't even safe.

Probably. Everything will depend on the people's adoption of such exchanges. If they use centralized exchanges more than decentralized ones, then the crypto space will be largely dominated by big corporations. The Lightning Network along with atomic swap prove to be a game changer in the crypto space, but it's limited by the number of people using it. Decentralized exchanges have been on the space for a while, but centralized exchanges are still in the lead.

Most recently, the FATF announced tighter regulations for centralized crypto exchanges. The travel rule will impose greater identity requirements, greatly defeating the purpose of cryptocurrency. After all, Bitcoin was meant to eliminate the need for middleman in the mainstream world. However, the whole crypto ecosystem is becoming largely dominated by greedy banksters and governments. The availability of decentralized solutions provides us with some level of censorship-resistance, but they won't be used as much as centralized ones.

Nonetheless, I believe that someday people will realize the true risks of centralized exchanges, shifting towards decentralized solutions like DEXs and Atomic Swaps. It's only a matter of time before this happens. Just my thoughts

[1Referee]

After all, Bitcoin was meant to eliminate the need for middleman in the mainstream world. However, the whole crypto ecosystem is becoming largely dominated by greedy banksters and governments.

Greedy banksters can only dominate when sheeps don't understand the difference between what's good and what's bad. If we put that aside, we also have to deal with people who just don't care and only aim to use that what offers them the greatest deal of convenience. Banksters are everywhere as long as there is demand for their services, and currently there is plenty.

The availability of decentralized solutions provides us with some level of censorship-resistance, but they won't be used as much as centralized ones.

People won't even shift if decentralized exchanges work almost as good and convenient as centralized exchanges. The difference in convenience and user experience needs to be exponentially better to have people switch to decentralized exchanges.

[bloodyvio]

ah i hate atomic swap
the price they give is too high to buy and too low to sell
so i prefer to use the centralized exchange

[Burogh]

I think centralized exchange still needed. Beside for daily trading and making profits, centralized exchangers needed for new project to list in market. The important thing about centralized exchangers is exchanger should comply with government regulation to secure investor funds

[pooya87]

Plus hacks, and stolen coins cannot be prevented by decentralization.

Eh?

Yes. Decentralization doesn't assure anything that it's hack-free, and it will only be a matter of how large the pay-day will be. Remember the DAO.

it is true that nothing is 100% secure and without hack but decentralized exchanges compared to centralized exchanges are a lot safer because they eliminate a ton of ways that you could lose your money. besides in a centralized exchange the hacker has to target the exchange and steal millions but in a decentralized exchange he has to target thousands of users and hack each of them to steal that much!

p.s. DAO was not a hack, it was an exploit in the protocol of the underlying cryptocurrency!

[Khaos77]

Do you think that once the Lightning Network becomes used in the mainstream world, it will eliminate the need for centralized exchanges with its atomic swaps feature?

No,

LN hubs offer a complexity that the majority do not want to even bother with.
The Atomic swaps another layer of complexity on top of that.
No one in their right mind , except super nerds will even bother with it.

Centralized Exchanges offer Easy & Quick access.
So they will be around for all time.

The major complaint is the threat of a hack or exchange owner stealing the funds.
If you are one of those people that leave more than you can afford to lose on the exchange, it is really your own fault.
No different than leaving all of your savings in a Bank that is not insured to your full amount.

Some Traders only use the exchange and never even sync a wallet,
because even simple wallet syncing is more than they want to bother with. 

 

[Wind_FURY]

Plus hacks, and stolen coins cannot be prevented by decentralization.

Eh?

Yes. Decentralization doesn't assure anything that it's hack-free, and it will only be a matter of how large the pay-day will be. Remember the DAO.

it is true that nothing is 100% secure and without hack but decentralized exchanges compared to centralized exchanges are a lot safer because they eliminate a ton of ways that you could lose your money. besides in a centralized exchange the hacker has to target the exchange and steal millions but in a decentralized exchange he has to target thousands of users and hack each of them to steal that much!

p.s. DAO was not a hack, it was an exploit in the protocol of the underlying cryptocurrency!

It wasn't a "hack"/infiltration, but a real hack like you said. There was a flaw in the code that the hacker used to make an exploit to take advantage of the system.

Lightning is another example of something decentralized that's waiting to be exploited/hacked.

[Abiky]

No,

LN hubs offer a complexity that the majority do not want to even bother with.
The Atomic swaps another layer of complexity on top of that.
No one in their right mind , except super nerds will even bother with it.

Centralized Exchanges offer Easy & Quick access.
So they will be around for all time.

The major complaint is the threat of a hack or exchange owner stealing the funds.
If you are one of those people that leave more than you can afford to lose on the exchange, it is really your own fault.
No different than leaving all of your savings in a Bank that is not insured to your full amount.

Some Traders only use the exchange and never even sync a wallet,
because even simple wallet syncing is more than they want to bother with. 

That's certainly true, mate. Centralized exchanges bring a lot of convenience on top of decentralized ones. Even with the inherent risks of centralized exchanges, one could manage to stay safe by never leaving a large quantity of coins on it. For some people, centralized exchanges seem to be the best way to trade from crypto to Fiat or vice versa. However, those who're looking for greater privacy and security would definitely choose decentralized exchanges to perform all of their crypto trades.

The atomic swap feature of the LN, revolutionizes the way people trade from one crypto to another. However, this has technical aspects that aren't familiar for non tech-savvy people. Which is why, geeks or nerds will make better use of said feature. Of course, everything will depend on the developers themselves whenever they create a user-friendly wallet that would allow people to perform an atomic swap in a simple manner.

Still, atomic swaps are not the only solution for trading cryptocurrencies. Which means, that in the future, centralized & decentralized exchanges, as well as, atomic swaps, will co-exist within the crypto space.

Nonetheless, time will tell us whenever atomic swaps will become a success or just another experiment/prototype. Just my thoughts

[BitHodler]

Nonetheless, time will tell us whenever atomic swaps will become a success or just another experiment/prototype. Just my thoughts

It will depend on how people swallow the increasing level of KYC and AML policies, because if people continue to not give a damn it's going to be hard for decentralized exchanges to actually gain ground.

We're already at a point where people blindly hand over their personal information and scans of their government issued ID and passport to ICOs just so that they can participate in the crowd sale stage, which is mind boggling.

I really hope that it will change eventually, but thus far we haven't seen much of an indication that people demand a change unfortunately. It has always been greed over security for most people.

[squatter]

Nonetheless, time will tell us whenever atomic swaps will become a success or just another experiment/prototype. Just my thoughts

It will depend on how people swallow the increasing level of KYC and AML policies, because if people continue to not give a damn it's going to be hard for decentralized exchanges to actually gain ground.

There's always going to be a big niche for privacy-oriented people who want to avoid KYC. I strongly believe that's one of the reasons Binance became as big as it did. After Bittrex began implementing mandatory KYC during summer 2017, most of their volume went to Binance.

The main problem right now is usability. Decentralized trading will never compare to the efficiency, liquidity, order types, etc. that centralized exchanges can offer, but the gap between the two can be bridged somewhat.

[Abiky]

It will depend on how people swallow the increasing level of KYC and AML policies, because if people continue to not give a damn it's going to be hard for decentralized exchanges to actually gain ground.

We're already at a point where people blindly hand over their personal information and scans of their government issued ID and passport to ICOs just so that they can participate in the crowd sale stage, which is mind boggling.

I really hope that it will change eventually, but thus far we haven't seen much of an indication that people demand a change unfortunately. It has always been greed over security for most people.

Unfortunately, those are the facts nowadays. People don't seem to care about their privacy, and censorship-resistance, since they're only into crypto to make money. Because of this sentiment, many centralized exchanges have grown towards new heights giving them an edge over other alternatives within the mainstream world. On the other hand, governments have taken a large influence in restricting the adoption of crypto by enforcing KYC/AML regulations. In the bright side, it helps counteract criminal activity, but it greatly defeats crypto's purpose after all (which is taking out the middleman from transactions).

Still, decentralized solutions will exist, but they will never be as popular or active as centralized ones. Governments will always try to disrupt DEX operations one way or another. We've seen the case with EtherDelta where the SEC has fined the founder of the exchange, by implementing unregistered securities within the DEX. A few decentralized exchanges have taken steps to restrict US citizens (like CryptoBridge and now Bancor) because of tightening regulations. Which means, that our only solution which is censorship-resistant and private, would be doing a P2P exchange from one crypto to another (atomic swaps or other means).

Nonetheless, it's hoped that the LN becomes highly popular within the mainstream world that would change the way we trade and transact our cryptocurrencies for good. Time will tell us whenever governments will adapt towards this new movement, or shut it down once and for all. Just my thoughts

[Abiky]

Or stays as niche for people who cares about privacy, just like most privacy-focused software and services.

It might be different if something as complex as Atomic Swap/DEX made simple just like few LN wallet.

That too. It will depend on the person's specific needs, either for privacy or censorship-resistance. Centralized exchanges, are quite convenient as "bridges" between Fiat and crypto, but they're highly vulnerable against manipulation and hacks. That's why, several solutions like decentralized exchanges and atomic swaps have emerged in order to help bring an alternative choice for people worldwide.

In order for people to adopt the new atomic swaps feature, there needs to be user-friendly LN wallets without a doubt. Considering that the LN is still in its very beginnings, this might take quite some time before it becomes a reality. Which is why, it may be too early to tell if atomic swaps will become highly popular within the future or not.

Nonetheless, atomic swaps might not be able to take over centralized exchanges anytime soon. But, it could serve as an alternative for people looking for a quick-and-easy way to exchange from one crypto to another without middleman. Just my opinion

[magneto]

Do you think that once the Lightning Network becomes used in the mainstream world, it will eliminate the need for centralized exchanges with its atomic swaps feature?

This brings a new breakthrough in the Blockchain space, as it would allow anyone to exchange one coin from the other in a P2P fashion without the need to interact with an exchange platform. The approach seems to be much more convenient than decentralized exchanges themselves too, as the process of exchanging coins is seamless.

Still though, even if atomic swaps don't succeed in taking over centralized exchanges, they'll be a nice alternative for anyone who's looking for a quick and easy process to exchange one crypto to another without the intervention of a middleman.

In some ways, centralized exchanges seem to be too big to fail as they're the ones with the most liquidity, and money. Still though, as people realize the risks of hacks and theft within centralized exchanges, they will resort to other means. Which is why, there might be a possibility that decentralized exchanges and atomic swaps will become extremely popular in the future.

Nonetheless, what do you think about this?

I personally think no, though you're right in the regard that it's going to offer a nice alternative.

Even if you are able to swap between digital assets, there will still be significant demand coming from fiat <-> BTC trades which simply can't be handled on a decentralised platform, or at least, not yet.

You could argue that stablecoins can be used, but not everyone is willing to deal with the risks that are associated with using a token that is potentially based on fractional reserve, so completely replacing traditional exchanges will probably be out of the equation.