eXch - instant exchange BTC / LN / XMR / LTC / ETH / ERC20

[joker_josue]

~~~

I couldn't read from what you wrote before that you refer more to the custody of the channels of those wallets and not the wallet as a whole.

Yes, I wasn't very specific/clear in the post in question. But since the conversation was all about LN, I assumed it was understandable at that point.
I apologize for the confusion.

One thing is certain, having your own managed channels is still not something simple or practical. For some personal system configurations, it is almost impossible, it is so complex.

Did anybody here use eXch with LN? (I didn't so far)

That would be interesting, because from the tests I tried to do, I couldn't. There is always an error on the invoice - but this may be because the wallet I am testing does not allow a zero invoice.

[eXch]

We have added Brume Wallet (https://github.com/brumeproject/wallet) to our recommended wallet list.

This wallet allows fast standalone private key generation and address derivation for Ethereum, setting it apart as a truly distinctive option in the market, as no other consumer-grade wallets offer this capability. Additionally, it positions itself as a privacy-focused solution designed to operate seamlessly through Tor, underscoring its uniqueness.

Meanwhile this wallet is available for other platforms, we have decided to provide it as a mobile-only recommendation available on the main F-Droid repository for safety reasons.

We do not recommend its browser version because it requires a dangerous WebAssembly technology (aka "the modern-era Flash") to be enabled in the browser, which doesn't contribute anything good to the already heavily bloated landscape of the World Wide Web. (Learn about what dangers represents WASM and how to disable it here: https://github.com/stevespringett/disable-webassembly)

We sincerely hope that the developers will reconsider their decision to require WASM-enabled browser from users and make it optional in the future.

[fillippone]

I would consider using tether on the Bitcoin blockchain and the LN if it offers something we don't have on other blockchains. I am talking about the complete control from the issuer to freeze the tokens in any address (custodial or non-custodial wallet). That would be an excellent update compared to the tether on other networks. However, if there is a centralized party that can arbitrarily freeze people's money, I see no benefit in engaging with tether on Bitcoin instead of sticking to alternative chains.

I think Tether wouldn’t ever allow a Tether asset not to be permissioned.
Ironically, part of the coin's success comes from the cooperation between Tether and the national authorities (think about what happened with the Ledger CEO ransom).
So, from this perspective, LN Tether will be identical to the other version.

[wavessurfing]

I would consider using tether on the Bitcoin blockchain and the LN if it offers something we don't have on other blockchains. I am talking about the complete control from the issuer to freeze the tokens in any address (custodial or non-custodial wallet). That would be an excellent update compared to the tether on other networks. However, if there is a centralized party that can arbitrarily freeze people's money, I see no benefit in engaging with tether on Bitcoin instead of sticking to alternative chains.

I think Tether wouldn’t ever allow a Tether asset not to be permissioned.
Ironically, part of the coin's success comes from the cooperation between Tether and the national authorities (think about what happened with the Ledger CEO ransom).
So, from this perspective, LN Tether will be identical to the other version.

So? consider usdt as a centralized stablecoin ? if i understand correctly.
see also for example
https://bennettftomlin.com/2021/06/21/a-non-exhaustive-list-of-bitfinex-and-tethers-misdeeds-and-red-flags/

[fillippone]

I would consider using tether on the Bitcoin blockchain and the LN if it offers something we don't have on other blockchains. I am talking about the complete control from the issuer to freeze the tokens in any address (custodial or non-custodial wallet). That would be an excellent update compared to the tether on other networks. However, if there is a centralized party that can arbitrarily freeze people's money, I see no benefit in engaging with tether on Bitcoin instead of sticking to alternative chains.

I think Tether wouldn’t ever allow a Tether asset not to be permissioned.
Ironically, part of the coin's success comes from the cooperation between Tether and the national authorities (think about what happened with the Ledger CEO ransom).
So, from this perspective, LN Tether will be identical to the other version.

So? consider usdt as a centralized stablecoin ? if i understand correctly.
see also for example
https://bennettftomlin.com/2021/06/21/a-non-exhaustive-list-of-bitfinex-and-tethers-misdeeds-and-red-flags/

Tether may not be centralised, as it runs on a decentralised blockchain (just as Ethereum can be decentralised).
But it is definitely permissioned: Tether can track every token in existence and eventually block it upon request by regulators. It is part of the “pact” between Tether and the authorities, just to avoid a fatal clamp down by authorities.

[MaxT2]

ERC transactions seem to be broken right now. Stuck at confirming transaction, and I have noticed many other TXs are having this issue.

We have added Brume Wallet (https://github.com/brumeproject/wallet) to our recommended wallet list.

This wallet allows fast standalone private key generation and address derivation for Ethereum, setting it apart as a truly distinctive option in the market, as no other consumer-grade wallets offer this capability. Additionally, it positions itself as a privacy-focused solution designed to operate seamlessly through Tor, underscoring its uniqueness.

Meanwhile this wallet is available for other platforms, we have decided to provide it as a mobile-only recommendation available on the main F-Droid repository for safety reasons.

We do not recommend its browser version because it requires a dangerous WebAssembly technology (aka "the modern-era Flash") to be enabled in the browser, which doesn't contribute anything good to the already heavily bloated landscape of the World Wide Web. (Learn about what dangers represents WASM and how to disable it here: https://github.com/stevespringett/disable-webassembly)

We sincerely hope that the developers will reconsider their decision to require WASM-enabled browser from users and make it optional in the future.

Hey there,

I noticed that the ERC exchanges don't seem to be completing. I am stuck at "Confirming transaction... (0/12 confirmations)", and that seems to be the case for other people using eXch today too. Hopefully this can be fixed soon.

Thank you for your service.

[Pmalek]

I think Tether wouldn’t ever allow a Tether asset not to be permissioned.
Ironically, part of the coin's success comes from the cooperation between Tether and the national authorities (think about what happened with the Ledger CEO ransom).
So, from this perspective, LN Tether will be identical to the other version.

I don't think they will allow it either but one can always hope and dream . When I need USDT in the future, I am surely not going to insist on using the new token on the Bitcoin blockchain, whenever it gets added. If it remains in full control of the issuers (which it probably will as you mentioned), I don't see it becoming a hit and overtaking other leading blockchains in terms of trading volume.   

[MaxT2]

I think Tether wouldn’t ever allow a Tether asset not to be permissioned.
Ironically, part of the coin's success comes from the cooperation between Tether and the national authorities (think about what happened with the Ledger CEO ransom).
So, from this perspective, LN Tether will be identical to the other version.

I don't think they will allow it either but one can always hope and dream . When I need USDT in the future, I am surely not going to insist on using the new token on the Bitcoin blockchain, whenever it gets added. If it remains in full control of the issuers (which it probably will as you mentioned), I don't see it becoming a hit and overtaking other leading blockchains in terms of trading volume.   

Hey, do you know when eXch support is usually online? Hopefully it's still safe, been waiting hours for a TX to be confirmed from their end.

[Pmalek]

Hey, do you know when eXch support is usually online? Hopefully it's still safe, been waiting hours for a TX to be confirmed from their end.

Their forum support rep posts around the clock: in the morning, afternoon, and late evening (European time zone). Please don't panic. Technical problems occur occasionally. You can contact their support over official channels and whatever is wrong will get fixed. That's how it always was in the past.   

[MaxT2]

Hey, do you know when eXch support is usually online? Hopefully it's still safe, been waiting hours for a TX to be confirmed from their end.

Their forum support rep posts around the clock: in the morning, afternoon, and late evening (European time zone). Please don't panic. Technical problems occur occasionally. You can contact their support over official channels and whatever is wrong will get fixed. That's how it always was in the past.   

Okay, thank you for letting me know. Appreciate it.

[eXch Support]

Hey there,

I noticed that the ERC exchanges don't seem to be completing. I am stuck at "Confirming transaction... (0/12 confirmations)", and that seems to be the case for other people using eXch today too. Hopefully this can be fixed soon.

Thank you for your service.

Hi, we have responded to all support tickets already. Please check your order.

We had some issue with one node which has now been resolved. If you still have any problem with an order, you can PM me the relevant order ID.

[MaxT2]

Thank you, it has been fixed!

[fillippone]

<...>

Tether supports many chains, but only a few are significant per usage.
I think LN support is of extreme importance to developing a BiFi (Bitcoin DeFi).
The fact that this benefits the Bitcoin ecosystem is another question, but this is not Tether's business.

[dkbit98]

It sounds like this is mainly good for Tether themselves.

Probably true, but it's not only good for them but also for Lightning Labs, that is another centralized company that is behind Lightning Network.
This sounds a lot like centralization to me, especially when we know most people are using custodial LN wallets.
That being said, it's not bad for eXch to add support for USDT on LN.

[d5000]

Probably true, but it's not only good for them but also for Lightning Labs, that is another centralized company that is behind Lightning Network.
This sounds a lot like centralization to me, especially when we know most people are using custodial LN wallets.

At least it provides us the option to use it in a much more decentralized environment than the current options (well, I had read the Omni token still exists, but is not supported on many platforms). Lightning Labs doesn't have control over Lightning at all, only over users using their particular services. I would welcome an addition of this USDT variant to exch when it gets implemented, and perhaps even use it (I don't use USDT currently).

I've written a post about the problem of Tether censorship on Taproot Assets here. A short tl;dr: They can't "block" transfers of this token, but they can "disavow" them, i.e. they can "mark" some transactions/UTXOs, and then these tokens lose their 1:1 USD peg because Tether no longer would exchange them (and thus, all other users would also not accept them).

[Pmalek]

I've written a post about the problem of Tether censorship on Taproot Assets here. A short tl;dr: They can't "block" transfers of this token, but they can "disavow" them, i.e. they can "mark" some transactions/UTXOs, and then these tokens lose their 1:1 USD peg because Tether no longer would exchange them (and thus, all other users would also not accept them).

Users will then be able to transfer these unpegged USDT tokens as they like. That could create some type of underground marketplace with people buying them at a cheap price in bulk and attempting to scam beginners and unsuspecting traders in P2P trades. People will need to know how to recognize the disavowed token in order to not get scammed with it. The fiat value of it on explorers like Etherscan gives away its real value.

[dkbit98]

Lightning Labs doesn't have control over Lightning at all, only over users using their particular services.

You didn't ready the news carefully, this was a business deal signed between Tether and Lightning Labs... that is why USDT is going to be added on lightning Network.
To be more specific people in charge of this are Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, and Elizabeth Stark, CEO of Lightning Labs.
Lightning Network is not decentralized.
End of story.

[d5000]

You didn't ready the news carefully, this was a business deal signed between Tether and Lightning Labs... that is why USDT is going to be added on lightning Network.

They can sign all the deals they like, but Lightning Labs can't control the Lightning Network itself. It's still pure (uncensorable) Bitcoin Script, even using an "overlay" like Taproot Assets ...

IMO the deal only covers the implementation of Tether on Taproot Assets. The Taproot Assets universe function is however indeed an element where an "evil secret agreement" between Lightning Labs and Tether, if it exists, could lead to more control by Tether over the transactions. I have already written about that here earlier today.

In short, Lightning Labs could provide an "official-looking" universe for USDT cloning a Tether transaction blacklist (universes afaik are like block explorers with custom rules, or a "subset of transactions considered valid").

[fillippone]

In short, Lightning Labs could provide an "official-looking" universe for USDT cloning a Tether transaction blacklist (universes afaik are like block explorers with custom rules, or a "subset of transactions considered valid").

Guys.
My understanding here is that we are nit talking about LN transactions here.
We are speaking about TA transactions.
LN is not censorsble.
An asset issued on TA is permissioned.
So a central authority can for sure lock/burn an asset (the USDt) minted on LN using TA.
This is not in any way meaning that Tether can censor any LN transaction.
One thing is the LN, the other is the asset issued on TA.

[bitmover]

In short, Lightning Labs could provide an "official-looking" universe for USDT cloning a Tether transaction blacklist (universes afaik are like block explorers with custom rules, or a "subset of transactions considered valid").

Guys.
My understanding here is that we are nit talking about LN transactions here.
We are speaking about TA transactions.
LN is not censorsble.
An asset issued on TA is permissioned.
So a central authority can for sure lock/burn an asset (the USDt) minted on LN using TA.
This is not in any way meaning that Tether can censor any LN transaction.
One thing is the LN, the other is the asset issued on TA.

I think people forgot about USDT in onni network, which is USDT going back and forth in bitcoin blockchain. They isn't have any control over bitcoin network and they won't have . They were just issuing colored coins , and in taproot they will be doing something similar.

This was the first USDT implementation. They are barely used now... but there are still some transactions. Anyone can check in the omni Explorer.

Using taproot would be a much better solution as it allows a wider use of smartcontracts and functions.