A Decentralized Exchange?

[El Emperador]

Several attempts have been made, but with no relevant result.

In your opinion how may be possible to develop a trading platform which is fully automated, decentralized, open-source, without any fees and with no verification needed?
Maybe with Ethereum protocol this will become more feasible... Any ideas?

[gmaxwell]

Most of the people talking about that are handwaving, and not even defining the boundaries of the technical problem they seek to solve. No shock there hasn't been progress.

[Jybrael]

A decentralized exchange would make for a good idea but the problem is one might still see a few transactions because the exchange has to make a few bucks themselves.

[waxwing]

I presume you are talking about fiat-[btc/crypto exchange]; but you need to clarify.

If not, and you are talking about crypto-crypto exchange, I think it's fair to say there are already several implementations.

[fastBeast]

but are you talking about the exchange features inside wallet???

[Zubilica]

but are you talking about the exchange features inside wallet???

Some have taken into considerations this, even integrating somehow blockchain into equation. Asicminer was developing something but it got dropped as far as i know

[fastBeast]

but are you talking about the exchange features inside wallet???

Some have taken into considerations this, even integrating somehow blockchain into equation. Asicminer was developing something but it got dropped as far as i know

Maybe they Have other priority... But i think the idea to insert exchange features inside wallet is great!
Some alt coin are.trying to do that.

[inBitweTrust]

A decentralized exchange would make for a good idea but the problem is one might still see a few transactions because the exchange has to make a few bucks themselves.

A decentralized exchange should not be profit driven and need not. It can be done with a contract on a decentralized platform like open bazaar.

[MamaGoose]

A decentralized exchange would make for a good idea but the problem is one might still see a few transactions because the exchange has to make a few bucks themselves.

A decentralized exchange should not be profit driven and need not. It can be done with a contract on a decentralized platform like open bazaar.

really gooooooooooooooooood project!!!
i'm talking about open Bazaar

[Jybrael]

A decentralized exchange would make for a good idea but the problem is one might still see a few transactions because the exchange has to make a few bucks themselves.

A decentralized exchange should not be profit driven and need not. It can be done with a contract on a decentralized platform like open bazaar.

Can you please elaborate on that a bit more? Thank you.

[VulgusMan]

A decentralized exchange would make for a good idea but the problem is one might still see a few transactions because the exchange has to make a few bucks themselves.

A decentralized exchange should not be profit driven and need not. It can be done with a contract on a decentralized platform like open bazaar.

really gooooooooooooooooood project!!!
i'm talking about open Bazaar

I live open bazar project too. Hope he will start soon

[inBitweTrust]

Can you please elaborate on that a bit more? Thank you.

Although currencies are not the central focus.
Open Bazaar will allow for individuals to exchange physical and crypto currencies in a decentralized manner.

Ricardian contracts, reputation systems and multi-sig escrow with proof of burn will enforce honesty.

https://openbazaar.org/

It is being tested now and should not be used for real exchanges till out of Beta.

The reason we don't want a decentralized exchange to be controlled by a single entity or for profit company is because it creates a possible conflict of interest, vector of attack, creates possible privacy concerns, and really isn't completely decentralized.

[VulgusMan]

Can you please elaborate on that a bit more? Thank you.

Although currencies not the central focus.
Open Bazaar will allow for individuals to exchange physical and crypto currencies in a decentralized manner.

Ricardian contracts, reputation systems and multi-sig escrow with proof of burn will enforce honesty.

https://openbazaar.org/

It is being tested now and should not be used for real exchanges till out of Beta.

The reason we don't want a decentralized exchange to be controlled by a single entity or for profit company is because it creates a possible conflict of interest, vector of attack, creates possible privacy concerns, really isn't completely decentralized.

Thank you for the explanation!

[waxwing]

OK, since we're mentioning projects, I'd also mention bitsquare: https://bitsquare.io

Decentralized fiat for btc exchange project.

[MamaGoose]

OK, since we're mentioning projects, I'd also mention bitsquare: https://bitsquare.io

Decentralized fiat for btc exchange project.

sure i will check it!!!

thanks

[oleganza]

Decentralized exchange requires all parts to be decentralized.

If you exchange BTC to wire transfers, you already lose because banks are centralized and ask questions. LocalBitcoins is somewhat decentralized, it allows trading person-to-person, but it does not work in all jurisdictions and not when you have a big turnover. And it's inherently not safe: you rely on reputation of the trader or opinion of the arbiter.

Cash is decentralized. You can use joint escrow with a trader, swap cash for coins and go home. Both put insurance deposit in 2-of-2 multisig BTC before meeting (must be 200% of the value exchanged from each side). When coming home safe and with valid cash and confirmed coins, both unlock the deposit. This is somewhat secure and better protected from all-observing eye, but: 1) it requires owning considerable amount of BTC from both sides prior to action; 2) it's a physical meetup, so some AML/KYC folks could kick in (especially if they monitor the seller for a few deals already) and arrest all your belongings and maybe charge you with conspiring with some drug money laundering or whatever.

People who want to change their surveillancecoin (usd in banks) or drugcoin (physical paper cash) for Bitcoin must realize these inherent limitations. The best strategy is to not do anything illegal, buy a bunch of coins once on a safe platform or from trusted people you know, and then simply secure and hold your stash until hard times are over and you can simply buy things with it without exchanging back to fiat.

[waxwing]

Decentralized exchange requires all parts to be decentralized.

If you exchange BTC to wire transfers, you already lose because banks are centralized and ask questions. LocalBitcoins is somewhat decentralized, it allows trading person-to-person, but it does not work in all jurisdictions and not when you have a big turnover. And it's inherently not safe: you rely on reputation of the trader or opinion of the arbiter.

Sorta kinda agree.. a *perfect* decentralised exchange with bank wires could never occur, sure. The Localbtc model has a lot of advantages, but the big disadvantage is the centralised server and hot wallets involved. If you can do the same, including reputation systems and multisig, but with a p2p network, it's clearly a step forward. Arbitration/escrow might still be needed (I believe it is), but it can be turned into a market instead of your only option being localbtc themselves. Arbitration requires evidence, but TLSNotary can address that (actual cryptographic proof of a transfer). Reputation systems are a problem on localbtc and they'll still be a problem on a future decentralised version like bitsquare; problematic in that it'll never be perfect.

Cash is decentralized. You can use joint escrow with a trader, swap cash for coins and go home. Both put insurance deposit in 2-of-2 multisig BTC before meeting (must be 200% of the value exchanged from each side). When coming home safe and with valid cash and confirmed coins, both unlock the deposit. This is somewhat secure and better protected from all-observing eye, but: 1) it requires owning considerable amount of BTC from both sides prior to action; 2) it's a physical meetup, so some AML/KYC folks could kick in (especially if they monitor the seller for a few deals already) and arrest all your belongings and maybe charge you with conspiring with some drug money laundering or whatever.

The 2 of 2 model is very problematic. It didn't work for NashX, and I don't see it working for more recent implementations either. Side-channel blackmail is always a major flaw as far as I can see. The "fiat micropayments channel" idea from Coinffeine would make sense to address that; the only problem is that "fiat micropayments channel" doesn't really make sense except in the context of a centralised system, in which case why are we going to all this trouble?

People who want to change their surveillancecoin (usd in banks) or drugcoin (physical paper cash) for Bitcoin must realize these inherent limitations. The best strategy is to not do anything illegal, buy a bunch of coins once on a safe platform or from trusted people you know, and then simply secure and hold your stash until hard times are over and you can simply buy things with it without exchanging back to fiat.

Definitely agree with this advice, at least today.

[DumbFruit]

Exchanges are already "decentralized". There has got to be at least a half-dozen decent exchanges. They can be started by pretty much anyone, anywhere, at any time. If you don't like or trust current exchanges, you can start your own and show everyone how it's done, or if you don't like that, you can exchange directly person to person.

There is trust involved with exchanges, but I don't see why I should care. When I buy something from Amazon I need to trust them. I don't lose sleep at night wondering if Amazon is going to run away with my money.

In order to make an exchange that achieves decentralized trust-free consensus you'd have to build a program that is similar to Bitcoin and then only currencies that rigidly follow certain design patterns would be allowed to be traded on the platform (Fiat never works), and then at the end of the day it would be much more expensive and slow to use than a traditional centralized exchange.

Another solution looking for a problem...

[waxwing]

Exchanges are already "decentralized". There has got to be at least a half-dozen decent exchanges. They can be started by pretty much anyone, anywhere, at any time. If you don't like or trust current exchanges, you can start your own and show everyone how it's done, or if you don't like that, you can exchange directly person to person.

There is some truth in this perspective, but it does miss an important distinction. There is value in centralization for exchange; (let's not forget that currency itself is an example of exactly this centralization) it's faster, it's cheaper, it's more liquid. So people naturally gravitate to a smaller number of highly liquid marketplaces. On the other hand, this creates tremendous risk *specifically* because Bitcoin is digital cash. If it is stolen, it is stolen irretrievably, and within minutes. Consider the equivalent scenario with banknotes or gold, and you can see such an opportunity is rare in the modern world.

A central store of wealth like that, even if there's 5 of them in the world rather than 1, is a magnet not only for hackers (certainly that's a huge risk) but also for political actors; see Liberty Reserve and e-gold for good examples.

There is trust involved with exchanges, but I don't see why I should care. When I buy something from Amazon I need to trust them. I don't lose sleep at night wondering if Amazon is going to run away with my money.

You don't give Amazon cash. Bitcoin is digital cash. Of course, Amazon is not the best example to make my point; but you feel comfortable online shopping with smaller businesses mainly because you are not sending cash thousands of miles away with no recourse. Similarly, crime/hacking against Amazon is greatly limited by the fact that it isn't holding cash on its servers.

In order to make an exchange that achieves decentralized trust-free consensus you'd have to build a program that is similar to Bitcoin and then only currencies that rigidly follow certain design patterns would be allowed to be traded on the platform (Fiat never works), and then at the end of the day it would be much more expensive and slow to use than a traditional centralized exchange.
Another solution looking for a problem...

As stated above, crypto-crypto decentralized exchange already exists in various forms. Not a very hard problem to solve, once you've figured out Bitcoin. More expensive/slow? Generally yes, but it can still offer advantages as discussed. As for fiat being impossible to do decentralised, well, it's discussed above, but solutions that are less than perfect do exist, and I argue, are worth looking into.

[albus]

If you want large liquidity and you don't want to trade by 50 dollars bits (and having to do a cash/wire/other transfer each time) you have to go to someone that centralizes liquidity on the USD side, there's just no way around that as long as you are dealing with a centralized side on the equation (the USD)

OTC works only so far as you can find the good match, if you need agregation, then you need a bit of centralization. That does not mean we should have ONE exchange, they are pretty decentralized now, with several good choices in the market. It's just different levels of decentralization, I don't see why people always think that you need to be peer to peer to be decentralized...
Peer to peer is just the extreme level of decentralization.