Marc De Mesel's Criticism of Counterparty

(Edit: Start watching at 11:50 if video doesn’t open there automatically)

He’s unhappy with the DEX.

I think we, the Party People, should take such feedback very seriously. I agree with him; the DEX is a disappointment IF you expect it to be an alternative to traditional exchanges.

The asset system though, I view differently. I’d say it’s the most secure one because the Bitcoin chain is far more secure than other chain and Counterparty is the most used 2.0 protocol on the Bitcoin chain. Therefore Counterparty assets can be STORED as securely as Bitcoins can.

TRADING assets should be done on centralized exchanges IF you prioritize speed and user experience. Trading on the DEX is preferable IF you are concerned with the safety or fees of centralized exchanges. Yes, it’s an unfortunate tradeoff, but only on a theoretical/negligible level in my opinion.

Conclusion: Counterparty / the DEX is a failure in some eyes because it doesn’t live up to their expectations. Therefore it is very important that people are given realistic expectations before they give it a try.

Two good use case scenarios for the DEx:

  • “off exchange” trade of assets when the two parties want to make a large (or any other, actually) trade without impacting the market price
  • custom pairs (say you want to buy an odd asset A for odd asset B) - this may not be possible on traditional exchanges, or if it is, it may require multiple trades (say, from A to BTC, then from BTC to B)

Two good use case scenarios for the DEx:

+1. Definitively. And more niche uses will be discovered.

Actually, when I had my own little JPJA asset experiment, I had a constant offer at 0.1 XCP/JPJA. For this the DEX is every bit as good as a centralized exchange could ever be. Any crowdsale can do the same.

Kind of a dumb criticism. The DEX is a proof of concept. Centralization is always going to be more efficient.

I should probably do a video follow-up here. But here’s the quick response:

  • The DEX is a fail-safe. Like all things in Bitcoin it’s a slower-mode for transactions which are heavily encumbered by regulatory restrictions
  • It doesn’t have to be slow. At some point, there will be a latency insurance provider for CP transactions (in much the same way we have them for Bitcoin) BIP70 has consistentlly seemed like a good way to do this.
  • Centralized exchange will always be better than decentralized exchanges. The DEX may end up being more useful for inter-bank settlement than for retail investment models.
1 Like

Settlement is a much better way to use Bitcoin and the Blockchain.

Much of the criticism isn’t applicable if you are dealing with high volumes, and the situations outlined by brighton36. Another real advantage is smart contracts make more complex trading possible, secret sharing schemes, etc.

I think comparing it to centralized exchanges is highly unfair. It’s like saying that if you go to a store to buy something you are able to touch it, while if you order online, you cannot and it takes longer to arrive. Then reframing that into a negative… It’s all about perspective.

For the intended uses, the DEX does what it’s supposed to. But I agree that until the functionality is extendable with scripting, it may seem a bit ‘nerfed’.

The speed of the dex is not an issue. Off-chain transfers are the way to go in time critical cases. I think the recent ripple gateway from Symbiont accomplishes this, or?