Do You have any comment on these claims about Haveno?
1
they don’t allow to use external wallets such as OpenMonero to post arbitration bonds from, thus making haveno-reto less secure then OM.
HuggingChat AI comment:
Arbitration bonds are a crucial component of Haveno dispute resolution mechanism, and requiring users to hold funds within Haveno own wallet might increase the risk of centralization. However, it is essential to consider the reasoning behind this design choice. Perhaps the developers aimed to simplify the user experience or reduce the attack surface by limiting wallet interactions.
2
In my opinion, Haveno-reto is not decentralized at all, bc order book is not shared between instances.
1 You can fund Haveno trades through external wallets though:
2 That is like saying “in my opinion Monero is not decentralized because I cant use it to send ETH”. Haveno was never designed to have multiple networks. There is also only one Monero mainnet, not multiple. That doesn’t make Monero centralized.
I would even argue that having multiple Haveno networks working together is unsafe. Because I would be able to create a Haveno network where the arbitrators and offer makers are colluding together and post those offers in the global Haveno network.
Then you from Reto would see my offers in my poisoned network and would be able to take them, and I could cam you. If that makes sense.
However with the current system, if you trust the Reto guys, then you just use Reto. If people stop trusting them, they will just spin up a new network.
The only downside I see to the current system is that if Reto goes under, then we are back to square one: Getting everyone onboard a new network once again from scratch.
Perhaps a future update of Haveno could add such “federated style” networks where you can see offers from different networks if it is done in a safe manner. Being able to ban or accept different networks to avoid poisoned ones.
Then if Reto goes under, not all is lost.