7 ms·

Nasdaq’s Blockchain-Based Securities Platform Records First Transaction

38 points by jackgavigan 11y ago

SatoshiRoberts 11y ago
Who is doing the mining/securing if they aren't using Bitcoin?
- sanswork 11y ago
  You don't need mining for private chains.
  - mintplant 11y ago
    So, what, they're glorified Merkle trees?
    - sneak 11y ago
      Yes, as it turns out, cryptographically timestamped ordering of cryptographically signed individual transactions is a useful thing for trading markets.
      - mooneater 11y ago
        so, basically git
        sneak 11y ago
        ...but with a network protocol, peer discovery/exchange, record gossip, and defined strict data format for the contents of commits; but basically yes. Blockchains aren't any fundamentally new underlying technology, they're just existing technology bolted together in a new way that enables new applications. DHT and BitTorrent are similar in that regard.
mooneater 11y ago
This confuses me. What is the point of a blockchain without proof of work and a vast 'mining' network to provide security? Without that it boils down to something akin to git. I would love to know more about how their implementation works.
- wmf 11y ago
  Something akin to git is far better than the existing banking system, although the proponents of "private blockchains" don't seem to be very clear on their threat models.
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  You can use sidechains and get all the mining proof of work of bitcoin without using the main chain. I'm not sure if that's what they're using however.
- sanswork 11y ago
  It allows you to have an immutable distributed database with known entry ordering that can be shared between multiple parties.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mooneater 11y ago
    if its between trusted parties... why not just use git. I dont understand where the innovation is. they seem to have remove the one truly unique feature of bitcoin but continue to call it a blockchain.
    - sanswork 11y ago
      The part you're missing is that it doesn't matter if you understand or even if there is innovation. Why not use git? Because it's not designed for these use cases and it doesn't handle a few of the required features. Seriously the fact that you are asking this says a lot about either your knowledge or honesty of your argument.
brianclements 11y ago
Looks like it is bitcoin after all.[1] Related [2] [1] https://coincenter.org/2015/05/wall-street-is-using-bitcoin-not-just-the-blockchain/ https://coincenter.org/2015/05/wall-street-is-using-bitcoin-... [2] http://www.nasdaq.com/article/is-a-blockchain-without-bitcoin-possible-or-practical-cm482964 http://www.nasdaq.com/article/is-a-blockchain-without-bitcoi...
- sanswork 11y ago
  What makes you say that? This article doesn't say that and last I heard they said they weren't using Bitcoin.
  - mintplant 11y ago
    See article [1] in the parent comment.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - sanswork 11y ago
      It came out later that everyone just assumed they were using Bitcoin because they were using OAP. I can't find the source at the moment but I'm pretty sure someone from Chain or Nasdaq mentioned that they weren't using Bitcoin at 20/20. Unfortunately all I can find in /r/bitcoin is people confirming they aren't and not the source.
  - brianclements 11y ago
    I guess I can't say for sure independent of the articles I've found which say such at best, and are vague at worst, but it seems the company they are partnering with, Chain[1] is pretty committed to building on top of bitcoin's blockchain.[2] [1] http://chain.com/ http://chain.com/ [2] http://blog.chain.com/post/99177371581/bitcoins-killer-apps http://blog.chain.com/post/99177371581/bitcoins-killer-apps
MrBlue 11y ago
Private blockchain == glorified database.
- sanswork 11y ago
  Public blockchain == glorified database too. What's your point?
  - vidarh 11y ago
    The point is that a private blockchain would lose the one thing that a public blockchain is good for: Allowing a distributed network of untrusted peers to cooperate to come to consensus on how to update the glorified database. If your peers are trusted, or can put behind an authenticated, authorising gateway, you don't need a blockchain - you can just use a normal database.
    - sneak 11y ago
      A private blockchain allows a distributed network of arms-length peers to cooperate to come to cryptographically-verifiable consensus about who traded what and in what order - a settlement network. A traditional centralized database doesn't easily allow irrefutability. A blockchain allows one to do this with low trust, as all of the data integrity comes from crypto. Think of it as a database with signed tx records, and countersigned with timestamps for ordering. Any participant can assess the valid state of the world, without all of the hairy distributed database timestamping/integrity issues we all know so well.
      - mooneater 11y ago
        thats just git with access controls
    - nyan4 11y ago
      > If your peers are trusted Trust is never a boolean thing - and always a liability.
    - 11y ago
cookiecaper 11y ago
The proliferation of "blockchain-backed technologies" is one fad that I really do not like. It makes me want to sell my Bitcoin, in fact. There is some vague feeling that this trend is just going to result in a collapse and loss for everyone.
brianclements 11y ago
This is not my field, but I'm trying to understand crypto-currency econ here so please clue me in: So if the only reason for mining in currency blockchains is the incentive to earn, what would be the incentive for a private blockchain network that didn't incorporate a currency? Could it be that their incentive is the reduced cost (in fiat money) of doing business? So that they could in effect voluntarily do the verification part of mining without the need for currency incentives? I would imagine that it shouldn't be too difficult to set up enough adversarial but voluntary mining parties in a huge financial system such as the US financial system to bring a collective sense of safety to that closed blockchain no?
- sanswork 11y ago
  Public blockchains use mining as a means to decide who gets to add the next block. That is all it is good for. That is useful in public chains because 1 entity adding multiple blocks in a row basically gives them control of the history. In a private chain where you know all the participants this doesn't matter since there are easier ways to decide who gets to go next(ie. round robin). So no mining is needed for a private chain and it is no less secure(probably even more secure than most public chains due to the cheapness of 51% attacks )
  - brianclements 11y ago
    Thank you.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mooneater 11y ago
    how does this differ from say using git, with access controls, where each commit is a transaction. to me blockchain implies proof of work.
    - sanswork 11y ago
      Not hugely. Same for a lot of Bitcoin fans. Making up a definition to exclude private chains doesn't make them less useful though it's just mental masturbation.
andr 11y ago
From an earlier article[1], ”It’s not a 24/7 market, there’s no peer-to-peer transactions right now.” So without any P2P ability, is there any value to having a single-server private chain? [1] http://www.coindesk.com/hands-on-with-linq-nasdaqs-private-markets-blockchain-project/ http://www.coindesk.com/hands-on-with-linq-nasdaqs-private-m...
- sanswork 11y ago
  As a stepping stone to a peer-to-peer service.
pythondz 11y ago
Do they intend to keep the blockchain private ? I mean, at some point, someone will break into their private network (partners come and go...) and get a copy of the blockchain... Maybe even add a block on top of it. This is a serious security flaw.
- sanswork 11y ago
  I doubt it, and it wouldn't matter if someone got a copy because it would likely be hard to understand without their software to convert the refs in the transactions with actual data. What makes you think they would accept some block added by an unapproved entity? And what would it matter if they did if the block didn't contain valid transactions it would be rejected and if it did include valid transactions than it would be no different from any other block on the chain. The ability to add A block doesn't matter in blockchains. The ability to create a longer chain that is accepted does and it's quite easy to avoid that possibility in private chains. It isn't a security flaw at all.
  - mooneater 11y ago
    1) ah, security by obscurity 2) ah, security by credentials completely the opposite approaches to bitcoin itself.
    - sanswork 11y ago
      1) I didn't imply that at all. Secrecy by obscurity maybe but it's not part of the security model. 2) who cares except Bitcoin owners? Bitcoin isn't the be all of blockchains and it isn't suitable for all problems. You say security by credentials like it's flawed too which is just you grasping for something to say.
      - mooneater 11y ago
        I think there is nothing at all wrong with more conventional security strategies, like credentials, and sure, obscurity can be a useful tactic. All I am saying is: what is super special about the BTC blockchain, is that it doesnt rely on those at all, it doesnt need those things, because it has the magical property of security by Proof Of Work. Removing that and still talking about a Block Chain like its a special thing, makes no sense to me. Anyways this is all conjecture, its not even clear what they are doing in there. Would love to hear details.
m-i-l 11y ago
Does anyone know what technology they are using for their private distributed ledger? I heard a rumour that it was based on SharePoint - not sure if this was a joke, but wouldn't be surprised if it were true. As per some of the other comments, a private distributed ledger doesn't need to use the innovations of the public blockchain and so could use pretty much any data datastore.

38 points by jackgavigan 11y ago

SatoshiRoberts 11y ago

Who is doing the mining/securing if they aren't using Bitcoin?

sanswork 11y ago
You don't need mining for private chains.
- mintplant 11y ago
  So, what, they're glorified Merkle trees?
  - sneak 11y ago
    Yes, as it turns out, cryptographically timestamped ordering of cryptographically signed individual transactions is a useful thing for trading markets.
    - mooneater 11y ago
      so, basically git
      - sneak 11y ago
        ...but with a network protocol, peer discovery/exchange, record gossip, and defined strict data format for the contents of commits; but basically yes. Blockchains aren't any fundamentally new underlying technology, they're just existing technology bolted together in a new way that enables new applications. DHT and BitTorrent are similar in that regard.

mooneater 11y ago

This confuses me. What is the point of a blockchain without proof of work and a vast 'mining' network to provide security? Without that it boils down to something akin to git. I would love to know more about how their implementation works.

wmf 11y ago
Something akin to git is far better than the existing banking system, although the proponents of "private blockchains" don't seem to be very clear on their threat models.
HappyTypist 11y ago
You can use sidechains and get all the mining proof of work of bitcoin without using the main chain. I'm not sure if that's what they're using however.
sanswork 11y ago
It allows you to have an immutable distributed database with known entry ordering that can be shared between multiple parties.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mooneater 11y ago
  if its between trusted parties... why not just use git. I dont understand where the innovation is. they seem to have remove the one truly unique feature of bitcoin but continue to call it a blockchain.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    The part you're missing is that it doesn't matter if you understand or even if there is innovation. Why not use git? Because it's not designed for these use cases and it doesn't handle a few of the required features. Seriously the fact that you are asking this says a lot about either your knowledge or honesty of your argument.

brianclements 11y ago

Looks like it is bitcoin after all.[1] Related [2] [1] https://coincenter.org/2015/05/wall-street-is-using-bitcoin-not-just-the-blockchain/ https://coincenter.org/2015/05/wall-street-is-using-bitcoin-... [2] http://www.nasdaq.com/article/is-a-blockchain-without-bitcoin-possible-or-practical-cm482964 http://www.nasdaq.com/article/is-a-blockchain-without-bitcoi...

sanswork 11y ago
What makes you say that? This article doesn't say that and last I heard they said they weren't using Bitcoin.
- mintplant 11y ago
  See article [1] in the parent comment.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - sanswork 11y ago
    It came out later that everyone just assumed they were using Bitcoin because they were using OAP. I can't find the source at the moment but I'm pretty sure someone from Chain or Nasdaq mentioned that they weren't using Bitcoin at 20/20. Unfortunately all I can find in /r/bitcoin is people confirming they aren't and not the source.
- brianclements 11y ago
  I guess I can't say for sure independent of the articles I've found which say such at best, and are vague at worst, but it seems the company they are partnering with, Chain[1] is pretty committed to building on top of bitcoin's blockchain.[2] [1] http://chain.com/ http://chain.com/ [2] http://blog.chain.com/post/99177371581/bitcoins-killer-apps http://blog.chain.com/post/99177371581/bitcoins-killer-apps

MrBlue 11y ago

Private blockchain == glorified database.

sanswork 11y ago
Public blockchain == glorified database too. What's your point?
- vidarh 11y ago
  The point is that a private blockchain would lose the one thing that a public blockchain is good for: Allowing a distributed network of untrusted peers to cooperate to come to consensus on how to update the glorified database. If your peers are trusted, or can put behind an authenticated, authorising gateway, you don't need a blockchain - you can just use a normal database.
  - sneak 11y ago
    A private blockchain allows a distributed network of arms-length peers to cooperate to come to cryptographically-verifiable consensus about who traded what and in what order - a settlement network. A traditional centralized database doesn't easily allow irrefutability. A blockchain allows one to do this with low trust, as all of the data integrity comes from crypto. Think of it as a database with signed tx records, and countersigned with timestamps for ordering. Any participant can assess the valid state of the world, without all of the hairy distributed database timestamping/integrity issues we all know so well.
    - mooneater 11y ago
      thats just git with access controls
  - nyan4 11y ago
    > If your peers are trusted Trust is never a boolean thing - and always a liability.
  - 11y ago

cookiecaper 11y ago

The proliferation of "blockchain-backed technologies" is one fad that I really do not like. It makes me want to sell my Bitcoin, in fact. There is some vague feeling that this trend is just going to result in a collapse and loss for everyone.

brianclements 11y ago

This is not my field, but I'm trying to understand crypto-currency econ here so please clue me in: So if the only reason for mining in currency blockchains is the incentive to earn, what would be the incentive for a private blockchain network that didn't incorporate a currency? Could it be that their incentive is the reduced cost (in fiat money) of doing business? So that they could in effect voluntarily do the verification part of mining without the need for currency incentives? I would imagine that it shouldn't be too difficult to set up enough adversarial but voluntary mining parties in a huge financial system such as the US financial system to bring a collective sense of safety to that closed blockchain no?

sanswork 11y ago
Public blockchains use mining as a means to decide who gets to add the next block. That is all it is good for. That is useful in public chains because 1 entity adding multiple blocks in a row basically gives them control of the history. In a private chain where you know all the participants this doesn't matter since there are easier ways to decide who gets to go next(ie. round robin). So no mining is needed for a private chain and it is no less secure(probably even more secure than most public chains due to the cheapness of 51% attacks )
- brianclements 11y ago
  Thank you.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mooneater 11y ago
  how does this differ from say using git, with access controls, where each commit is a transaction. to me blockchain implies proof of work.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    Not hugely. Same for a lot of Bitcoin fans. Making up a definition to exclude private chains doesn't make them less useful though it's just mental masturbation.

andr 11y ago

From an earlier article[1], ”It’s not a 24/7 market, there’s no peer-to-peer transactions right now.” So without any P2P ability, is there any value to having a single-server private chain? [1] http://www.coindesk.com/hands-on-with-linq-nasdaqs-private-markets-blockchain-project/ http://www.coindesk.com/hands-on-with-linq-nasdaqs-private-m...

sanswork 11y ago
As a stepping stone to a peer-to-peer service.

pythondz 11y ago

Do they intend to keep the blockchain private ? I mean, at some point, someone will break into their private network (partners come and go...) and get a copy of the blockchain... Maybe even add a block on top of it. This is a serious security flaw.

sanswork 11y ago
I doubt it, and it wouldn't matter if someone got a copy because it would likely be hard to understand without their software to convert the refs in the transactions with actual data. What makes you think they would accept some block added by an unapproved entity? And what would it matter if they did if the block didn't contain valid transactions it would be rejected and if it did include valid transactions than it would be no different from any other block on the chain. The ability to add A block doesn't matter in blockchains. The ability to create a longer chain that is accepted does and it's quite easy to avoid that possibility in private chains. It isn't a security flaw at all.
- mooneater 11y ago
  1) ah, security by obscurity 2) ah, security by credentials completely the opposite approaches to bitcoin itself.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    1) I didn't imply that at all. Secrecy by obscurity maybe but it's not part of the security model. 2) who cares except Bitcoin owners? Bitcoin isn't the be all of blockchains and it isn't suitable for all problems. You say security by credentials like it's flawed too which is just you grasping for something to say.
    - mooneater 11y ago
      I think there is nothing at all wrong with more conventional security strategies, like credentials, and sure, obscurity can be a useful tactic. All I am saying is: what is super special about the BTC blockchain, is that it doesnt rely on those at all, it doesnt need those things, because it has the magical property of security by Proof Of Work. Removing that and still talking about a Block Chain like its a special thing, makes no sense to me. Anyways this is all conjecture, its not even clear what they are doing in there. Would love to hear details.

m-i-l 11y ago

Does anyone know what technology they are using for their private distributed ledger? I heard a rumour that it was based on SharePoint - not sure if this was a joke, but wouldn't be surprised if it were true. As per some of the other comments, a private distributed ledger doesn't need to use the innovations of the public blockchain and so could use pretty much any data datastore.