4 ms·

Oh god, not this again. Sounds like Accenture are looking to bring in more 'technical integration' clients (read: marks). Government and old financial being the

by spangry 10y ago

Oh god, not this again. Sounds like Accenture are looking to bring in more 'technical integration' clients (read: marks). Government and old financial being the favourites, given their deep pockets and technical illiteracy. If anyone is in a job that involves holding back some of this insanity, this decision-flow diagram might help: http://i.imgur.com/4nZ67Sq.png http://i.imgur.com/4nZ67Sq.png

sly010 10y ago
There is a mistake on the diagram. The rightmost ellipse should say "you don't need a blockchain". The rest is accurate.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I'd say "you could use a blockchain". It does have some uses.
- runeks 10y ago
  I agree. There's no need for a blockchain if two parties can find a mutually trusted third party: use 2-of-3 multi-signature with one of the public keys being that of the trusted party.
cm2187 10y ago
I'd add do you need high level of transactions per second. If you need to reverse a hash every time you make a transaction, that's not going to be fast or efficient. Also do you need transaction anonymity. A blockchain is also a public ledger. You may hide behind a secret key but everyone can see what that secret key is doing and has done since the begining. As soon as Morgan Stanley notices that this big trade has to be Goldman Sachs, then Morgan Stanley can observe all of the transactions that Goldman Sachs has done from the begining. That problem alone should close the debate. Markets need anonymity for all the other market players not to arbitrage your position.
- 6nf 10y ago
  Bank clearance only happens once a day, no need for high TPS levels. They do not transfer money bank-to-bank for every transaction, they just add it up and make one settlement transaction at the end of the day.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    But then it doesn't add anything over the existing systems. I thought the benefit was precisely immediate and reliable settlements.

by spangry 10y ago

sly010 10y ago

There is a mistake on the diagram. The rightmost ellipse should say "you don't need a blockchain". The rest is accurate.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I'd say "you could use a blockchain". It does have some uses.
runeks 10y ago
I agree. There's no need for a blockchain if two parties can find a mutually trusted third party: use 2-of-3 multi-signature with one of the public keys being that of the trusted party.

cm2187 10y ago

I'd add do you need high level of transactions per second. If you need to reverse a hash every time you make a transaction, that's not going to be fast or efficient. Also do you need transaction anonymity. A blockchain is also a public ledger. You may hide behind a secret key but everyone can see what that secret key is doing and has done since the begining. As soon as Morgan Stanley notices that this big trade has to be Goldman Sachs, then Morgan Stanley can observe all of the transactions that Goldman Sachs has done from the begining. That problem alone should close the debate. Markets need anonymity for all the other market players not to arbitrage your position.

6nf 10y ago
Bank clearance only happens once a day, no need for high TPS levels. They do not transfer money bank-to-bank for every transaction, they just add it up and make one settlement transaction at the end of the day.
- cm2187 10y ago
  But then it doesn't add anything over the existing systems. I thought the benefit was precisely immediate and reliable settlements.