6 ms·

I would say the problem they are trying to solve is security settlement between different institutions. I guess right now each institution has their own databas

by omio 9y ago

I would say the problem they are trying to solve is security settlement between different institutions. I guess right now each institution has their own database of who owns what and it's difficult to transfer ownership between them. What if there was one or many massive global shared ledgers all these institutions ran nodes for? You could transfer ownership of a security between someone in China and Europe instantly.

thisisit 9y ago
I am really confused by this logic. So it's better to ask companies to invest in implementing "blockchain" within their network instead say upgrading their databases or their infrastructure to the current technology level? Then they could simple have API/Middleware calls between systems which can do this even more efficiently.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Yes cause it allow for a distributed validation or concensus model rather than centralized. This open up for a number of opportunities as you dont need centralized validator
tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
If I woke up and found that my securities had been instantly and irreversibly transferred to China overnight, I would not be happy, at all.
bo1024 9y ago
Interesting point. A big problem with blockchain-style ledgers is that the definition of "ownership" is nebulous and far from instant, only increasing in certainty over time. We each might have a different time frame before we're sure a transaction has taken place. If there's a particular group responsible for paying out the security, then it makes more sense to me for that group to just host a ledger on their site and officially endorse all transactions (which can use the same crypto that blockchains use). This would be instant and transparent. I don't understand how security trading works, but if there is truly no trusted authority responsible for either paying out the security or enforcing that it gets paid, then I guess I see the possibility for using a blockchain (but probably you also would want cryptocurrency...).

by omio 9y ago

thisisit 9y ago

I am really confused by this logic. So it's better to ask companies to invest in implementing "blockchain" within their network instead say upgrading their databases or their infrastructure to the current technology level? Then they could simple have API/Middleware calls between systems which can do this even more efficiently.

ThomPete 9y ago
Yes cause it allow for a distributed validation or concensus model rather than centralized. This open up for a number of opportunities as you dont need centralized validator

tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago

If I woke up and found that my securities had been instantly and irreversibly transferred to China overnight, I would not be happy, at all.

bo1024 9y ago

Interesting point. A big problem with blockchain-style ledgers is that the definition of "ownership" is nebulous and far from instant, only increasing in certainty over time. We each might have a different time frame before we're sure a transaction has taken place. If there's a particular group responsible for paying out the security, then it makes more sense to me for that group to just host a ledger on their site and officially endorse all transactions (which can use the same crypto that blockchains use). This would be instant and transparent. I don't understand how security trading works, but if there is truly no trusted authority responsible for either paying out the security or enforcing that it gets paid, then I guess I see the possibility for using a blockchain (but probably you also would want cryptocurrency...).