3 ms·

> That's bad. I thought someone would be using a blockchain for some kind of back-end settlement system somewhere, but apparently not. The problem in that area

> That's bad. I thought someone would be using a blockchain for some kind of back-end settlement system somewhere, but apparently not. The problem in that area is not the previous lack of available technology, it is institutional inertia. You don't need a blockchain to speed up settlements, because the technology to do it did exist before. What you need is buy-in from a bunch of old and conservatively run institutions that do not particularly like change. The primary fallacy of all these blockchain proponents is only seeing problems as technical in nature when they really lie somewhere else. The same applies especially to smart contracts.

wyldfire 8y ago
> What you need is buy-in from a bunch of old and conservatively run institutions that do not particularly like change. They are currently paying someone to shuttle certificates/titles/deeds/bonds as a part of settlements. This involves expense and risk and probably gates outstanding trade activity and maybe even the exchange's duty cycle to some extent. There's opportunity to those institutions to save some expense here (taking on [not insignificant] new kinds of risk).
russdpale 8y ago
> The primary fallacy of all these blockchain proponents is only seeing problems as technical in nature when they really lie somewhere else. The same applies especially to smart contracts. This is a great point, especially with smart contracts, the problem of the wet code is massively more complex than that of the dry code.