5 ms·

I don't fully see how Dimon can back this, yet be so against Bitcoin. Based on the article, JP seems to be essentially building a distributed ledger, not too di

by osrec 8y ago

I don't fully see how Dimon can back this, yet be so against Bitcoin. Based on the article, JP seems to be essentially building a distributed ledger, not too dissimilar to the one underpinning bitcoin (apart from the distinct possibility that it will not be quite as open as bitcoin). Lol, I guess it's only worthwhile when they do it?

basch 8y ago
The difference between a type of invention and a specific implementation is huge. This coin is all about JPMorgan, as a central institution backing and controlling it, being what establishes trust. This is a distributed database, not distributed trust and consensus.
- osrec 8y ago
  Well, then perhaps they have misunderstood their own needs. If they want to be "the" central party, why can't they just do this with a simple database, rather than issuing coins and whatnot?
  - tyingq 8y ago
    This is my biggest issue with typical proposals for a blockchain. If the proposal requires trusting a central authority, it's just a ledger, and might as well be a database. Less complicated, faster, albeit not as cool on your resume.
    - osrec 8y ago
      Yeah, just looked up Umar Farooq, the guy heading this. He's ex-McKinsey... Says it all really.
  - kickopotomus 8y ago
    Because they have been doing that for decades. The issue is that the tech used is relatively slow, antiquated, and expensive. Additionally, the transactions that the coins would be used for are complex and fit nicely with the ledger model of blockchain tech. As pointed out in the article, they are going to initially use their coin on a trial basis to compare it to business-as-usual.
mwerty 8y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLazqmVC3s&t=3m35s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLazqmVC3s&t=3m35s
- osrec 8y ago
  Wow, he's very blasé about the whole topic... Yet his prior opinion was so strong.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I don't fully see how Dimon can back this, yet be so against Bitcoin Lots of trading happens around banks being asked by customers to provide exposure to stupid things. If your ambition is to be a big bank to everyone, you’ll have to learn to accommodate such requests. Being able to say “I’ll help you do this, but I don’t recommend it” is part of the trade.
momentmaker 8y ago
I think it was JP Morgan himself who said this (paraphrasing): "There are two reasons for any action: the reason that sounds good and the real reason."
Nursie 8y ago
> I don't fully see how Dimon can back this, yet be so against Bitcoin. Pegged value, privately controlled, governance and oversight built in, no PoW, no speculators. Effectively all it has in common with BTC is the ability to send payments from one account to another.
- osrec 8y ago
  You're not wrong. Looks like they're just trying to hop on the buzzword bandwagon...
- andirk 8y ago
  Dimon will be against any competitor. These aren't philosophers or even honest people. Keep that in mind when listening to them. I include btc shills in this as well. They have an obvious angle that is not influenced by morals, truth, etc.

by osrec 8y ago

basch 8y ago

The difference between a type of invention and a specific implementation is huge. This coin is all about JPMorgan, as a central institution backing and controlling it, being what establishes trust. This is a distributed database, not distributed trust and consensus.

osrec 8y ago
Well, then perhaps they have misunderstood their own needs. If they want to be "the" central party, why can't they just do this with a simple database, rather than issuing coins and whatnot?
- tyingq 8y ago
  This is my biggest issue with typical proposals for a blockchain. If the proposal requires trusting a central authority, it's just a ledger, and might as well be a database. Less complicated, faster, albeit not as cool on your resume.
  - osrec 8y ago
    Yeah, just looked up Umar Farooq, the guy heading this. He's ex-McKinsey... Says it all really.
- kickopotomus 8y ago
  Because they have been doing that for decades. The issue is that the tech used is relatively slow, antiquated, and expensive. Additionally, the transactions that the coins would be used for are complex and fit nicely with the ledger model of blockchain tech. As pointed out in the article, they are going to initially use their coin on a trial basis to compare it to business-as-usual.

mwerty 8y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLazqmVC3s&t=3m35s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLazqmVC3s&t=3m35s

osrec 8y ago
Wow, he's very blasé about the whole topic... Yet his prior opinion was so strong.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> I don't fully see how Dimon can back this, yet be so against Bitcoin Lots of trading happens around banks being asked by customers to provide exposure to stupid things. If your ambition is to be a big bank to everyone, you’ll have to learn to accommodate such requests. Being able to say “I’ll help you do this, but I don’t recommend it” is part of the trade.

momentmaker 8y ago

I think it was JP Morgan himself who said this (paraphrasing): "There are two reasons for any action: the reason that sounds good and the real reason."

Nursie 8y ago

> I don't fully see how Dimon can back this, yet be so against Bitcoin. Pegged value, privately controlled, governance and oversight built in, no PoW, no speculators. Effectively all it has in common with BTC is the ability to send payments from one account to another.

osrec 8y ago
You're not wrong. Looks like they're just trying to hop on the buzzword bandwagon...
andirk 8y ago
Dimon will be against any competitor. These aren't philosophers or even honest people. Keep that in mind when listening to them. I include btc shills in this as well. They have an obvious angle that is not influenced by morals, truth, etc.