5 ms·
And that company is exactly what this tech. replaces. That company does not provide its services for free. This blockchain product does.
by darawk 8y ago
And that company is exactly what this tech. replaces. That company does not provide its services for free. This blockchain product does.
- 0xffff2 8y agoHow does this product operate for free? Who's paying for the miners?
- darawk 8y agoSorry, there may be small fees paid to the miners. But those fees will presumably be dramatically less than this current company charges.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hcknwscommenter 8y agoYou are putting a lot of weight on "presumably." Someone has to pay for all that mining. Or, you know, skip the mining and your costs should be lower.
- DennisP 8y agoThey do skip the mining. Mining defends against Sybil attacks, which you don't have to worry about if you know who all the participants are.
- scottlocklin 8y agoYou don't mine in a permissioned system like quorum. The CPU load is minimal, and when running the quorum clients, you are basically just checking to make sure everyone in the system agrees on the transactions. If someone tries to cheat (or spam or whatever), you kick them out.
- simias 8y agoBut then we're back to square one, aren't you basically describing a distributed (but still perfetly "trustful") database? Isn't that effectively what this DTCC provides? What in this allows JPMorgan to provide the same service for free? Is it really technical innovation or is it just a different business model? Wouldn't they be able to do the same thing without using anything cryptocurrency/blockchain related? I feel like I'm missing something obvious but I don't see what it is.
- scottlocklin 8y agoA blockchain is a distributed non trustful database with a method for resolving disputes built in. Roughly speaking in something like quorum, everyone checks everyone else's work, and the majority consensus is ground truth. DTCC requires a trusted third party to administer the database. Quorum doesn't. Quorum could presumably also replace intra-bank transactions as well (instead of maintaining some other kind of database). I guess the missing piece that seems to break people's brains; the ledger in the distributed database represents a dollar amount (in the case of quorum's dollar thing) and it has money-like rules, unlike, say, postgres which ultimately relies on some other piece of software to make ledger like transactions.
- dkoston 8y agoUnless I am mistaken, DTCC doesn’t provide any trust for internal account balances at JPMC. It only provides trust for the details of transfers. These tokens provide trust before and after transfers. The tokens themselves actually provide no trust during transfers and the transfers are only allowed by trusted parties as a result. Also, DTCC only handles securities not currency so this doesn’t exist at all. What actually you should be arguing is that the JP coin and the DTCC need to be combined as they each only provide trust in a certain part of the ecosystem.
- brighton36 8y agowhat you're missing, that's obvious, is that blockchain is a solution looking for a problem where none exists. The word was imbued with virtue, and at this point blockchain has come to mean 'virtuous database'
- pjc50 8y agoPermissioned blockchain generally doesn't have wasteful mining because all the participants are known. So the nodes just end up signing transactions. Double spend attempts can then be prosecuted.
- koolba 8y ago> And that company is exactly what this tech. replaces. That company does not provide its services for free. This blockchain product does. There’s no such thing as “free”. You’re either paying directly or indirectly. The DTCC is owned by its member organizations so it does not have a direct profit incentive anyway. I highly suggest reading more on the topic and the problems it’s meant to solve before pitching “But blockchain!” as a solution.
- darawk 8y agoIt doesn't need to have a profit motive to cost more. It's costs are what cost more.
- creeble 8y agoBut there is no reason for it to cost more than a private blockchain solution.
- yholio 8y agoSure there is, simply by virtue of being the only solution available. All of a sudden, a simple database becomes a sprawling corporation with a multimillionaire board of directors, waging political war among themselves for resources, power and an ever larger number of underlings. The private sector is not magically superior to a state bureaucracy, without any competition or political pressure to reform it can act even worse.
- root_axis 8y ago> a sprawling corporation with a multimillionaire board of directors, waging political war among themselves for resources, power and an ever larger number of underlings. A blockchain does not get rid of those things.
- darawk 8y agoErm, yes it does. DTCC has a board of directors. It is a company. This blockchain eliminates that. Literally.
- Kluny 8y agoIt's not going to be free once they finish paying the army of developers each bank will have to keep on staff to manage it.
- darawk 8y agoYou mean like the army of developers required to run an ethereum node?
- vinniejames 8y agoOr the fact that their coin / Quorum IS Ethereum, so most of the work will be done for free by core devs
- darawk 8y agoYou seem to be missing the point. Operating this blockchain is nearly free. Building it out is a capital cost. Once its built, its ongoing expenses should be low.
- dboreham 8y agoYou two were actually saying the same thing.
- vinniejames 8y agoThere's nothing to built... 1. `git clone ethereum jpmorgancoin` 2. profit