4 ms·

We need a new word for a thing that's like blockchain, but not happening in public, and therefore not actually decentralized. I submit "charm bracelet".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
non_sequitur 8y ago
Maybe "base that stores data"?
- arthurcolle 8y ago
  DatabaseChain could be fun as well
  - lvs 8y ago
    D-Chain
basch 8y ago
Public and decentralized are not necessarily the same thing. Even if just two other banks join in, under an equal footing of ownership of the proof of work, its no longer centralized. I think assuming "all blockchain tech must be used only for situations with anonymous participants" is unimaginative gatekeeping. There is plenty of room to reimagine business process workflows between consenting participants, that doesnt at all hinder the public coin marketplace, or infringe or harm principled stands trying to change the world. These arent coins a single human bank customer would ever hold or use, these are for institutional settlement. A good example could be a construction project where the general and all the subs collaborate on a database, but no one company owns it. The smart part of JP Morgan's plan here is scalability. It might be centralized now, but it can be trivially extended into becoming decentralized at the flick of a switch, without a redesign. Microsoft already has pushed for a non-public-anonymous-participant private blockchain that has throughput of around 1600 transactions per second. https://medium.com/coinmonks/coco-framework-a-game-changer-in-blockchain-technology-throughput-of-around-1600-transactions-per-fb1ffd79822d https://medium.com/coinmonks/coco-framework-a-game-changer-i...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
close04 8y ago
> and therefore not actually decentralized > The Quorum blockchain has been tested with other major companies including Goldman Sachs and the National Bank of Canada It is sort of decentralized. but the access is not open to everyone. Most banks aren't comfortable with putting all their eggs in the basket that could end up under someone else's control. Decentralized doesn't really make the bank feel at ease when they back up their coin by trillions of their own money. They'll want some guaranteed form of control. The purpose is actually to bypass SWIFT and their network with a network that is completely under the bank's control.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

non_sequitur 8y ago

Maybe "base that stores data"?

arthurcolle 8y ago
DatabaseChain could be fun as well
- lvs 8y ago
  D-Chain

basch 8y ago

Public and decentralized are not necessarily the same thing. Even if just two other banks join in, under an equal footing of ownership of the proof of work, its no longer centralized. I think assuming "all blockchain tech must be used only for situations with anonymous participants" is unimaginative gatekeeping. There is plenty of room to reimagine business process workflows between consenting participants, that doesnt at all hinder the public coin marketplace, or infringe or harm principled stands trying to change the world. These arent coins a single human bank customer would ever hold or use, these are for institutional settlement. A good example could be a construction project where the general and all the subs collaborate on a database, but no one company owns it. The smart part of JP Morgan's plan here is scalability. It might be centralized now, but it can be trivially extended into becoming decentralized at the flick of a switch, without a redesign. Microsoft already has pushed for a non-public-anonymous-participant private blockchain that has throughput of around 1600 transactions per second. https://medium.com/coinmonks/coco-framework-a-game-changer-in-blockchain-technology-throughput-of-around-1600-transactions-per-fb1ffd79822d https://medium.com/coinmonks/coco-framework-a-game-changer-i...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

close04 8y ago

> and therefore not actually decentralized > The Quorum blockchain has been tested with other major companies including Goldman Sachs and the National Bank of Canada It is sort of decentralized. but the access is not open to everyone. Most banks aren't comfortable with putting all their eggs in the basket that could end up under someone else's control. Decentralized doesn't really make the bank feel at ease when they back up their coin by trillions of their own money. They'll want some guaranteed form of control. The purpose is actually to bypass SWIFT and their network with a network that is completely under the bank's control.