5 ms·

But there is no reason for it to cost more than a private blockchain solution.

yholio 8y ago
Sure 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 ago
    Erm, yes it does. DTCC has a board of directors. It is a company. This blockchain eliminates that. Literally.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > DTCC has a board of directors A large business "has" a lot of things. Why bring up board of directors specifically? I'm sorry but this sounds more like fumbling to grasp a point rather than an actual example of something useful.
      - darawk 8y ago
        I didn't bring it up, the comment you responded to did. You said that it didn't get rid of it, but it does. It gets rid of the entire DTCC company, and all of the salaries that go along with that. All of those costs go to zero.
    - kolbe 8y ago
      Can you explain? To me, it seems like control is what matters. And the DTCC controls access to its databases, whereas JPM controls access to its blockchain. Whether the parent organization is adding a +1 to a database or a +1 to cryptographic ledger seems inconsequential.
      - treis 8y ago
        >JPM controls access to its blockchain Only for the initial group of banks invited to participate. After that it would be up to the consensus algorithm to decide if a prospective member can join.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - yholio 8y ago
    I'm talking about competition, whatever the technical implementation. That's precisely the point, cost is determined by market structure and incentives, an inferior solution can be much cheaper due to lower margins.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your point. Blockchains do not get rid of competition.
      - jacoblambda 8y ago
        They don't but most competition does lower prices which is his point.

Sure 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 ago
  Erm, yes it does. DTCC has a board of directors. It is a company. This blockchain eliminates that. Literally.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > DTCC has a board of directors A large business "has" a lot of things. Why bring up board of directors specifically? I'm sorry but this sounds more like fumbling to grasp a point rather than an actual example of something useful.
    - darawk 8y ago
      I didn't bring it up, the comment you responded to did. You said that it didn't get rid of it, but it does. It gets rid of the entire DTCC company, and all of the salaries that go along with that. All of those costs go to zero.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    Can you explain? To me, it seems like control is what matters. And the DTCC controls access to its databases, whereas JPM controls access to its blockchain. Whether the parent organization is adding a +1 to a database or a +1 to cryptographic ledger seems inconsequential.
    - treis 8y ago
      >JPM controls access to its blockchain Only for the initial group of banks invited to participate. After that it would be up to the consensus algorithm to decide if a prospective member can join.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- yholio 8y ago
  I'm talking about competition, whatever the technical implementation. That's precisely the point, cost is determined by market structure and incentives, an inferior solution can be much cheaper due to lower margins.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Blockchains do not get rid of competition.
    - jacoblambda 8y ago
      They don't but most competition does lower prices which is his point.