3 ms·
> Maybe it's not the blockchain as storage that matters but the programming API Even if that was true, you could easily implement a compatible API that doesn't
by briatx 8y ago
> Maybe it's not the blockchain as storage that matters but the programming API
Even if that was true, you could easily implement a compatible API that doesn't use a blockchain under the hood, especially seeing as it is centralized by JPM.
I see this as JPM just trying to ride the hype wave, and as a contingency if blockchains go mainstream (spoiler: they won't).
- StacyC 8y agoI’m curious why you don't think DLT will find traction. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it seems that a number of good use cases have been floated for it to replace “trusted third parties” and other intermediaries, minimize corruptibility, etc.
- philwelch 8y agoYou could implement a compatible API, but it turns out that consistent distributed payment systems are a hard problem, and blockchains are a solution to that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hobs 8y agoIt's not a distributed payment system, its a centralized one (owned and controlled in every way by JP.) There's no reason to add the problems of distributed data to your payment systems unless you HAVE to.
- reallydude 8y ago> owned and controlled in every way by JP The benefits of private transactions without notifying the processor (and circumventing financial regulation, or at least delaying it), is immediately obvious. It's a distributed payment system. The control you mention, is subjective.
- philwelch 8y agoThere's distributed and there's distributed. Blockchain might be overkill, but it solves the "JPM's transactional database of financial transactions is down" problem.