3 ms·

Which does not need a cryptocurrency. A public SQL database (which only they can alter) works just as well.

by lawn 8y ago

sjg007 8y ago
You would still want to gpg sign your withdrawal and deposit transactions. You would need and want to audit for fraud etc... control the key server, manage write/update operations etc... At this point you've basically written a block chain
- bduerst 8y ago
  Which can also be done by adding an extra layer to a public SQL database. It becomes a blockchain when JPM allows third-party, anonymous actors to mine the blocks and take control of the network, which JPM is certainly not going to do.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    What if I were to tell you that Git is a Blockchain? Would you think that Git is useless, and should just be a SQL database? A Blockchain is just a public append only database that multiple people have a copy of. Despite people incorrectly thinking that this I'd a break concept, lots of things in the world follow this pattern, and it has been useful for a very long time. The method of "commiting" things to a Blockchain have nothing to do with proof of work, or mining or whatever. You can "commit" things to Blockchains in many different ways. GitHub, for example, allows owners of a repository to designate specific users with the permissions to "commit" code to their repo/Blockchain (which just happens to represent source controlled code, in their case). But there could be lots of ways of determining what is the next block in that Blockchain.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      I would say that you are diving into the semantics of the word blockchain in an attempt to redefine the word to fit this project. If we're talking semantics now: Do people think, 'Oh, that's a blockchain!' when they think about Git? Is JPM building a new code repository?
      - stale2002 8y ago
        My point is that a public append only database (AKA, a Blockchain) is useful for a whole lot of things, in a whole lot of different usecases. And just because JPM isn't following the exact same formula that other people are following, doesn't mean that an append only public database is useless to them. Lots of people have used append only public databases for all sorts of things, for decades. (My example being Git).
stale2002 8y ago
A Blockchain is merely a public database that everyone has a copy of. To give another example, Git arguably a Blockchain. (Public append only database, that everyone has a copy of). Are you going to argue that Git is useless? It is exactly the same as any other Blockchain.

Which does not need a cryptocurrency. A public SQL database (which only they can alter) works just as well.

by lawn 8y ago

Which does not need a cryptocurrency. A public SQL database (which only they can alter) works just as well.

You would still want to gpg sign your withdrawal and deposit transactions. You would need and want to audit for fraud etc... control the key server, manage write/update operations etc... At this point you've basically written a block chain

bduerst 8y ago
Which can also be done by adding an extra layer to a public SQL database. It becomes a blockchain when JPM allows third-party, anonymous actors to mine the blocks and take control of the network, which JPM is certainly not going to do.
- stale2002 8y ago
  What if I were to tell you that Git is a Blockchain? Would you think that Git is useless, and should just be a SQL database? A Blockchain is just a public append only database that multiple people have a copy of. Despite people incorrectly thinking that this I'd a break concept, lots of things in the world follow this pattern, and it has been useful for a very long time. The method of "commiting" things to a Blockchain have nothing to do with proof of work, or mining or whatever. You can "commit" things to Blockchains in many different ways. GitHub, for example, allows owners of a repository to designate specific users with the permissions to "commit" code to their repo/Blockchain (which just happens to represent source controlled code, in their case). But there could be lots of ways of determining what is the next block in that Blockchain.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    I would say that you are diving into the semantics of the word blockchain in an attempt to redefine the word to fit this project. If we're talking semantics now: Do people think, 'Oh, that's a blockchain!' when they think about Git? Is JPM building a new code repository?
    - stale2002 8y ago
      My point is that a public append only database (AKA, a Blockchain) is useful for a whole lot of things, in a whole lot of different usecases. And just because JPM isn't following the exact same formula that other people are following, doesn't mean that an append only public database is useless to them. Lots of people have used append only public databases for all sorts of things, for decades. (My example being Git).

stale2002 8y ago

A Blockchain is merely a public database that everyone has a copy of. To give another example, Git arguably a Blockchain. (Public append only database, that everyone has a copy of). Are you going to argue that Git is useless? It is exactly the same as any other Blockchain.