4 ms·

Yes, the only difference is this currency will be on a blockchain. Although I'm assuming it will be completely centralized so I'm not sure what benefits this wi

Yes, the only difference is this currency will be on a blockchain. Although I'm assuming it will be completely centralized so I'm not sure what benefits this will have over a traditional database.

gogopuppygogo 5y ago
Gives government more ability to track flow of capital. Hugely awful move for the world to give government more control.
mistrial9 5y ago
Eliminate or substantially reduce third-party transaction guarantee fees, and at the same time, one-hundred percent of the transactions are digitally recorded. A preponderance of big finance relies on trusted third-parties to intermediate transactions. Those third parties charge non-negligible fees to execute each and every transaction. Large value transactions can be done between untrusting parties directly, due to rigid cryptographic signing of the transaction record.
- rlpb 5y ago
  None of these features require a blockchain and can be done trivially by a central authority issuing append-only cryptographically signed ledger entries. > Large value transactions can be done between untrusting parties directly... What's the benefit of this when the bank has to accept a cleared record for a party to withdraw funds anyway?
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    > None of these features require a blockchain and can be done trivially what can be done and what is done -- different. You might want to tell those companies that charge a fee to guarantee the transaction, that they can just trivially stop doing that now.
  - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
    >None of these features require a blockchain and can be done trivially by a central authority issuing append-only cryptographically signed ledger entries. Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to each-other in real time, without an intermediary? Why hamstring yourself with a database and the upgradability woes therein, when you can use a blockchain? >What's the benefit of this when the bank has to accept a cleared record for a party to withdraw funds anyway? With a permissioned blockchain, the funds can be cleared much faster (instantly?) than in the current system. I left another comment about this. These technologies are very powerful and not thoroughly explored in a permissioned context for use by traditional finance.
    - rlpb 5y ago
      > Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to each-other in real time, without an intermediary? You're already depending on a central authority to back your funds. So forcing a blockchain into the mix just introduces that additional complexity and risk, not a new dependency on a central authority. > Why hamstring yourself with a database and the upgradability woes therein, when you can use a blockchain? You're conflating "blockchain" with "distributed database". For example, a trivial example is a git repository storing ledger entries. It's distributed, can be used in an append-only fashion (and enforced at a higher layer), and such a system probably doesn't have the "upgradability woes" you're worried about. It's not a blockchain. > With a permissioned blockchain, the funds can be cleared much faster (instantly?) than in the current system. This can also be arranged without a blockchain.
      - mistrial9 5y ago
        re-reading this now -- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46192377/why-is-git-not-considered-a-block-chain https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46192377/why-is-git-not-...
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      > Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to each-other in real time, without an intermediary? The choice here is between: 1. A known intermediary with a physical address to which a judge/magistrate can have a summons mailed and which my local elected government officials can at least in principle regulate, or 2. An unknown number of unidentified intermediaries, at least some of whom are almost certainly beyond jurisdictional reach. If I'm fucking around with gambling money, whatever. If we're talking about national payment infrastructure, the choice is obvious. > [databases and] upgradability woes therein, when you can use a blockchain ...huh? I don't understand.

Yes, the only difference is this currency will be on a blockchain. Although I'm assuming it will be completely centralized so I'm not sure what benefits this will have over a traditional database.

gogopuppygogo 5y ago

Gives government more ability to track flow of capital. Hugely awful move for the world to give government more control.

mistrial9 5y ago

Eliminate or substantially reduce third-party transaction guarantee fees, and at the same time, one-hundred percent of the transactions are digitally recorded. A preponderance of big finance relies on trusted third-parties to intermediate transactions. Those third parties charge non-negligible fees to execute each and every transaction. Large value transactions can be done between untrusting parties directly, due to rigid cryptographic signing of the transaction record.

rlpb 5y ago
None of these features require a blockchain and can be done trivially by a central authority issuing append-only cryptographically signed ledger entries. > Large value transactions can be done between untrusting parties directly... What's the benefit of this when the bank has to accept a cleared record for a party to withdraw funds anyway?
- mistrial9 5y ago
  > None of these features require a blockchain and can be done trivially what can be done and what is done -- different. You might want to tell those companies that charge a fee to guarantee the transaction, that they can just trivially stop doing that now.
- rattlesnakedave 5y ago
  >None of these features require a blockchain and can be done trivially by a central authority issuing append-only cryptographically signed ledger entries. Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to each-other in real time, without an intermediary? Why hamstring yourself with a database and the upgradability woes therein, when you can use a blockchain? >What's the benefit of this when the bank has to accept a cleared record for a party to withdraw funds anyway? With a permissioned blockchain, the funds can be cleared much faster (instantly?) than in the current system. I left another comment about this. These technologies are very powerful and not thoroughly explored in a permissioned context for use by traditional finance.
  - rlpb 5y ago
    > Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to each-other in real time, without an intermediary? You're already depending on a central authority to back your funds. So forcing a blockchain into the mix just introduces that additional complexity and risk, not a new dependency on a central authority. > Why hamstring yourself with a database and the upgradability woes therein, when you can use a blockchain? You're conflating "blockchain" with "distributed database". For example, a trivial example is a git repository storing ledger entries. It's distributed, can be used in an append-only fashion (and enforced at a higher layer), and such a system probably doesn't have the "upgradability woes" you're worried about. It's not a blockchain. > With a permissioned blockchain, the funds can be cleared much faster (instantly?) than in the current system. This can also be arranged without a blockchain.
    - mistrial9 5y ago
      re-reading this now -- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46192377/why-is-git-not-considered-a-block-chain https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46192377/why-is-git-not-...
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    > Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to each-other in real time, without an intermediary? The choice here is between: 1. A known intermediary with a physical address to which a judge/magistrate can have a summons mailed and which my local elected government officials can at least in principle regulate, or 2. An unknown number of unidentified intermediaries, at least some of whom are almost certainly beyond jurisdictional reach. If I'm fucking around with gambling money, whatever. If we're talking about national payment infrastructure, the choice is obvious. > [databases and] upgradability woes therein, when you can use a blockchain ...huh? I don't understand.