3 ms·

> Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? Blockchain is a data

> Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? Blockchain is a database. Records at a bank are a database. There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part. That's why every one of the systems I mentioned supports real-time 24/7 transfers: SEPA, FPS, NPP, Interac, RTP, FedNow, ISO20022. Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right? > It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. It does not address KYC at all. KYC is built on top at the CEX level. If you have some concrete non-speculative way you think this is true, please share. > I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha. [edit] Any the reason settlement hasnt been addressed sooner is because thanks to the magic optimization of centralization and trust, you can just borrow the capital until settlement happens. I mean think about it, equity settlement is T+2 but yet somehow HFTs exist? Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem.

gonehome 5y ago
I really try to resist being drawn into flame bait. > "Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem." There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. > "There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part." Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. It seems clear from your tone that you're not really curious about this so I'll just leave it here. > "Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right?" Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. > "I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. I'm always open to that possibility, and I spend a lot of time learning about blockchain technology. And I've spent the last 10 years working in fintech. Of the commenters here, I probably have more context than most on both. > Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies. Banks trust each other or can trust a central intermediary which is again why NPP, RTP, FedNow, SEPA, FPA all work instantly, basically free, without blockchain. Whereas moving USDC-ETH between two accounts costs $25. > Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. It's been 14 years and yet we have nothing to show for it except a whole pile of used up Kazakh and Xinjiang coal - and some really ugly twitter avatars. But yes, I'll wait, I'm sure OP will deliver by 2031.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    The bitcoin whitepaper came out in 2009, Ethereum was 2015, a lot of the interesting stuff has been within the last two years. You may be right in the end, but people with exposure to the industry at risk of disruption are often bad at recognizing it. See Ballmer at Microsoft mocking the iPhone, Blockbuster failing to adapt to Netflix, Borders failing to adapt to Kindle/Amazon etc. That knowledge can provide context for accuracy, but it can also mislead or bias you against something that's changing rapidly. > "Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies." At a real cost. The web comparison would be decentralized underlying protocols vs. the centralized applications on top of them. "Web3" may allow a way to fix the things that lead to centralization at the application layer with UX that actually works. This is distinct from cryptocurrency, but there's some overlap. ETH cost should get reduced by ETH2 and sharding, the cost is representative of current transaction demand. I'm not a crypto-anarchist, I think both systems will have complementary purposes. Programmable money is something new, knee-jerk dismissals of "it's all crime" are dumb imo.
    - 5y ago

gonehome 5y ago

I really try to resist being drawn into flame bait. > "Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem." There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. > "There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part." Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. It seems clear from your tone that you're not really curious about this so I'll just leave it here. > "Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right?" Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. > "I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

arcticbull 5y ago
> There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. I'm always open to that possibility, and I spend a lot of time learning about blockchain technology. And I've spent the last 10 years working in fintech. Of the commenters here, I probably have more context than most on both. > Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies. Banks trust each other or can trust a central intermediary which is again why NPP, RTP, FedNow, SEPA, FPA all work instantly, basically free, without blockchain. Whereas moving USDC-ETH between two accounts costs $25. > Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. It's been 14 years and yet we have nothing to show for it except a whole pile of used up Kazakh and Xinjiang coal - and some really ugly twitter avatars. But yes, I'll wait, I'm sure OP will deliver by 2031.
- gonehome 5y ago
  The bitcoin whitepaper came out in 2009, Ethereum was 2015, a lot of the interesting stuff has been within the last two years. You may be right in the end, but people with exposure to the industry at risk of disruption are often bad at recognizing it. See Ballmer at Microsoft mocking the iPhone, Blockbuster failing to adapt to Netflix, Borders failing to adapt to Kindle/Amazon etc. That knowledge can provide context for accuracy, but it can also mislead or bias you against something that's changing rapidly. > "Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies." At a real cost. The web comparison would be decentralized underlying protocols vs. the centralized applications on top of them. "Web3" may allow a way to fix the things that lead to centralization at the application layer with UX that actually works. This is distinct from cryptocurrency, but there's some overlap. ETH cost should get reduced by ETH2 and sharding, the cost is representative of current transaction demand. I'm not a crypto-anarchist, I think both systems will have complementary purposes. Programmable money is something new, knee-jerk dismissals of "it's all crime" are dumb imo.
  - 5y ago