6 ms·

> I think distributed ledgers are here to stay What exactly makes you think that? As far as I can tell, it's still unclear if distributed ledgers are really ef

> I think distributed ledgers are here to stay What exactly makes you think that? As far as I can tell, it's still unclear if distributed ledgers are really effective tools for much of anything. What real problems have they solved?

st34m 4y ago
It's quite useful for buying drugs.
- AviationAtom 4y ago
  Don't hear of as many murder for hire plots involving it these days though
mlyle 4y ago
Non-repudiation is an important problem. Some things we can rely upon trusted third parties, but all kinds of things we rely on imperfect systems with notaries and trusted third parties can be more effectively solved with ledgers. A whole lot of the interesting applications are non-monetary-- proving that a record was produced and made available before a certain time and has not been tampered with since. As a world economy, we spend like $100B/year on notarizing things and related kinds of non-repudiation record keeping. If it was really cheap, we'd do much more. And a big fraction of this could be done cheaper and with a higher agree of assurance by distributed ledgers than notaries.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hiq 4y ago
  > big fraction of this could be done cheaper and with a higher agree of assurance by distributed ledgers than notaries These theoretical benefits have been around for 10+ years with little to show for it. Ledger-based solutions tend to focus on a tiny technical step of a big process without considering whether that's a bottleneck or even a non-negligible part and whether improving it actually results in a better solution. I used to sympathize and engage with the theoretical arguments; but at this point a more productive approach is: if the advantages are such and such, where are the companies benefiting from this competitive advantage? Maybe this competitive advantage doesn't exist at all?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > I used to sympathize and engage with the theoretical arguments; but at this point a more productive approach is: if the advantages are such and such, Distributed ledgers are being used for real business cases in banking. Realizing these full benefits will take a very slow process of societal adoption and legal/evidentiary recognition. I said "not going away". These use cases are going to slowly grow and become ubiquitous, but it will be a very slow process. It isn't some overnight disruption where notaries vanish and banking is dis-intermediated in the next 5 years. > where are the companies benefiting from this competitive advantage E.g. JP Morgan and Liink are quietly connecting hundreds of banks and using it to more robustly and quickly move payment-related information between banks.
    - maccard 4y ago
      > JP Morgan and Liink are quietly connecting hundreds of banks and using it to more robustly and quickly move payment-related information between banks. At this point you're trusting JP Morgan and link to run the ledger. What if I disagree with a transaction and fork the ledger? How is this any different to JP Morgan running a SQL database and speaking a common protocol?
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > At this point you're trusting JP Morgan and link to run the ledger. Liink is ETH derived, so it's hybrid proof-of-stake and proof-of-work. (Of course, JP Morgan likely dominates both at this point, but they don't have to).
        maccard 4y ago
        > (Of course, JP Morgan likely dominates both at this point, but they don't have to). So what happens if someone comes along and stakes $X Billion and becomes the majority stakeholder? Do you _really_ think that JP Morgan will just sit and let that happen? That they won't fork? That Deutsche Bank will continue to stand by the ledger if a group of anonymous traders from China become the majority stake? It's a technical solution to a political problem.
rvz 4y ago
I don't know, maybe Stripe, Moneygram, TransferGo, Namecheap, Porkbun, etc seem to think otherwise? These distributed ledgers are here to stay in fact. Unless in less than 5 years or so, they are all going to go away 100% totally guaranteed?

st34m 4y ago

It's quite useful for buying drugs.

AviationAtom 4y ago
Don't hear of as many murder for hire plots involving it these days though

mlyle 4y ago

Non-repudiation is an important problem. Some things we can rely upon trusted third parties, but all kinds of things we rely on imperfect systems with notaries and trusted third parties can be more effectively solved with ledgers. A whole lot of the interesting applications are non-monetary-- proving that a record was produced and made available before a certain time and has not been tampered with since. As a world economy, we spend like $100B/year on notarizing things and related kinds of non-repudiation record keeping. If it was really cheap, we'd do much more. And a big fraction of this could be done cheaper and with a higher agree of assurance by distributed ledgers than notaries.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hiq 4y ago
> big fraction of this could be done cheaper and with a higher agree of assurance by distributed ledgers than notaries These theoretical benefits have been around for 10+ years with little to show for it. Ledger-based solutions tend to focus on a tiny technical step of a big process without considering whether that's a bottleneck or even a non-negligible part and whether improving it actually results in a better solution. I used to sympathize and engage with the theoretical arguments; but at this point a more productive approach is: if the advantages are such and such, where are the companies benefiting from this competitive advantage? Maybe this competitive advantage doesn't exist at all?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > I used to sympathize and engage with the theoretical arguments; but at this point a more productive approach is: if the advantages are such and such, Distributed ledgers are being used for real business cases in banking. Realizing these full benefits will take a very slow process of societal adoption and legal/evidentiary recognition. I said "not going away". These use cases are going to slowly grow and become ubiquitous, but it will be a very slow process. It isn't some overnight disruption where notaries vanish and banking is dis-intermediated in the next 5 years. > where are the companies benefiting from this competitive advantage E.g. JP Morgan and Liink are quietly connecting hundreds of banks and using it to more robustly and quickly move payment-related information between banks.
  - maccard 4y ago
    > JP Morgan and Liink are quietly connecting hundreds of banks and using it to more robustly and quickly move payment-related information between banks. At this point you're trusting JP Morgan and link to run the ledger. What if I disagree with a transaction and fork the ledger? How is this any different to JP Morgan running a SQL database and speaking a common protocol?
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > At this point you're trusting JP Morgan and link to run the ledger. Liink is ETH derived, so it's hybrid proof-of-stake and proof-of-work. (Of course, JP Morgan likely dominates both at this point, but they don't have to).
      - maccard 4y ago
        > (Of course, JP Morgan likely dominates both at this point, but they don't have to). So what happens if someone comes along and stakes $X Billion and becomes the majority stakeholder? Do you _really_ think that JP Morgan will just sit and let that happen? That they won't fork? That Deutsche Bank will continue to stand by the ledger if a group of anonymous traders from China become the majority stake? It's a technical solution to a political problem.

rvz 4y ago

I don't know, maybe Stripe, Moneygram, TransferGo, Namecheap, Porkbun, etc seem to think otherwise? These distributed ledgers are here to stay in fact. Unless in less than 5 years or so, they are all going to go away 100% totally guaranteed?