3 ms·

The hard part isn't tracking balances. It's reporting, auditing, and security/privacy. We need laws and procedures, but the barrier to getting operationally in

The hard part isn't tracking balances. It's reporting, auditing, and security/privacy. We need laws and procedures, but the barrier to getting operationally intensive things shipped becomes lower with better technology and particularly with standardization. One of the key benefits, if not the main benefit, of blockchain systems is that it forced all the players to agree to a highly detailed and easily testable specification (otherwise their nodes fork). That is an enabling design pattern for inter-bank communication. I believe the main reason it hasn't materialized is just what you say though. It's not that valuable. But it's clearly not worthless.

justapassenger 4y ago
> the barrier to getting operationally intensive things shipped becomes lower with better technology and particularly with standardization 100% agree. > One of the key benefits, if not the main benefit, of blockchain systems is that it forced all the players to agree to a highly detailed and easily testable specification (otherwise their nodes fork) There’s a lot of, way cheaper and convenient ways of enforcing it.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  I disagree, there are not cheaper or more convenient ways. There is overwhelming evidence that building highly standardized financial infrastructure is much cheaper and easier with blockchains than doing it without blockchains. You can argue that the result of that is mostly scams, because building scams is easy. But clearly crypto made building financial infrastructure cheaper and more convenient. There was absolutely nothing in the world like Uniswap for example, and we were not on a trajectory for something like that to ever be built in traditional finance. If you don't believe that, then I encourage you to look closer at Uniswap. Try to think about it from a purely technical perspective, without the understandable bias earned from its usage for scams, pump and dumps, etc. Another good analogy is nuclear weapons. Purely as a weapons technology, they made warfare cheaper and easier. The end result of the existence of nuclear weapons may be the opposite (countries spending more to keep up with MAD). But as a technology, they clearly enable specific things that weren't possible before (blowing up cities). Crypto is like that.

justapassenger 4y ago

> the barrier to getting operationally intensive things shipped becomes lower with better technology and particularly with standardization 100% agree. > One of the key benefits, if not the main benefit, of blockchain systems is that it forced all the players to agree to a highly detailed and easily testable specification (otherwise their nodes fork) There’s a lot of, way cheaper and convenient ways of enforcing it.

mgraczyk 4y ago
I disagree, there are not cheaper or more convenient ways. There is overwhelming evidence that building highly standardized financial infrastructure is much cheaper and easier with blockchains than doing it without blockchains. You can argue that the result of that is mostly scams, because building scams is easy. But clearly crypto made building financial infrastructure cheaper and more convenient. There was absolutely nothing in the world like Uniswap for example, and we were not on a trajectory for something like that to ever be built in traditional finance. If you don't believe that, then I encourage you to look closer at Uniswap. Try to think about it from a purely technical perspective, without the understandable bias earned from its usage for scams, pump and dumps, etc. Another good analogy is nuclear weapons. Purely as a weapons technology, they made warfare cheaper and easier. The end result of the existence of nuclear weapons may be the opposite (countries spending more to keep up with MAD). But as a technology, they clearly enable specific things that weren't possible before (blowing up cities). Crypto is like that.