4 ms·

I don't have the login to the bank's backend Oracle database so I can't check anything in it. With blockchain, anyone can see and audit the entire trading histo

I don't have the login to the bank's backend Oracle database so I can't check anything in it. With blockchain, anyone can see and audit the entire trading history.

quickthrower2 4y ago
Is that a requirement of a stock exchange? And if it is, guess what: you can create an API layer.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- redox99 4y ago
  The API can always return false data, it is a proxy for the actual data, not the actual data itself.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    We are both probably parroting old blockchain vs. not debates, but my next move is to say: Your scenario is you can’t trust your stock exchange to correctly known who owns what stock, and you cannot trust their data feeds, given the heavy and necessary regulation of stock markets, given the very goal of them allowing ordinary people to invest in the largest companies without DD in a fungible way. In that scenario a stock exchange becomes useless regardless of the technology. Blockchain has other problems too. It is slow! It can’t keep up with the source of truth. And it cannot be the source of truth without slowing operations down massively. For blockchain to be worth it you would need different validation nodes operated by different entities and consensus. This will mean the end of fast fulfilment of trades most likely. If your point was about simple api bugs then that is an interesting point. Decent operations and monitoring should prevent this. I would put data loss or accuracy bugs with stock exchange data from the source in the same bucket as “making the exchange useless” as it is not providing a fair system.
    - redox99 4y ago
      If everything else is equal, a trustless system that makes fraud and shenanigans (almost) impossible is better than a system that requires trust. Your view is also extremely US centric. MAYBE in the US the stock exchanges are perfect, and can be fully trusted. But the US is not the entire world. I can assure you that in other countries, a lot of bs happens with stock exchanges. Even in the US, there's a lot of bs that goes on related to high frequency trading. With a trustless, decentralized system, the playing field could be evened (instead of favoring those with LAN connections to the datacenter). And who knows in general how much order book bs is happening behind our backs. And the blockchain being slow isn't really that much of an issue. Stock trading is already settled at a later time, so stocks being settled to blockchains at a later time, batched, wouldn't be a problem (and real time trading would happen with L2 or L3s).

I don't have the login to the bank's backend Oracle database so I can't check anything in it. With blockchain, anyone can see and audit the entire trading history.

quickthrower2 4y ago

Is that a requirement of a stock exchange? And if it is, guess what: you can create an API layer.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
redox99 4y ago
The API can always return false data, it is a proxy for the actual data, not the actual data itself.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  We are both probably parroting old blockchain vs. not debates, but my next move is to say: Your scenario is you can’t trust your stock exchange to correctly known who owns what stock, and you cannot trust their data feeds, given the heavy and necessary regulation of stock markets, given the very goal of them allowing ordinary people to invest in the largest companies without DD in a fungible way. In that scenario a stock exchange becomes useless regardless of the technology. Blockchain has other problems too. It is slow! It can’t keep up with the source of truth. And it cannot be the source of truth without slowing operations down massively. For blockchain to be worth it you would need different validation nodes operated by different entities and consensus. This will mean the end of fast fulfilment of trades most likely. If your point was about simple api bugs then that is an interesting point. Decent operations and monitoring should prevent this. I would put data loss or accuracy bugs with stock exchange data from the source in the same bucket as “making the exchange useless” as it is not providing a fair system.
  - redox99 4y ago
    If everything else is equal, a trustless system that makes fraud and shenanigans (almost) impossible is better than a system that requires trust. Your view is also extremely US centric. MAYBE in the US the stock exchanges are perfect, and can be fully trusted. But the US is not the entire world. I can assure you that in other countries, a lot of bs happens with stock exchanges. Even in the US, there's a lot of bs that goes on related to high frequency trading. With a trustless, decentralized system, the playing field could be evened (instead of favoring those with LAN connections to the datacenter). And who knows in general how much order book bs is happening behind our backs. And the blockchain being slow isn't really that much of an issue. Stock trading is already settled at a later time, so stocks being settled to blockchains at a later time, batched, wouldn't be a problem (and real time trading would happen with L2 or L3s).