5 ms·

Blockchain skeptics are all defending the tech of the current financial system, and implicitly arguing it can’t be improved. They are wrong. The tech underlying

Blockchain skeptics are all defending the tech of the current financial system, and implicitly arguing it can’t be improved. They are wrong. The tech underlying the current system is really bad. For example: (1) How can I perform an atomic transaction across two stock exchanges? (2) How can I take stock held on one exchange, and use it as collateral on an unaffiliated lending platform? (3) How can I launch a new financial app, as a small startup, and open it to assets held on ETrade. All of these are impossible in the current system. In contrast they are all trivial using Ethereum’s blockchain. https://ortutay.substack.com/p/the-computer-science-case-for-web3 https://ortutay.substack.com/p/the-computer-science-case-for...

philliphaydon 4y ago
I opened the site thinking it would be serious but got a popup for web3. So I closed it.
autotune 4y ago
The underlying system is mostly written in COBOL and desperately needs a replacement before all the COBOL engineers die out with many large bags of money going to their descendants. Blockchain, no matter how good it might be or might have been, is clearly not that system due to its now tarnished reputation at this point in time.
- everfree 4y ago
  > Blockchain, no matter how good it might be or might have been, is clearly not that system due to its now tarnished reputation at this point in time. I never understand how people can consider the reputation of glorified timestamped linked lists to be "tarnished". This isn't a company or even a particular piece of software, it's a class of data structures. You're trying to tell me that a particular way of structuring data has a reputation that can be tarnished?
  - autotune 4y ago
    Someone comes out with a new database called "BigBucksDB" that uses a previously unknown technology called "blockchain." Suddenly every scammer and grifter decides to pump up this new "BigBucksDB" and emphasizes how safe and secure it is, thanks to blockchain, because all transactions are public and the ledger or whatever can't be modified in any way except to append new data. Then the companies using "BigBucksDB" decide to transfer all of their customers funds into their own accounts at a real bank and declare bankruptcy. What was the point of implementing "blockchain" in the first place? What use case can it possibly have for future services that would be worth taking a risk on it to implement when its primary use case for crypto transactions just fell apart? I know practically nothing about blockchain except how it was touted in the media as something that was supposed to make it difficult to modify crypto transactions and commit fraud. That fraud has still managed to be committed. What was even the point?
    - everfree 4y ago
      > Then the companies using "BigBucksDB" decide to transfer all of their customers funds into their own accounts at a real bank and declare bankruptcy. Not your keys, not your coins. If some random company that you don't trust has permission on the chain to transfer your funds, you're not doing it right. > That fraud has still managed to be committed. FTX was plain old fashioned fraud, the fraud wasn't committed on a blockchain. Ironically, blockchains (in particular decentralized exchanges and "DeFi") are a solution to the type of fraud FTX committed. They purported to be in custody of their customer's funds, while in reality they frittered them away, because there was no transparency. From the perspective of people who had Bitcoin and Ether in their own custody, the chain has been chugging along as normal.
      - autotune 4y ago
        > Not your keys, not your coins. If some random company that you don't trust has permission on the chain to transfer your funds, you're not doing it right. 0 caution about this was offered in the MSM. Everyone agrees that the average crypto investor was clueless about how it all worked behind the scenes, but that didn't stop them from FOMO and wanting to jump on the fail whale anyway because investment firms like Sequoia Capital pumped it up. > FTX was plain old fashioned fraud, the fraud wasn't committed on a blockchain. Whether it was legitimately committed on a blockchain or not is not really relevant here. It was marketed as being a way to prevent fraud for all these exchanges who claimed they were using it for its intended purpose. How is the average investor, who got shafted thinking everything was safe thanks to this emerging new technology, supposed to keep thinking that any exchanges existing presently are going to implement it the way it was intended if they got so duped by what was supposed to be the one exchange that legitimized the whole industry?
Nursie 4y ago
> Blockchain skeptics are all defending the tech of the current financial system, and implicitly arguing it can’t be improved. Homeopathy skeptics are all defending the mainstream medical system and big pharma, and implicitly arguing it can't be improved.
qeternity 4y ago
> (1) How can I perform an atomic transaction across two stock exchanges? I'm not sure why you're mandating across two stock exchanges? If you want to swap two assets in a single transaction, there is a very mature market for this. This has more to do with CPAMM vs. CLOB than it does anything else. > (2) How can I take stock held on one exchange, and use it as collateral on an unaffiliated lending platform? Well, assets aren't held on exchanges...but again, there is a huge industry that facilitates this. > (3) How can I launch a new financial app, as a small startup, and open it to assets held on ETrade. This has more to do with ETrade than anything else. It's like saying how can I launch a startup and get my product in every Walmart store...well you need their cooperation. > All of these are impossible in the current system. Absolutely not even remotely true. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean it's not possible.
- marcell 4y ago
  > I'm not sure why you're mandating across two stock exchanges? If you want to swap two assets in a single transaction, there is a very mature market for this. This has more to do with CPAMM vs. CLOB than it does anything else. If you want to do arbitrage across two exchanges, it is helpful to have an atomic transaction that's all or nothing across them. > This has more to do with ETrade than anything else. It's like saying how can I launch a startup and get my product in every Walmart store...well you need their cooperation. In web3/defi, I can do this without even talking to the defi equivalent of ETrade. It makes it a lot easier to start a startup.
adrr 4y ago
Never once as a retail investor have i needed any of those features. Blockchain a solution looking for a problem.

philliphaydon 4y ago

I opened the site thinking it would be serious but got a popup for web3. So I closed it.

autotune 4y ago

The underlying system is mostly written in COBOL and desperately needs a replacement before all the COBOL engineers die out with many large bags of money going to their descendants. Blockchain, no matter how good it might be or might have been, is clearly not that system due to its now tarnished reputation at this point in time.

everfree 4y ago
> Blockchain, no matter how good it might be or might have been, is clearly not that system due to its now tarnished reputation at this point in time. I never understand how people can consider the reputation of glorified timestamped linked lists to be "tarnished". This isn't a company or even a particular piece of software, it's a class of data structures. You're trying to tell me that a particular way of structuring data has a reputation that can be tarnished?
- autotune 4y ago
  Someone comes out with a new database called "BigBucksDB" that uses a previously unknown technology called "blockchain." Suddenly every scammer and grifter decides to pump up this new "BigBucksDB" and emphasizes how safe and secure it is, thanks to blockchain, because all transactions are public and the ledger or whatever can't be modified in any way except to append new data. Then the companies using "BigBucksDB" decide to transfer all of their customers funds into their own accounts at a real bank and declare bankruptcy. What was the point of implementing "blockchain" in the first place? What use case can it possibly have for future services that would be worth taking a risk on it to implement when its primary use case for crypto transactions just fell apart? I know practically nothing about blockchain except how it was touted in the media as something that was supposed to make it difficult to modify crypto transactions and commit fraud. That fraud has still managed to be committed. What was even the point?
  - everfree 4y ago
    > Then the companies using "BigBucksDB" decide to transfer all of their customers funds into their own accounts at a real bank and declare bankruptcy. Not your keys, not your coins. If some random company that you don't trust has permission on the chain to transfer your funds, you're not doing it right. > That fraud has still managed to be committed. FTX was plain old fashioned fraud, the fraud wasn't committed on a blockchain. Ironically, blockchains (in particular decentralized exchanges and "DeFi") are a solution to the type of fraud FTX committed. They purported to be in custody of their customer's funds, while in reality they frittered them away, because there was no transparency. From the perspective of people who had Bitcoin and Ether in their own custody, the chain has been chugging along as normal.
    - autotune 4y ago
      > Not your keys, not your coins. If some random company that you don't trust has permission on the chain to transfer your funds, you're not doing it right. 0 caution about this was offered in the MSM. Everyone agrees that the average crypto investor was clueless about how it all worked behind the scenes, but that didn't stop them from FOMO and wanting to jump on the fail whale anyway because investment firms like Sequoia Capital pumped it up. > FTX was plain old fashioned fraud, the fraud wasn't committed on a blockchain. Whether it was legitimately committed on a blockchain or not is not really relevant here. It was marketed as being a way to prevent fraud for all these exchanges who claimed they were using it for its intended purpose. How is the average investor, who got shafted thinking everything was safe thanks to this emerging new technology, supposed to keep thinking that any exchanges existing presently are going to implement it the way it was intended if they got so duped by what was supposed to be the one exchange that legitimized the whole industry?

Nursie 4y ago

> Blockchain skeptics are all defending the tech of the current financial system, and implicitly arguing it can’t be improved. Homeopathy skeptics are all defending the mainstream medical system and big pharma, and implicitly arguing it can't be improved.

qeternity 4y ago

> (1) How can I perform an atomic transaction across two stock exchanges? I'm not sure why you're mandating across two stock exchanges? If you want to swap two assets in a single transaction, there is a very mature market for this. This has more to do with CPAMM vs. CLOB than it does anything else. > (2) How can I take stock held on one exchange, and use it as collateral on an unaffiliated lending platform? Well, assets aren't held on exchanges...but again, there is a huge industry that facilitates this. > (3) How can I launch a new financial app, as a small startup, and open it to assets held on ETrade. This has more to do with ETrade than anything else. It's like saying how can I launch a startup and get my product in every Walmart store...well you need their cooperation. > All of these are impossible in the current system. Absolutely not even remotely true. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean it's not possible.

marcell 4y ago
> I'm not sure why you're mandating across two stock exchanges? If you want to swap two assets in a single transaction, there is a very mature market for this. This has more to do with CPAMM vs. CLOB than it does anything else. If you want to do arbitrage across two exchanges, it is helpful to have an atomic transaction that's all or nothing across them. > This has more to do with ETrade than anything else. It's like saying how can I launch a startup and get my product in every Walmart store...well you need their cooperation. In web3/defi, I can do this without even talking to the defi equivalent of ETrade. It makes it a lot easier to start a startup.

adrr 4y ago

Never once as a retail investor have i needed any of those features. Blockchain a solution looking for a problem.