3 ms·
> we had a use case that would have saved a lot of internal work to move onto a public blockchain If anything, large financial institutions have by now realize
by hiq 4y ago
> we had a use case that would have saved a lot of internal work to move onto a public blockchain
If anything, large financial institutions have by now realized that they're not interested in public blockchains[0], one notable example as of late being the Australian Securities Exchange[1].
These technical improvements are a bit as if a salesman reduced the price of a product, on top of free delivery. That's nice, sure, but that doesn't mean you need the product any more than before. There are more fundamental reasons why smart contracts are not widely used, and they're not addressed by these technical improvements.
[0]: as defined in https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_good_reaso.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_g...
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-securities-exchange-cut-up-200-jobs-blockchain-project-2022-12-02/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-securities-exc...
- kybernetikos 4y agoMy example was a situation where we would benefit from a public blockchain solution in terms of more efficient administration, but were unable to use it because of ecological concerns. In that situation we already needed the product, and the improvement removes a barrier.
- hiq 4y ago> a situation where we would benefit from a public blockchain solution in terms of more efficient administration That's what I'm doubting. Ecological concerns etc. are a problem, but in my experience public blockchain solutions fail earlier, at the stage where one asks "would there be any benefit" before asking what the costs might be.
- kybernetikos 4y agoThen we have different experiences.