7 ms·

I am not aware of any other triple entry accounting system or proposal other than the block chain ecosystem. But I have been a crypto curmudgeon and skeptic so

I am not aware of any other triple entry accounting system or proposal other than the block chain ecosystem. But I have been a crypto curmudgeon and skeptic so I don’t follow it closely. Honestly it was the only idea that didn’t make me throw up a little when I would talk to crypto fans. It was my little tactic to find common ground. Excel may be cheaper and faster for companies but governments care about legitimacy and could probably end up forcing implementation. So imagine that instead of county deed offices that have physical books dating back hundreds of years with title info, they had a blockchain ledger then the third party systems the evolved on top to make title transfer lowers friction will technically not being a true legal transfer could have a middle ground where the transaction has the certainty and legitimacy of a public record and the low friction of a digital transaction rather than physically having to go to each county to record the transaction. Similarly all large banks now have to submit stress tests to the federal reserve and one of the hardest things to do is trace asset transfers and liabilities to get at contagion risk. If regulators were smart they would mandate a blockchain or time series database so that unwinding transactions didn’t have to happen through junior attorney and bankers manual review of transfers in bankruptcy court.

marcus_holmes 4y ago
I still don't understand why this is better on a blockchain than a database. Transactions are harder to do, they take longer, they're massively more inefficient, etc. And what do we gain from this? Blockchains are not immutable (as we've seen), they're usually controlled by a single entity or group of entities (as we've seen), they're public but in a bad way - as soon as the connection between a person and a key is revealed, that person's entire transaction history is revealed. And so on. I know that "all these problems are being solved" but you could solve them all in an instant by just using a database and having sufficient oversight over who gets to manage it. I don't understand the enthusiasm to use a blockchain here (or anywhere)
- PKop 4y ago
  3rd party trust and central point of failure. I don't agree that we've seen Bitcoin be controlled by a single entity or that anyone has power to modify it against the will of market. I would argue the things you don't see a need for are necessary, if not sufficient, to have a sufficiently decentralized ledger. Network effect might be the other ingredient.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    > I don't agree that we've seen Bitcoin be controlled by a single entity or that anyone has power to modify it against the will of market. I can say the same things of Visa? If the point is that economic incentives are what keep miners honest, what do you think keeps Visa honest? (I'll tell you as soon as they start doing things that don't follow the rules, their market cap will plummet)
  - marcus_holmes 4y ago
    We've had solutions to trust problems for centuries, and they work well. Central point of failure argument seems moot - there are simple architectures to solve this for databases.
- streb-lo 4y ago
  Blockchain also only works the way people intend in entirely digital domains. As soon as you tie it to real-world assets it's no different than an Excel sheet because you must validate everything manually anyways.
  - meowkit 4y ago
    This is called the Oracle Problem. It can work outside of the digital realm. https://blockpit.io/en/blog/how-to-solve-the-oracle-problem/ https://blockpit.io/en/blog/how-to-solve-the-oracle-problem/ > A decentralized oracle uses a decentralized network of nodes to obtain real-life data from off-chain sources of information and transfer it to smart contracts on-chain. These decentralized oracles are like public libraries with multiple sources of information. Using many sources of information helps to minimize counterparty risk. More importantly, decentralized oracles aim to reduce concerns about reliability and trust because oracles that provide false data will be penalized for data manipulation.
- legutierr 4y ago
  If two rival businesses are transacting with each other, and they don’t really trust each other fully, which one hosts the database? Whoever hosts the database is in a position to manipulate data to the disadvantage of the other. Which entity gives in and gives up that power to the other? Why should either party agree to take on that sort of counterparty risk when they don’t have to? Also, what instances of non-immutable blockchains are you referring to? Blockchains by definition are immutable post-finality.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    > which one hosts the database? Both? > manipulate data to the disadvantage of the other How is this even possible? Don't they sign their transactions?
    - hanniabu 4y ago
      Let me just operate a database for everyone I interact with, and also pay a lawyer to write a contract for every interation. > How is this even possible? Don't they sign their transactions? In a blockchain, yes. What you quoted was talking about a database. It seems like you accidentally just realized the issue with your own argument by trying to find an issue with his. Great way to get around bias.
      - fineIllregister 4y ago
        > Let me just operate a database for everyone I interact with. If I'm a company, I already have a database of transactions, even if it is a spreadsheet or physical file folders. > It seems like you accidentally just realized the issue with your own argument by trying to find an issue with his. Where is the issue? The two companies can sign and keep separate copies of the contract/transaction. That's literally what they do now. Just digitize it, no blockchain necessary. Companies could sign a text file of a contract with PGP keys. We could standardize a transaction format and both companies could sign each exchange. Company A would keep the contract and Company B's signature, and vice versa. Trusted third parties (our attornies, banks) could sign as witnesses for bigger transactions. What do cryptocurrency and blockchain achieve over that, especially given the high costs of transactions?
- chaostheory 4y ago
  A database is great for one entity. A blockchain is useful for situations with multiple actors with an inherent lack of trust, but with a need for a shared truth
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Wait until you hear that cryptography and chain of block architectures can be done on centralized equipment and we don't need to rely on mining farms that we have no control over!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- c22 4y ago
  Email isn't perfect but is widely used and widely useful. If the world naturally converged to a standard protocol based on blockchain that alone would be worth it.
lamontcg 4y ago
Would it make sense to put those transactions into something like git or does a conventional database sound more appropriate? Why do internet companies not use blockchains like git for all their transactions and instead use some form of database? And git doesn't prevent software developers from pushing bad/hostile code/data into their repos. A blockchain wouldn't prevent financial institutions from publishing incorrect/fraudulent transactions into the blockchain. What you theoretically gain out of a public blockchain is just that it is permanent and public. You could try to pass laws to require permanent and public access to a companies books instead and be technology agnostic. This law would be highly unlikely to ever pass. But you don't need a blockchain to do it. And if it isn't public and immutable then the company can change the ledger whenever they like and throw away the old chain and commit fraud, there's nothing magical about the word "blockchain" which prevents that. It is the public nature of it which makes it immutable. If you want to make it private and immutable a normal database with a public, published cryptographic hash of the entire contents published at intervals would make that possible. What you need then is an append-only database where incorrect prior data is fixed not by throwing away the bad data, but by publishing new records which update the old data, and then a way of publicly validating that the old data hasn't been tampered with. That can actually be solved without blockchain. It definitely can be solved without public blockchain, you just the company to periodically "publish" its bookkeeping hashes to an agency (or the public) that tracks them. That doesn't fix fraud, though, those records could all be bullshit the first time they're entered. Just makes it harder to go back and commit fraud. And if the company never opens it books and is never audited then none of it really matters, blockchain or not it just becomes a private diary of lies.

marcus_holmes 4y ago

I still don't understand why this is better on a blockchain than a database. Transactions are harder to do, they take longer, they're massively more inefficient, etc. And what do we gain from this? Blockchains are not immutable (as we've seen), they're usually controlled by a single entity or group of entities (as we've seen), they're public but in a bad way - as soon as the connection between a person and a key is revealed, that person's entire transaction history is revealed. And so on. I know that "all these problems are being solved" but you could solve them all in an instant by just using a database and having sufficient oversight over who gets to manage it. I don't understand the enthusiasm to use a blockchain here (or anywhere)

PKop 4y ago
3rd party trust and central point of failure. I don't agree that we've seen Bitcoin be controlled by a single entity or that anyone has power to modify it against the will of market. I would argue the things you don't see a need for are necessary, if not sufficient, to have a sufficiently decentralized ledger. Network effect might be the other ingredient.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  > I don't agree that we've seen Bitcoin be controlled by a single entity or that anyone has power to modify it against the will of market. I can say the same things of Visa? If the point is that economic incentives are what keep miners honest, what do you think keeps Visa honest? (I'll tell you as soon as they start doing things that don't follow the rules, their market cap will plummet)
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  We've had solutions to trust problems for centuries, and they work well. Central point of failure argument seems moot - there are simple architectures to solve this for databases.
streb-lo 4y ago
Blockchain also only works the way people intend in entirely digital domains. As soon as you tie it to real-world assets it's no different than an Excel sheet because you must validate everything manually anyways.
- meowkit 4y ago
  This is called the Oracle Problem. It can work outside of the digital realm. https://blockpit.io/en/blog/how-to-solve-the-oracle-problem/ https://blockpit.io/en/blog/how-to-solve-the-oracle-problem/ > A decentralized oracle uses a decentralized network of nodes to obtain real-life data from off-chain sources of information and transfer it to smart contracts on-chain. These decentralized oracles are like public libraries with multiple sources of information. Using many sources of information helps to minimize counterparty risk. More importantly, decentralized oracles aim to reduce concerns about reliability and trust because oracles that provide false data will be penalized for data manipulation.
legutierr 4y ago
If two rival businesses are transacting with each other, and they don’t really trust each other fully, which one hosts the database? Whoever hosts the database is in a position to manipulate data to the disadvantage of the other. Which entity gives in and gives up that power to the other? Why should either party agree to take on that sort of counterparty risk when they don’t have to? Also, what instances of non-immutable blockchains are you referring to? Blockchains by definition are immutable post-finality.
- laserlight 4y ago
  > which one hosts the database? Both? > manipulate data to the disadvantage of the other How is this even possible? Don't they sign their transactions?
  - hanniabu 4y ago
    Let me just operate a database for everyone I interact with, and also pay a lawyer to write a contract for every interation. > How is this even possible? Don't they sign their transactions? In a blockchain, yes. What you quoted was talking about a database. It seems like you accidentally just realized the issue with your own argument by trying to find an issue with his. Great way to get around bias.
    - fineIllregister 4y ago
      > Let me just operate a database for everyone I interact with. If I'm a company, I already have a database of transactions, even if it is a spreadsheet or physical file folders. > It seems like you accidentally just realized the issue with your own argument by trying to find an issue with his. Where is the issue? The two companies can sign and keep separate copies of the contract/transaction. That's literally what they do now. Just digitize it, no blockchain necessary. Companies could sign a text file of a contract with PGP keys. We could standardize a transaction format and both companies could sign each exchange. Company A would keep the contract and Company B's signature, and vice versa. Trusted third parties (our attornies, banks) could sign as witnesses for bigger transactions. What do cryptocurrency and blockchain achieve over that, especially given the high costs of transactions?
chaostheory 4y ago
A database is great for one entity. A blockchain is useful for situations with multiple actors with an inherent lack of trust, but with a need for a shared truth
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Wait until you hear that cryptography and chain of block architectures can be done on centralized equipment and we don't need to rely on mining farms that we have no control over!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
c22 4y ago
Email isn't perfect but is widely used and widely useful. If the world naturally converged to a standard protocol based on blockchain that alone would be worth it.

lamontcg 4y ago

Would it make sense to put those transactions into something like git or does a conventional database sound more appropriate? Why do internet companies not use blockchains like git for all their transactions and instead use some form of database? And git doesn't prevent software developers from pushing bad/hostile code/data into their repos. A blockchain wouldn't prevent financial institutions from publishing incorrect/fraudulent transactions into the blockchain. What you theoretically gain out of a public blockchain is just that it is permanent and public. You could try to pass laws to require permanent and public access to a companies books instead and be technology agnostic. This law would be highly unlikely to ever pass. But you don't need a blockchain to do it. And if it isn't public and immutable then the company can change the ledger whenever they like and throw away the old chain and commit fraud, there's nothing magical about the word "blockchain" which prevents that. It is the public nature of it which makes it immutable. If you want to make it private and immutable a normal database with a public, published cryptographic hash of the entire contents published at intervals would make that possible. What you need then is an append-only database where incorrect prior data is fixed not by throwing away the bad data, but by publishing new records which update the old data, and then a way of publicly validating that the old data hasn't been tampered with. That can actually be solved without blockchain. It definitely can be solved without public blockchain, you just the company to periodically "publish" its bookkeeping hashes to an agency (or the public) that tracks them. That doesn't fix fraud, though, those records could all be bullshit the first time they're entered. Just makes it harder to go back and commit fraud. And if the company never opens it books and is never audited then none of it really matters, blockchain or not it just becomes a private diary of lies.