81–90 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private chains are also trivially compromised. Much more so than a traditional database
Please share with the class how?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bullshit. Nothing about the term blockchain implies there must be mining. This whole "it's not a blockchain without mining" thing came straight from /r/bitcoin where a bunch of people seem to think that saying something isn't a blockchain matters so they keep trying to change the definition of it so bitcoin is the only true blockchain. >These proposed system achieve consensus by merely voting for truth, which is tech…
It means the security is non existent. Read any of the andrew poelstra papers for details on how and why. Subjective truth has been around for decades. No one cared about it , because its not useful. The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties. (Which private chains don't do) The only reason blockchain is a buzzword now is so that consultants can bilk…
It is no less truthful than bitcoin. It need not be more mutable than bitcoin. It is just different.
>The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties.
Right because of how current blockchains are implemented and used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please share with the class how?
Look into nxt, peercoin, a few of the other pos chains. They all failed due to stake grinding. read the poelstra papers for why pos is untenable
Like I've said elsewhere you are arguing from ignorance and because you've bought into the religion of bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less overhead in distribution and signed messages between individual parties doesn't allow third party(within the system ) auditing. I can sign a message saying I am giving you $10 of Bank B's debt but there is no way with just signed messages for you to know I still have ownership of that debt.
That's not even a little true. Have you worked on finance code before?
I've worked in ETL at Morgan Stanley. So not only finance code. But their data systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't have the option too and they won't have the need for you to so there is no incentive.
How does anyone trust it then? Isn't it by default able to have them alter it then, as they win 51% of the processing power? It seems to miss all the benefit of a blockchain, or I'm missing something?
Keep in mind, this is just for the banks. You're not going to use it, except indirectly as your bank is using it to talk with other banks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look into nxt, peercoin, a few of the other pos chains. They all failed due to stake grinding. read the poelstra papers for why pos is untenable
When you know every participant you don't need PoS or PoW you can us RR. Like I've said elsewhere you are arguing from ignorance and because you've bought into the religion of bitcoin.
Bitcoin isnt good for very much, it's mostly just useful for value transmission and censorship resistance. You're new to blockchains and don't know that, so you intend to blockchain all the things. Which is a way more extreme view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not even a little true. Have you worked on finance code before?
What part isn't true? I've worked in ETL at Morgan Stanley. So not only finance code. But their data systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you know every participant you don't need PoS or PoW you can us RR. Like I've said elsewhere you are arguing from ignorance and because you've bought into the religion of bitcoin.
Round robin is trivially DOS'd . also, sharing your private finance data with your competitors is not an economic efficiency. Bitcoin isnt good for very much, it's mostly just useful for value transmission and censorship resistance. You're new to blockchains and don't know that, so you intend to blockchain all the things. Which is a way more extreme view.
I'm new to blockchains? I'm pretty sure I'm not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Round robin is trivially DOS'd . also, sharing your private finance data with your competitors is not an economic efficiency. Bitcoin isnt good for very much, it's mostly just useful for value transmission and censorship resistance. You're new to blockchains and don't know that, so you intend to blockchain all the things. Which is a way more extreme view.
How is it trivially DOS'd? You don't need to share all your private data just the data about transfers using the system which isn't going to be particularly sensitive unless you are in a bad way financially and will be worth it to minimize the amount of settlements required of your business. I'm new to blockchains? I'm pretty sure I'm not.
As for sharing information - youre right... if you don't use blocks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part isn't true? I've worked in ETL at Morgan Stanley. So not only finance code. But their data systems.
The part about downloading entire databases to view your subset of the data. If this were an efficiency - SMTP would have blocks. Additionally, I am doubtful of your claim because information is the product of all hedge funds and investment banking operations - and to hand out your information to your competitors gives them tradable information at your expense. (Which youd know if you worked with any non-trivally fin…
You're not doing this though you're downloading the entire database to verify the subset is true and you're using blocks because adding single transactions at a time when you need to have known ordering amongst a lot of participants leads to a lot of overhead that is removed by batching.
The type of information we're talking about isn't sensitive though(unless your going down the drain and trying to hide it). And yes I just made up that I worked in ETL at MS a department pretty much no one that hasn't worked in knows exists.