Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs Drops Out of R3 Blockchain Group

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs Drops Out of R3 Blockchain Group

#61

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

alblue wrote: post #56
brilliantcode wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financial companies and banks already trust each other. It doesn't make sense for them to be held under public scrutiny with a public ledger. Therefore, blockchain is a solution without a problem for financial institutions. Their needs are already well met and there's little incentive to change. It worked for a 1000+ years why uproot everything for a buzzword ? Of course they aren't going to change.

Actually modern finance has its roots in the coffee houses of London, circa 1650. http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-london/lond... These were the meeting places in which the maritime insurance deals were made at a time of increasing maritime exploration by the British. These also evolved to be the places such materials were bought and sold - and in fact the trading pits were (and in some cases are) bas…

> when the financial centre was destroyed by petty minded little England

Perhaps if the 'financial centre' were not so ... self-centered ...

Re: Goldman Sachs Drops Out of R3 Blockchain Group

#65

Post by kelnage »

patrickk wrote: post #59
brilliantcode wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financial companies and banks already trust each other. It doesn't make sense for them to be held under public scrutiny with a public ledger. Therefore, blockchain is a solution without a problem for financial institutions. Their needs are already well met and there's little incentive to change. It worked for a 1000+ years why uproot everything for a buzzword ? Of course they aren't going to change.

> Their needs are already well met and there's little incentive to change. This is definitely not true. It takes some financial assets 3-5 days to settle after the initial transaction goes through, weaving its way through many database systems (some many decades old) and middlemen who each take a cut, e.g. clearing houses. Any established industry has lots of cruft that builds up. For this reason Santander estimates…

I agree that the current systems are very far from optimised. But what benefit does the blockchain per se give them, given they already trust all participants? It only seems to introduce unnecessary costs, such as mining, when compared to the alternatives.

Re: Goldman Sachs Drops Out of R3 Blockchain Group

#66

Post by patrickk »

kelnage wrote: post #65
patrickk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their needs are already well met and there's little incentive to change. This is definitely not true. It takes some financial assets 3-5 days to settle after the initial transaction goes through, weaving its way through many database systems (some many decades old) and middlemen who each take a cut, e.g. clearing houses. Any established industry has lots of cruft that builds up. For this reason Santander estimates…

I agree that the current systems are very far from optimised. But what benefit does the blockchain per se give them, given they already trust all participants? It only seems to introduce unnecessary costs, such as mining, when compared to the alternatives.

> It only seems to introduce unnecessary costs, such as mining

Who says you need mining? There's different ways to achieve blockchain consensus, such as proof of stake or proof of existence, you don't need proof of work like Bitcoin uses. Since with a private banking settlement blockchain you know in advance who the players are (individually-invited banks) you can give them a percentage of the network and have each node verify the transactions across the network. You could even give nodes to regulators or consumer advocacy groups to achieve regulatory compliance or consumer oversight if required.

As for cost, you could technically run a PoS node with a raspberry pi, a large USB drive, a wifi connection, powered by a solar panel and an old car battery on the roof of a building. Proof of stake only needs minimal computing power and a persistent internet connection.

Seriously, a lot of the scorn heaped on blockchain technology is unwarranted. Yes, there's loads of hype and bullshit (we're going to get rid of nation states and fiat currency!!!1!), but no more than the internet in 1994 or during the dotcom boom. Yes, lots of crap ideas, but some gems too. It's too early to see what real impact it will have. Criticising current blockchain technology is like criticising early broadband or smartphones.

Re: Goldman Sachs Drops Out of R3 Blockchain Group

#67

Post by generalseven »

buckie wrote: post #25

I can't say I'm all that surprised. R3 serves as both an R&D lab and a place to connect vendors and potential clients. Moreover, the focus is on private/permissioned blockchain tech. The tech in this space is still quite immature overall and pretty much everyone has had a hard time building actual blockchain infrastructure vs things that are sorta like a blockchain. If you can't show clients value for their membershi…

If it's going to be a permissioned system anyway, wouldn't you get better performance from a non-blockchain solution?

The permissioned blockchains are being called "a horseless carriage with a horse" by Andreas Antonopoulos.

Re: Goldman Sachs Drops Out of R3 Blockchain Group

#68

Post by cowsandmilk »

known wrote: post #53

It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-entry_bookkeeping_syste... (traditional banking) versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-entry_bookkeeping_syste... (blockchain) I think we've to overcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt to embrace blockchain

Uh, I don't see how the blockchain could be considered single-entry accounting. Every system I've seen proposed still has transactions that credit one account and debit another.

Re: Goldman Sachs Drops Out of R3 Blockchain Group

#70

Post by wtbob »

alblue wrote: post #56
brilliantcode wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financial companies and banks already trust each other. It doesn't make sense for them to be held under public scrutiny with a public ledger. Therefore, blockchain is a solution without a problem for financial institutions. Their needs are already well met and there's little incentive to change. It worked for a 1000+ years why uproot everything for a buzzword ? Of course they aren't going to change.

Actually modern finance has its roots in the coffee houses of London, circa 1650. http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-london/lond... These were the meeting places in which the maritime insurance deals were made at a time of increasing maritime exploration by the British. These also evolved to be the places such materials were bought and sold - and in fact the trading pits were (and in some cases are) bas…

Nice comment, right up until your final sentence, which just drips with bitterness.
Post reply on HN