11–20 of 83 posts
"Their estimates did not include potential costs and investments required to deploy the technology." well, of course not... because then there would be no dramatic teaser headline. Accenture money grab here - presumably they've positioned themselves accordingly already?
How would storing this data in a blockchain have less overhead than an http server? Or even a torrent?
It seems like a hammer looking for a nail.
Which is true. Databases are pretty useful things. It's a shame banks never thought of adopting one before.
Blockchain here refers not to the distributed database technology loosely coupled with Bitcoin but rather "assert the existence of a database; simultaneous adoption of it across all parties that matter in the financial industry sure would be swell now wouldn't it." Which is true. Databases are pretty useful things. It's a shame banks never thought of adopting one before.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-10/bank-bloc...
"Their estimates did not include potential costs and investments required to deploy the technology." well, of course not... because then there would be no dramatic teaser headline. Accenture money grab here - presumably they've positioned themselves accordingly already?
I agree with your sentiment. I do not see a scenario where financial institutions would agree to put their transactions into a distributed ledger with copies of the data (even encrypted) held by their competitors. If the financial institutions limit the ledger to computers within their control, what would be the benefit over a clustered database environment (I am assuming that most large financial institutions alread…
Cryptocurrency is the future but I've never talked to more snake oil sales people than when talking to "blockchain" companies. I marvel at people's ability to sell nothingness
Postgresql too.
I understand this was prob a sort of joke, but I'd be interested in a data point on how much a free db could help save. Is $12B reasonable, would it be much lower/higher?
Database companies price their products by how much they think they can extract from your business. That's why they're mostly priced at free or some nominal cost for the first few years, and then several million dollars per year afterwards.
Blockchain here refers not to the distributed database technology loosely coupled with Bitcoin but rather "assert the existence of a database; simultaneous adoption of it across all parties that matter in the financial industry sure would be swell now wouldn't it." Which is true. Databases are pretty useful things. It's a shame banks never thought of adopting one before.
"Another aspect of blockchain, as I often emphasize, is sociological: Blockchains are cool. If you announce that you are updating the database software used by a consortium of banks to track derivatives trades, the New York Times will not write an article about it. If you say that you are blockchaining the blockchain software used by a blockchain of blockchains to blockchain blockchain blockchains, the New York Times…
Blockchain is so badly needed in the startup world when allocating shares of a company. Eshares is promising but too pricey for bootstrapping entrepreneurs. An open standard with distributed tracking of shares allocated for any given company would help institute much more trust into startup investing. Right now it's kind of tough to do due dilligence on a small private company.
> Blockchain is so badly needed in the startup world when allocating shares of a company. Eshares is promising but too pricey for bootstrapping entrepreneurs. What, exactly, does a blockchain have to do with this? ISTM all that's needed is a spreadsheet with an audit log, and even the audit log is somewhat optional.
Blockchains, in theory, could also serve as a voting mechanism on splits, which could be manifested as blockchain hardforks. As Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
> The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.
Essentially a blockchain can codify the ownership of a stock share into a smart contract.
That's the theory, and only insofar as it applies to a Proof of Work blockchain like Bitcoin.
A private blockchain is more likely to be a Proof of Stake blockchain, in which shares (or tokens of other sorts) are issued in a "premine" which creates all of the tokens that will ever exist. These are then distributed to the initial group of trusted members of the private blockchain. From there, the blockchain can eliminate the need for a trusted authority to serve as the system of record of ownership.
If anyone is in a job that involves holding back some of this insanity, this decision-flow diagram might help: http://i.imgur.com/4nZ67Sq.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your sentiment. I do not see a scenario where financial institutions would agree to put their transactions into a distributed ledger with copies of the data (even encrypted) held by their competitors. If the financial institutions limit the ledger to computers within their control, what would be the benefit over a clustered database environment (I am assuming that most large financial institutions alread…
The problem is without blockchain you don't have a meaningless buzzword to sell bullsh*t to banks. Blockchain is a vital technology for this. Cryptocurrency is the future but I've never talked to more snake oil sales people than when talking to "blockchain" companies. I marvel at people's ability to sell nothingness
When you combine the two it must be like a perfect storm of bullshit.
