Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
asia.nikkei.com
Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#2I started writing a furious "why would you even do this?"-style post, but this paragraph stood out:
>Blockchain technology shares transaction records with multiple computers. Stock trading is typically saved in servers at bourses, but records cannot be referenced when communications infrastructure fails.
>Using blockchain systems, brokerages can continue a minimum of operations, such as checking past transaction records and outstanding balances even when failures occur, although new transactions cannot be checked.
The "blockchain as a distributed transaction DB" concept is more interesting than I thought, and it's probably really easy to get started given all the bitcoin tech around.
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#3I started writing a furious "why would you even do this?"-style post, but this paragraph stood out: >Blockchain technology shares transaction records with multiple computers. Stock trading is typically saved in servers at bourses, but records cannot be referenced when communications infrastructure fails. >Using blockchain systems, brokerages can continue a minimum of operations, such as checking past transaction reco…
Traditional offline storage can do that too, right?
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#4I started writing a furious "why would you even do this?"-style post, but this paragraph stood out: >Blockchain technology shares transaction records with multiple computers. Stock trading is typically saved in servers at bourses, but records cannot be referenced when communications infrastructure fails. >Using blockchain systems, brokerages can continue a minimum of operations, such as checking past transaction reco…
Traditional offline storage can do that too, right?
well it's distributed, so just caching a DB is a bit of a tricky question. What are you going to be caching in your offline storage?
If you just used flat-file CSVs, and don't want to re-download the entire DB twice a day, you want to now come up with syncing strategies, merging strategies, and probably conflict resolution. If you just have a blockchain, then you get all of this for free (so long as your data fits the blockchain shape).
Though I imagine there's something else that can be used here as well...
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#5I started writing a furious "why would you even do this?"-style post, but this paragraph stood out: >Blockchain technology shares transaction records with multiple computers. Stock trading is typically saved in servers at bourses, but records cannot be referenced when communications infrastructure fails. >Using blockchain systems, brokerages can continue a minimum of operations, such as checking past transaction reco…
Traditional offline storage can do that too, right?
Exchanges are a textbook case of a shared ledger.
They have separate systems that must work in sync with very low latency between them: order processing, the ledger (for clearing) and price advertising.
The main advantage of a blockchain is with the ledger price advertising between exchange members comes free.
I guess they can even implement OTC markets between peers, but I am not sure how do they plan to work with dark pools where parties want anonimity. Maybe they will just implement an internal blockchain with APIs for anonymous trading.
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#6I started writing a furious "why would you even do this?"-style post, but this paragraph stood out: >Blockchain technology shares transaction records with multiple computers. Stock trading is typically saved in servers at bourses, but records cannot be referenced when communications infrastructure fails. >Using blockchain systems, brokerages can continue a minimum of operations, such as checking past transaction reco…
> The "blockchain as a distributed transaction DB" concept is more interesting than I thought
Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system.
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#7I started writing a furious "why would you even do this?"-style post, but this paragraph stood out: >Blockchain technology shares transaction records with multiple computers. Stock trading is typically saved in servers at bourses, but records cannot be referenced when communications infrastructure fails. >Using blockchain systems, brokerages can continue a minimum of operations, such as checking past transaction reco…
> The "blockchain as a distributed transaction DB" concept is more interesting than I thought Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system.
> Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system.
Blockchain doesn't imply PoW. You could consider each block minted with e.g. a M of N signature scheme, in the case of a stock-trading system you don't need open anonymous/participation and it's quite fine to rely on trusted parties.
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#8I started writing a furious "why would you even do this?"-style post, but this paragraph stood out: >Blockchain technology shares transaction records with multiple computers. Stock trading is typically saved in servers at bourses, but records cannot be referenced when communications infrastructure fails. >Using blockchain systems, brokerages can continue a minimum of operations, such as checking past transaction reco…
> The "blockchain as a distributed transaction DB" concept is more interesting than I thought Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system.
The way I understood the proof of work system is that it's there to determine which block is accepted as truth. So during a conflict, the first to solve the proof of work puzzle has their block accepted.
For distributed databases, when there are multiple conflicting transactions that touch the same data, I could see the proof of work as a method to determine which transactions win, especially in a global, multi-master model. When the proof of work puzzle is solved during conflicts, the transaction is accepted as truth and moves to a COMMITTED state. It seems kind of wasteful if you are paying for resources to solve challenges, but maybe there's a better way to decide who wins for trusted vs untrusted environments.
As an aside, Spanner I think acquires locks globally before writing. Maybe there's an interesting global-lock free model that just works using block chain, even if it's just for trusted parties (I.e. Google-internal).
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "blockchain as a distributed transaction DB" concept is more interesting than I thought Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system.
The way I understood the proof of work system is that it's there to determine which block is accepted as truth. So during a conflict, the first to solve the proof of work puzzle has their block accepted. For distributed databases, when there are multiple conflicting transactions that touch the same data, I could see the proof of work as a method to determine which transactions win, especially in a global, multi-maste…
You can have multiple winners at the same time. Proof of work doesn't solve the problem of conflicts. Everyone still has to pick which fork to follow, and you can't really consider something committed until it's buried under multiple blocks that you're confident the majority agree on.
Re: Daiwa to adopt blockchain for Myanmar stock trading
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "blockchain as a distributed transaction DB" concept is more interesting than I thought Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system.
> Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system. Blockchain doesn't imply PoW. You could consider each block minted with e.g. a M of N signature scheme, in the case of a stock-trading system you don't need open anonymous/participation and it's quite fine to rely on trusted parties.
I suppose, but at that point you're really blurring the line between 'blockchain' and 'authenticated database logs', and it starts to become a mere buzzword.