BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: lil_jay890 on July 28, 2015, 06:08:52 pm
-
Just read this article on cointelegraph
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup
Basically, they offer 100,000 transactions per second on their own blockchain. They require all keys to be registered by a regulatory body, which sounds a lot like bts proposed ability to whitelist.
Its making me nervous that all the competitors are popping up as our product continues to have endless upgrades & feature adds without ever having a release. Even if these competitors don't offer everything bts 2.0 is promising, it seems like there is someone to compete with almost every product bts offers. I think the ability they have to offer 100k tps really blunts our edge.
-
bts itself is still private and anonymous. Its just the user issued assets that have the option of being whitelist.
-
The article doesn't mention any technological partnerships.
Culligan explained that SETL has been designed from the ground up to meet the needs of the financial sector. Perhaps most importantly, SETL is more in tune with the regulatory landscape than existing blockchains.
Who is or will be building a 100,000 TPS distributed blockchain exchange and ledger for them?
-
Perhaps its a centralized blockchain, hence the speeds.
Financial sector does not really care much about the academic decentralized debate, its more about improving efficiency and cutting costs.
One node with a maybe two backups of the chain is good enough.
-
That's a coincidence...
-
SETL will introduce a permissioned blockchain that is set to run on enterprise level servers and is said to be able to handle 100,000 transactions per second.
they will run on ENTERPRISE level servers, so they are not decentraliced.
this is just a company using blockchain technology to proof what happens inside their "blackbox". As far as i understand it, this is a centralized solution.
-
Just read this article on cointelegraph
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup
Basically, they offer 100,000 transactions per second on their own blockchain. They require all keys to be registered by a regulatory body, which sounds a lot like bts proposed ability to whitelist.
Its making me nervous that all the competitors are popping up as our product continues to have endless upgrades & feature adds without ever having a release. Even if these competitors don't offer everything bts 2.0 is promising, it seems like there is someone to compete with almost every product bts offers. I think the ability they have to offer 100k tps really blunts our edge.
How do you know they didn't just license it from CNX? This would not be considered a competitor to BitShares.. so I would think they would be fine with licensing it... didn't Bytemaster JUST recently say something about a big bank looking at Bitshares?
-
Just read this article on cointelegraph
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup
Basically, they offer 100,000 transactions per second on their own blockchain. They require all keys to be registered by a regulatory body, which sounds a lot like bts proposed ability to whitelist.
Its making me nervous that all the competitors are popping up as our product continues to have endless upgrades & feature adds without ever having a release. Even if these competitors don't offer everything bts 2.0 is promising, it seems like there is someone to compete with almost every product bts offers. I think the ability they have to offer 100k tps really blunts our edge.
How do you know they didn't just license it from CNX? This would not be considered a competitor to BitShares.. so I would think they would be fine with licensing it... didn't Bytemaster JUST recently say something about a big bank looking at Bitshares?
Clearly not a big bank. They're getting their facts wrong anyhow. We do 150K TPS not 100K TPS. If they can announce, why can't we announce? Why didn't the mention BTS?
-
Well... what's the point of a centralized blockchain anyway ?
-
Just read this article on cointelegraph
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup
Basically, they offer 100,000 transactions per second on their own blockchain. They require all keys to be registered by a regulatory body, which sounds a lot like bts proposed ability to whitelist.
Its making me nervous that all the competitors are popping up as our product continues to have endless upgrades & feature adds without ever having a release. Even if these competitors don't offer everything bts 2.0 is promising, it seems like there is someone to compete with almost every product bts offers. I think the ability they have to offer 100k tps really blunts our edge.
How do you know they didn't just license it from CNX? This would not be considered a competitor to BitShares.. so I would think they would be fine with licensing it... didn't Bytemaster JUST recently say something about a big bank looking at Bitshares?
Clearly not a big bank. They're getting their facts wrong anyhow. We do 150K TPS not 100K TPS. If they can announce, why can't we announce? Why didn't the mention BTS?
NDA most likely.. dont want their competition running to the store where they just got their shiny new purse to show off.
-
Who is or will be building a 100,000 TPS distributed blockchain exchange and ledger for them?
CMX..? ;)
Agree with @Shentist, makes about as much sense as a centralized exchange like NASDAQ using a blockchain. Be interesting to see where block signing occurs in this system - and how 'distributed' it is in reality. Seems 'blockchain' is fast becoming a buzzword Finance houses feel a need to bandy about just to prove they are moving with the times - whilst missing the whole essence of the technology.
-
How do you know they didn't just license it from CNX? This would not be considered a competitor to BitShares.. so I would think they would be fine with licensing it... didn't Bytemaster JUST recently say something about a big bank looking at Bitshares?
I'd be surprised if this was the case because Randall claims that they have internally tested SETL to 5,000 TPS.
According to bytemaster, we have heard of at least a couple different 2.0 TPS tests, one well below 5,000 TPS, due to speed issues concerning the creation of the transactions, IIRC. As well as the 180,000 TPS test, which is where the "conservative" 100,000 TPS claim is supposedly based.
It sounds to me that this is more of an Ethereum-like projection of possible capability.
My first thought was something like Hyperledger (which has used the 5,000 TPS claim in the past) - but the articles keep referring to a "blockchain", so...probably not.
Additionally, how would this *NOT* be considered a competitor to Bitshares?
-
“Understanding how financial markets work has been key to the design process so far. Solutions in the world of finance need to address practical issues such as capital usage, bank liquidity and regulatory permissions. SETL is the product of the decades of financial markets expertise of its founders as well as genuine technical innovation.”
Condemned by they're own words......
They understand that current financial markets work by force & fraud because this is obvious to anyone with a working mind. Instead of attempting to use blockchain technology as it was intended, to free human transactions from corrupt centralisation, they have opted to build a system with enhanced potential for corruption. This is the opposite of 'genuine' technical innovation. This project could only be seen as a competitor to Bitshares if network participants do not care about the difference.
-
“Understanding how financial markets work has been key to the design process so far. Solutions in the world of finance need to address practical issues such as capital usage, bank liquidity and regulatory permissions. SETL is the product of the decades of financial markets expertise of its founders as well as genuine technical innovation.”
Condemned by they're own words......
They understand that current financial markets work by force & fraud because this is obvious to anyone with a working mind. Instead of attempting to use blockchain technology as it was intended, to free human transactions from corrupt centralisation, they have opted to build a system with enhanced potential for corruption. This is the opposite of 'genuine' technical innovation. This project could only be seen as a competitor to Bitshares if network participants do not care about the difference.
I decided to dig a little further into this story.. and I have to call bullshit on it.
The 'announcement' as it were was weak and only made it's way around crypto circles.. which means its likely part of a pump and dump strategy of some sort or attempting to impress someone out there who might be looking to invest in something.
It looks like they literally went over the Bitshares features set and decided to call it all their own but under their control.. as far as features go in this particular application.
If this was real news it would be seen in the likes of Reuters Bloomberg or WSJ.
If I was a betting man.. I would say these guys might be crytponomex first lawsuit in licensing infringement the way it sounds.
-
“Understanding how financial markets work has been key to the design process so far. Solutions in the world of finance need to address practical issues such as capital usage, bank liquidity and regulatory permissions. SETL is the product of the decades of financial markets expertise of its founders as well as genuine technical innovation.”
Condemned by they're own words......
They understand that current financial markets work by force & fraud because this is obvious to anyone with a working mind. Instead of attempting to use blockchain technology as it was intended, to free human transactions from corrupt centralisation, they have opted to build a system with enhanced potential for corruption. This is the opposite of 'genuine' technical innovation. This project could only be seen as a competitor to Bitshares if network participants do not care about the difference.
I decided to dig a little further into this story.. and I have to call bullshit on it.
The 'announcement' as it were was weak and only made it's way around crypto circles.. which means its likely part of a pump and dump strategy of some sort or attempting to impress someone out there who might be looking to invest in something.
It looks like they literally went over the Bitshares features set and decided to call it all their own but under their control.. as far as features go in this particular application.
If this was real news it would be seen in the likes of Reuters Bloomberg or WSJ.
If I was a betting man.. I would say these guys might be crytponomex first lawsuit in licensing infringement the way it sounds.
I agree, the whole article sounds empty....I really don't know how this stuff gets published.
-
They understand that current financial markets work by force & fraud because this is obvious to anyone with a working mind. Instead of attempting to use blockchain technology as it was intended, to free human transactions from corrupt centralisation, they have opted to build a system with enhanced potential for corruption. This is the opposite of 'genuine' technical innovation. This project could only be seen as a competitor to Bitshares if network participants do not care about the difference.
I really hope this is not the standard CNX chooses to adopt to define "competition".
I'd be really upset to see that they would concede 99% of the population and potential user base that do not care about the difference - to the centralized, good ol' boy competition in favor of the <1% of us that do care about the difference.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup
SETL will initially target the payments business to subsequently move into financial markets including foreign exchange, bonds and possibly stocks. Much like the Bitcoin blockchain, the SETL blockchain will allow users to transfer both money as well as assets directly among each other.
^^^ This is the very definition of "competition" and as far as I understand, aiming for these markets are the entire reason it was decided to delay Bitshares in order to incorporate white/black-listing and other tools to comply with KYC/AML and other regulator requests.
-
If I was a betting man.. I would say these guys might be crytponomex first lawsuit in licensing infringement the way it sounds.
If I was a betting man.. I would be worried they are one of the first to license Graphene from CNX. We just haven't been told about it yet.
The person involved Peter Randall, seems very credible at first glance.
-
Why r u worried? Isn't it a good thing?
-
Either they are on par with us, having ALREADY developed a system that can run 100,000 transactions per second or they are a yet to be announced partner. I was trying to see when they claim to go-live but couldn't find anything.
BANX expects a September go live. It's essentially august now, so I think the devs should be able to tell us if a go live in 6 weeks is on the table or not.
"The SETL infrastructure has demonstrated speeds of up to 5000 transactions per second in tests, says Culligan, and is expected to reach speeds of 100,000 transactions per second in an enterprise environment.
Culligan and Randall insist that the business case shows solid revenue flows and say that the company is in talks with a number of first tier institutions who are looking to commercialise blockchain technology."
-
They understand that current financial markets work by force & fraud because this is obvious to anyone with a working mind. Instead of attempting to use blockchain technology as it was intended, to free human transactions from corrupt centralisation, they have opted to build a system with enhanced potential for corruption. This is the opposite of 'genuine' technical innovation. This project could only be seen as a competitor to Bitshares if network participants do not care about the difference.
I really hope this is not the standard CNX chooses to adopt to define "competition".
I'd be really upset to see that they would concede 99% of the population and potential user base that do not care about the difference - to the centralized, good ol' boy competition in favor of the <1% of us that do care about the difference.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup
SETL will initially target the payments business to subsequently move into financial markets including foreign exchange, bonds and possibly stocks. Much like the Bitcoin blockchain, the SETL blockchain will allow users to transfer both money as well as assets directly among each other.
^^^ This is the very definition of "competition" and as far as I understand, aiming for these markets are the entire reason it was decided to delay Bitshares in order to incorporate white/black-listing and other tools to comply with KYC/AML and other regulator requests.
I'm certainly not suggesting we concede or 'abandon' any part of the population to centralist bankers. I believe more and more of the world's population will come to appreciate the difference and demand systems that are resistant to corruption. In which case systems like Bitshares will retain a distinct advantage. As mentioned in other posts in this thread, initially by Ander, UIA's will be able to comply with regulations but the blockchain and its governance will remain decentralised with corruption resistant features intact.
-
This is like the Wright Brothers. While they got the credit, at least in the US, there were many other people doing similar things in other places with very similar results. It would be silly for us to think that we have this blockchain thing all figured out while everyone else prays at the alter of Bitcoin.
For all the people that have never heard of Bitshares there are technologies and projects that we have never heard of. We will be a big part of the next wave but we won't be alone.
Again, the space is huge. People will learn in time the dangers of centralized enterprise, like we have with the massive losses to centralized exchanges. There will be a culling for sure.
-
This is like the Wright Brothers. While they got the credit, at least in the US, there were many other people doing similar things in other places with very similar results. It would be silly for us to think that we have this blockchain thing all figured out while everyone else prays at the alter of Bitcoin.
For all the people that have never heard of Bitshares there are technologies and projects that we have never heard of. We will be a big part of the next wave but we won't be alone.
Again, the space is huge. People will learn in time the dangers of centralized enterprise, like we have with the massive losses to centralized exchanges. There will be a culling for sure.
+5%
-
Just read this article on cointelegraph
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114993/founder-of-european-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-startup
Basically, they offer 100,000 transactions per second on their own blockchain. They require all keys to be registered by a regulatory body, which sounds a lot like bts proposed ability to whitelist.
Its making me nervous that all the competitors are popping up as our product continues to have endless upgrades & feature adds without ever having a release. Even if these competitors don't offer everything bts 2.0 is promising, it seems like there is someone to compete with almost every product bts offers. I think the ability they have to offer 100k tps really blunts our edge.
How do you know they didn't just license it from CNX? This would not be considered a competitor to BitShares.. so I would think they would be fine with licensing it... didn't Bytemaster JUST recently say something about a big bank looking at Bitshares?
Clearly not a big bank. They're getting their facts wrong anyhow. We do 150K TPS not 100K TPS. If they can announce, why can't we announce? Why didn't the mention BTS?
[00:35:00] bytemaster: So in a single thread I believe we can get to 500,000 transactions per second, maybe 1 million transactions per second, once we have all of the optimizations in place, leaving network bandwidth to be the primary motivator for not scaling that high. That’s on a single thread.
-
I agree, the whole article sounds empty....I really don't know how this stuff gets published.
You can pay to get an article published.
-
I agree, the whole article sounds empty....I really don't know how this stuff gets published.
You can pay to get an article published.
I don't trust any cryptocurrency article that contains less than 3 profanities and at least one usage of the word "scam". :P
-
I agree, the whole article sounds empty....I really don't know how this stuff gets published.
You can pay to get an article published.
Sure, I mean from a journalistic integrity point of view. Bias is everywhere....again, we need reputational accountability to improve journalism.
-
I think that everyone needs to realize that bitshares has several competitors that can handle high levels of throughput and transaction processing. I don't think that SETL has tested 100,000tps but I do not doubt their claim. The devs of Hyperledger have also claimed a transaction load of 500,000 tps. Don't be surprised if Ripple or Stellar make similar claims in the future.
-
I think that everyone needs to realize that bitshares has several competitors that can handle high levels of throughput and transaction processing. I don't think that SETL has tested 100,000tps but I do not doubt their claim. The devs of Hyperledger have also claimed a transaction load of 500,000 tps. Don't be surprised if Ripple or Stellar make similar claims in the future.
Neither Hyperledger, Ripple nor Stellar use a blockchain for consensus.
The TPS of Bitshares 2.0, while utilizing a blockchain, is one of the more impressive things that sets it apart from the field.
Reading other SETL articles - it looks as though SETL is making a push for a funding round, so I'm starting to think that maybe that is the reason for the article(s).
I'm leaning more toward thinking that Randall is misstating or misunderstanding blockchain/consensus technology or just being generous with exaggeration for any potential investors.
-
Block chain or no blockchain, decentralized consensus or centralized consensus. None of those differences matter. All that matters is efficiency. Do these systems allow for the efficient, reliable and relevantly transparent dissemination of actionable information.
To say that a company or system is not a competitor because they don't use a block chain is like saying that a solar company is not the competitor of nuclear company.
Bitshares wont ever process 100,000 tps if not used by industries that require that throughput and I guarantee that they don't care about whether a block chain is used versus a distributed ledger, versus a centralized database that is more accessible by those parties that need access to transaction details.
-
Block chain or no blockchain, decentralized consensus or centralized consensus. None of those differences matter. All that matters is efficiency. Do these systems allow for the efficient, reliable and relevantly transparent dissemination of actionable information.
To say that a company or system is not a competitor because they don't use a block chain is like saying that a solar company is not the competitor of nuclear company.
Bitshares wont ever process 100,000 tps if not used by industries that require that throughput and I guarantee that they don't care about whether a block chain is used versus a distributed ledger, versus a centralized database that is more accessible by those parties that need access to transaction details.
They might care though about properties of blockchains (centralized or not) compared to centralized databases. The properties I am thinking of are the ability to distribute trust / control over the database / blockchain, the ability assign rights to parties / the public to monitor the integrity of the database and how it is updated etc. So the distinction of blockchain vs. centralized database makes sense with respect to the functional output of these two types of systems.
-
The only difference between a blockchain and a traditional database really comes down to immutability.
-
Block chain or no blockchain, decentralized consensus or centralized consensus. None of those differences matter. All that matters is efficiency. Do these systems allow for the efficient, reliable and relevantly transparent dissemination of actionable information.
To say that a company or system is not a competitor because they don't use a block chain is like saying that a solar company is not the competitor of nuclear company.
Bitshares wont ever process 100,000 tps if not used by industries that require that throughput and I guarantee that they don't care about whether a block chain is used versus a distributed ledger, versus a centralized database that is more accessible by those parties that need access to transaction details.
I agree they are competitors, especially if one of them used Graphene and there was a conflict of interest for BTS developers.
But don't you think a centralised blockchain would be a riskier place to hold funds?
Centralised exchanges are easily target-able & also have high failure rates - http://www.coindesk.com/45-percent-of-bitcoin-exchanges-fail-study-finds/ Funds in traditional banks are also easily target-able. Most banks are also extremely over-leveraged and far too risky for the interest the currently pay http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/european-bank-bail-ins-banks-vulnerable-today-2008-crisis-0
I also think a decentralised blockchain would be able to offer greater privacy.
Regards possible customers that generate lots of transactions, the gambling industry would be one. Bet365 for example has $40 Billion+ turnover and processes hundreds of millions of transactions. They've constructed complex payment systems and go to a lot of effort to operate in greyer areas because that's where the profit is. I imagine they could make good use of a decentralised exchange and BitCNY and would appreciate the privacy it provides.
• Bet365 frequently changes its website addresses in China, thereby side-stepping attempts by local regulators to close sites down.
• The company has constructed a complex payments system that allows it to take bets placed using China’s currency, the renminbi.
The Guardian has established that only about half of the £1.3bn the company won from gamblers in 2013 came from countries where bet365 possessed a licence to operate.
While that statistic does not imply the remainder was won from markets with legal restrictions on online gambling, industry analysts say a sizeable portion of the winnings must come from Asia, and principally China.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/03/bet365-profit-china-online-gambling
Pre-tax profits have risen by more than 44 per cent to £213.8 million – compared to £148 million – as the firm's 2.9 million active users in 2013/14 wagered more than £26 billion.
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/bet-365-reports-massive-rise-profits-Stoke-Trent/story-21449091-detail/story.html
-
The only difference between a blockchain and a traditional database really comes down to immutability.
The main property (and there are big differences how this immutability is established which divides blockchains into centralized and decentralized ones) is immutability but other related properties are transparency and verifiability and the combination of immutability and asym. cryptography is what leads to properties of blockchains centralized databases don't have respectively use cases that do not make sense for centr. databases like smart contracts, trustworthy identity systems, actual settlement through the database / blockchain. From the latter also results cheaper and faster settlement as well as less settlement risk because the database and the settlement system is merged (no separate settlement process required that settles between various company internal databases)
I think it is all a continuum of systems: Immutability might in one blockchain come from distributed control and in the other blockchain where control is centralized from transparency and verifiability of the actions of the entity that is in control of the blockchain combined with the legal accountability of the party with centralized control. So also immutability comes from different sources and can be of different kinds.