0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: clout on July 24, 2015, 07:58:23 pm@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetryNo. The purpose of a blockchain is decentralization in which no single entity has control over what is recorded or how it is recorded and consensus has to be reached for most all decisions. You can achieve information symmetry with a distributed database, but not consensus. Why even coin the term "blockchain" in the first place if you are just going to use a centralized distributed database, which is nothing new and has been around for decades?
@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 24, 2015, 08:01:49 pmQuote from: clout on July 24, 2015, 07:58:23 pm@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.or simply to be able to extract rent from all transactions and assets on their turf, like any other gang.So won't companies that list in safe & tax haven jurisdictions on a globally accessible, effectively decentralised and very private blockchain make them obsolete, because of the savings to companies and their shareholders in the form of reduced taxes/rent?
Quote from: clout on July 24, 2015, 07:58:23 pm@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.or simply to be able to extract rent from all transactions and assets on their turf, like any other gang.
@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.
Quote from: donkeypong on July 24, 2015, 06:06:49 amQuote from: clout on July 23, 2015, 10:49:24 pm I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to investIf NASDAQ invested, it would be kind of like that Overstock thing: they'd control it, or it would have to be oriented towards their needs. I'm sure we'd all be richer and glad the technology was going widespread, but it would be like a startup getting bought out by Google. 12 months later, the original folks would quit the new project, fork it and go out to (re-) build what they really wanted. Or they'd retire to the beach.Which part of your assertion is bad for us. Exchanges, central securities depositories and central counterparties can use the blockchain to make their operations more efficient transparent and less risky. I want the broader financial system to gain from this technology if its centralized or not. And if you don't like the restrictions exchanges put on their markets you don't have to trade in them. Its really that simple.
Quote from: clout on July 23, 2015, 10:49:24 pm I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to investIf NASDAQ invested, it would be kind of like that Overstock thing: they'd control it, or it would have to be oriented towards their needs. I'm sure we'd all be richer and glad the technology was going widespread, but it would be like a startup getting bought out by Google. 12 months later, the original folks would quit the new project, fork it and go out to (re-) build what they really wanted. Or they'd retire to the beach.
I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest
@Helicopterben let's agree to disagree. I can't really conced any of my points if you don't see the logic
I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol.
In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.
First of all, it's impossible for a centralized entity to create its OWN blockchain. That is contradictory. They would just end up with a database. Maybe a distributed database, but not a fully decentralized database, a.k.a blockchain. Perhaps they could create a ledger distributed among multiple exchanges, banks, and/or financial institutions in which all entities compete among each other to validate transactions and change parameters on the network, but it's difficult to tell how decentralized such a system would be. Likely it would be even more centralized than ripple. It almost surely would not be opt-in... we could call it a psuedo-blockchain, but not a real blockchain such as bitshares or bitcoin. The best chains will be the ones that started from a grassroots effort and grew organically over time. Chains started and maintained by the establishment will most likely not keep end user interests in mind with regards to monetary inflation, theft, confiscation, ect. In other words, they will be more centralized and consequently less secure. Their best bet is to adapt to the technology already being produced, and many of them are doing just that.My grand vision would be for exchanges such as the nasdaq to replace their backend databases with the bitshares blockchain, doing so in a way that users retain control of their assets at all times, even when in trade or under contract. I imagine we are quite a ways off from this becoming a reality.
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 24, 2015, 03:06:07 pmQuote from: clout on July 23, 2015, 11:27:12 pmThese exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services. Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.why don't you think exchanges won't build their own blockchains? i'd say it's a strong possibility. either that, or subsets of financial institutions forming collaborative, but still privately operated, chains. i'd also strongly assume that what we're doing here with Bitshares is fully on the Wall ST radar; these guys aren't idiots, money can buy a lot of brilliant minds. good point re: the OTC assets...i can see that being a first step to apply the new tech.You should read flash boys. While the book is mostly about the practices of HFTs, it provides pretty good insight on the disconnect between financial professionals and the software engineers that create and operate the platforms they use. I don't think the ppl at these companies that make the decisions have any idea how to technically integrate blockchain solutions into their business model.The thing about the block chain is that the concept of a public database is antithetical to MO of a competitive company or a fiduciary institution. The blockchains not a big priority for them even if they make the claim that they think the underlying tech of bitcoin can have widespread implications for the financial system.
Quote from: clout on July 23, 2015, 11:27:12 pmThese exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services. Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.why don't you think exchanges won't build their own blockchains? i'd say it's a strong possibility. either that, or subsets of financial institutions forming collaborative, but still privately operated, chains. i'd also strongly assume that what we're doing here with Bitshares is fully on the Wall ST radar; these guys aren't idiots, money can buy a lot of brilliant minds. good point re: the OTC assets...i can see that being a first step to apply the new tech.
These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services. Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.
but a major financial institution could replicate our work quickly for < $1M dev budget, which is petty cash in that world.
We tried marketing bitusd. That didn't really work... There are a variety of alternatives to bitusd. The fact that it is collateralized by bts given the current market sentiment make it just as attractive as an IOU from an exchange or a ripple gateway. The crypto community doesnt appreciate the bitshares consensus mechanism because they think its centralized. Exchanges don't care about the centralized vs decentralized debate. They only care about efficiency. We have the most efficient, robust and regulatory compliant block chain. Shouldn't we leverage that to gain partnerships?Ripple is the second largest crypto by marketcap. That's not because the crypto community endorses them its because financial institutions endorse them. CME group has a minority stake in ripple. I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest
@Akado The financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry. There are myriad barriers to entry and partnerships with banks and exchanges are paramount. I really don't think any industry need the blockchain more than the exchange industry. We are already better than nasdaq by creating a product that consolidates the entire trade workflow but in order for thus to get off the ground we need to be registered as an ECN or MTF. We need to have connections with broker dealers. We need to have connections with market makers. In general we need to stop thinking crypto and start thinking industrial.
Quote from: Akado on July 23, 2015, 09:20:02 pmNote:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]Yes this. Make something better so that Nasdaq will NEED to partner with us.
Note:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]
Quote from: Helikopterben on July 23, 2015, 08:47:21 pmQuote from: Akado on July 23, 2015, 08:31:43 pmWe should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.This ^Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype. I don't think it would go over so well. The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk." Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate. True. Also whoever wrote the article and Bloomberg probably dont have as good as an idea about bitcoin as most of us do because we have all been following it and involved so long. I do agree. However based on what they said in the last dev hang out one can only hope the "big bank" that is taking notice of bitshares is "big" enough to bring it to Nasdaqs attention....one can only guess....exciting times wow
Quote from: Akado on July 23, 2015, 08:31:43 pmWe should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.This ^Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype. I don't think it would go over so well. The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk." Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.
We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.
Quote from: Helikopterben on July 23, 2015, 08:47:21 pmQuote from: Akado on July 23, 2015, 08:31:43 pmWe should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.This ^Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype. I don't think it would go over so well. The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk." Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.You don't need a working implementation to pitch this to exchanges. We just don't have adequate connections.
Quote from: xeroc on July 23, 2015, 07:43:25 pmSeems I overestimated how much time NASDAQ invests in research prior to execution ..In the end, we should try to be a lot more present at conferences, meetups and workshops/hackatons..So I don't think its simply an issue of research. Nadaq is one of the most technologically advances exchanges in all areas of the exchange business not just trade execution. They really want to use this technology to consolidate back office operations because it will allow for them to have a competitive advantage over those other exchanges that have more heavily invested in clearing services. To be fair they are only just getting their feet wet and bitcoin being the premier blockchain at the moment is a good way of doing that. They are using bitcoin to manage cap tables which can be adequately performed using bitcoins blockchain and open assets. I can't remember where exactly I reqd this, but I'm pretty sure they are looking for alternatives to bitcoin going forward. I think it would be really beneficial to reach out nasdaq to give them an idea of what this technology is capable in terms of scalability and in terms of compliance. Additionally I think it would be good to reach out CMEs Strategic Investment Group, which invested in ripple. Our pitch to these exchanges should be that clients can create their own ETPs, thereby allowing these exchanges to capture a larger share of the OTC markets and position themselves for changes in regulatory guidance such as MiFID II which will restrict OTC trading in the future.
Seems I overestimated how much time NASDAQ invests in research prior to execution ..In the end, we should try to be a lot more present at conferences, meetups and workshops/hackatons..
Quote from: Ander on July 23, 2015, 07:54:26 pm"Nasdaq to downgrade from 100000s of tps to 7". lol.For the financial industry a little will go a looong way. I'm sure that's sufficient for Nasdaq's needs. They get a indisputable ledger every ten minutes for their millions upon millions of trades-- down siziing completely their administration and upkeep for accounting.
"Nasdaq to downgrade from 100000s of tps to 7". lol.
Quote from: jsidhu on July 23, 2015, 06:47:18 pmcan someone point them over to our website?Didn't you read the article? They WANT to use legacy Bitcoin technology A company of that size should have experts that are able to browse over CMC and read about "competitors" and alternatives to bitcoin .. unless they just want to use the bitcoin hype
can someone point them over to our website?
Information on bitshares has not been readily accessible. These companies are not looking at CMC or forums to find partnerships. We have to reach out to reputable VCs or to exchanges like Nasdaq directly. There has been very little emphasis on strategic planning and partnerships by the the core team.