SETL now a BTS competitor

[santaclause102]

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.

[Empirical1.2]

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

[clout]

The only difference between a blockchain and a traditional database really comes down to immutability.

[santaclause102]

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. 

[clout]

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.

[bobmaloney]

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.

[clout]

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.

[Ben Mason]

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.

[Buck Fankers]

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". 

[cryptoMPA]

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.

[Tuck Fheman]

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.

[roadscape]

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.

 

[Riverhead]

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.

[Ben Mason]

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.

[mike623317]

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."