Blockchain takes us back to medieval times(ftalphaville.ft.com)
ftalphaville.ft.com
Blockchain takes us back to medieval times
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/06/14/1560516935000/How-blockchain-takes-us-back-to-medieval-times/
38 comments
Thanks for the summary. The egregious attempts to accrue data these days are getting annoying.
> They author is debating using distributed ledgers for security trading, which I don't think anyone is seriously considering.
https://www.tzero.com/ You mean like this?
It's interesting the way commentators tend to take all pieces of some random slice of the blockchain space as "the way things are always will be and must be by definition", especially without even seeming to realise that's what they're doing as you say with the example of assuming that you can only possibly use credit rather than debit instruments on a DLT.
> They author is debating using distributed ledgers for security trading, which I don't think anyone is seriously considering.
https://www.tzero.com/ You mean like this?
It's interesting the way commentators tend to take all pieces of some random slice of the blockchain space as "the way things are always will be and must be by definition", especially without even seeming to realise that's what they're doing as you say with the example of assuming that you can only possibly use credit rather than debit instruments on a DLT.
"This feels like promoted content for the paper, which is hidden behind a lead generation form."
Here is the link to the PDF:
http://perspectives.dtcc.com/downloads/get?id=ce92d881-24b1-...
Here is the link to the PDF:
http://perspectives.dtcc.com/downloads/get?id=ce92d881-24b1-...
I think it promotes FT's content as one of the few subscribeware products FT produces that isn't sealed away behind FT's paywall. I used to enjoy reading it on an RSS-like client (on a Palm device of all things-- it was that long ago) but I'm absolutely not financially savvy enough to gauge its credibility.
While I'm in general a blockchain & crypto skeptic- worth noting that FT Alphaville are not arguing in good faith, they are self-proclaimed contrarians who are fanatically anti-tech, anti-tech companies, and in particular anti-US tech companies. They are especially obsessed with blockchain and Tesla/Musk. They churn out 1-2 anti-crypto or anti-Musk or anti-Silicon Valley opinion pieces like this literally every day, apparently for a British finance industry audience. I used to enjoy the blog, but it's veered into anti-tech (and frankly, borderline anti-American tech) zealotry. (None of this is meant to be an endorsement of blockchain, but I can be skeptical while still examining the system in good faith)
FT have the same issue with Brexit - woah there! take your mouse of off of that down vote and hear me out!!!
Since the vote came back they have had a constant stream of negative articles both related to the current days events and repeats of what they have said on previous weeks.
Their authors are now at the point that if Brexit does happen, and it is anything less than a total economic apocalypse, they will look like they got it wrong.
Since the vote came back they have had a constant stream of negative articles both related to the current days events and repeats of what they have said on previous weeks.
Their authors are now at the point that if Brexit does happen, and it is anything less than a total economic apocalypse, they will look like they got it wrong.
to be honest, generating 1-2 real and credible articles per day talking bad things against kleptocurrencies and elon musk, is a very banal feat.
http://archive.is/fCr8o in case you get the register box like I did
Also reformatted at https://outline.com/7NYFsJ
Outline is wholly inferior to the Internet Archive [1]?
Outline is a private site run by unknown people with unknown motivations. Its privacy policy [2] (a) names no actual person or responsible entity, (b) permits business transfers (implying it's a for-profit entity) and (c) permits changes at Outline's sole discretion.
The Internet Archive, on the other hand, is a nonprofit run by known, reputable people.
[1] https://archive.org
[2] https://outline.com/privacy.html
Outline is a private site run by unknown people with unknown motivations. Its privacy policy [2] (a) names no actual person or responsible entity, (b) permits business transfers (implying it's a for-profit entity) and (c) permits changes at Outline's sole discretion.
The Internet Archive, on the other hand, is a nonprofit run by known, reputable people.
[1] https://archive.org
[2] https://outline.com/privacy.html
I don't have an opinion here, but note that the site archive.is has no connection with the Internet Archive (archive.org), and is a private site, not a nonprofit. In fact it used to be blacklisted on Wikipedia at one point, though not since 2016.
(I can't remember the details of why, but it appears to be because some bot was adding links to archive.is on Wikipedia. Discussions about this ban:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2016)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2014)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2014)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2013)
— there sure is a lot of discussion on Wikipedia. And the article about the site does not mention who it's run by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today)
(I can't remember the details of why, but it appears to be because some bot was adding links to archive.is on Wikipedia. Discussions about this ban:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2016)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2014)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2014)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... (2013)
— there sure is a lot of discussion on Wikipedia. And the article about the site does not mention who it's run by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today)
heretrix3 does not process Javascript. archive.is is not the same as Internet Archive.
http://web.archive.org/web/20190614190638/http://ftalphavill...
For text-only users, here is a version of the article that can be viewed without Javascript. Use Reader Mode if viewing with a CSS-enabled browser.
https://amp.ft.com/content/abd7ba0b-40ef-3876-857c-cd5d49ec5...
Charts:
https://d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net/production/2f20e7af-d9...
https://d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net/production/270ded67-d3...
Even with Javascript disabled, FT still tries to track users. From the URL submitted to HN:
http://web.archive.org/web/20190614190638/http://ftalphavill...
For text-only users, here is a version of the article that can be viewed without Javascript. Use Reader Mode if viewing with a CSS-enabled browser.
https://amp.ft.com/content/abd7ba0b-40ef-3876-857c-cd5d49ec5...
Charts:
https://d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net/production/2f20e7af-d9...
https://d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net/production/270ded67-d3...
Even with Javascript disabled, FT still tries to track users. From the URL submitted to HN:
<!-- Add fallback if browsers don't cut the mustard -->
<div class="o-tracking o--if-no-js" data-o-component="o-tracking">
<div style="background:url('https://spoor-api.ft.com/px.gif?data=%7B%22category%22%3A%22page%22%2C%20%22action%22%3A%22view%22%2C%20%22system%22%3A%7B%22apiKey%22%3A%22qUb9maKfKBtpRsdp0p2J7uWxRpGJEP%22%2C%22source%22%3A%22o-tracking%22%2C%22version%22%3A%221.0.0%22%7D%2C%22context%22%3A%7B%22product%22%3A%22next%22%2C%22app%22%3A%22alphaville%22%2C%22content%22%3A%7B%22asset_type%22%3A%22page%22%7D%7D%7D');"></div>
</div>Can you be more specific? What's your worry. I have never seen outline before and am fairly happy with what it appears to be doing (strip articles off of rubbish autoplay videos/unrelated images/links to other articles I am not interested in). Did you analyze what they are collecting/have evidence they alter the cleaned text?
That may be true but they're not really competing for archiving. As an end-user, I prefer an easy-to-read format, and outline is superior in that regard.
>>As an end-user, I prefer an easy-to-read format, and outline is superior in that regard.
Quite possibly an alternative/new fundraising channel for the Internet Archive.
Quite possibly an alternative/new fundraising channel for the Internet Archive.
This seems fantastic! I feel old and grumpy when I get angry at all the rubbish news website intersperse articles with. This seems a great solution.
I do think crypto will allow us to enter a new age feudalism. Companies are building houses on campus, they have cafeterias, they will have their own money. This will all be at the expense of the commons and the nation state. In the process of writing a well thought out piece (by my standards, I'm sure there will be haters) and I'll post in the coming weeks.
This is a really interesting line of thought which, coupled with current protections via this idea of corporate personhood, does begin to portray companies as being far above mere workers in power and status.
I don't get what this argument is.
Blockchain is software so you can just build layers on top of it that cover whatever business need you may have. If I look at the just the database layer of the current system, it'll also be "medieval" in certain respects.
Maybe blockchain isn't a viable technology, but this article doesn't make a particularly convincing argument against it.
Blockchain is software so you can just build layers on top of it that cover whatever business need you may have. If I look at the just the database layer of the current system, it'll also be "medieval" in certain respects.
Maybe blockchain isn't a viable technology, but this article doesn't make a particularly convincing argument against it.
There are actually several outfits explicitly dedicated to trading equities (and even mortgages) on blockchain. One of the most advanced is Polymath.io.
The implementation is true blockchain it just isn’t completely decentralized blockchain like bitcoin. Instead, trust authorities would establish client accounts after due diligence and KYC and AML requirements had been met. Then those accounts would leverage blockchain to facilitate transactions on a transparent and indelible ledger.
The implementation is true blockchain it just isn’t completely decentralized blockchain like bitcoin. Instead, trust authorities would establish client accounts after due diligence and KYC and AML requirements had been met. Then those accounts would leverage blockchain to facilitate transactions on a transparent and indelible ledger.
100% reserves on deposits doesn't prevent anyone from making loans. It only prevents them from doing so with demand deposits. For example, they are free to sell bonds - they just can't force depositors to buy bonds unless they choose to.
It takes us back because of pre-funding trades. I dont know what the author means...
I believe it's referring to the idea that because settlement of transactions happens instantly on blockchain, there is no lag time between a commitment to make a trade, and the trade itself, which means there is no credit, which means much less liquidity in markets.
I read this whitepaper: http://perspectives.dtcc.com/articles/steampunk-settlement
In it, they mention that there only needs to be deposited cash of something like $8 billion to enable like $250 billion (I may be getting the exact numbers wrong) worth of trades on the NYSE because they can offset trades against each other as they come in and settle the trades hours after they are entered without needing cash at the moment the trade is placed. If cash was required at the moment of placing the order, much, much more cash would be required than is currently required.
I read this whitepaper: http://perspectives.dtcc.com/articles/steampunk-settlement
In it, they mention that there only needs to be deposited cash of something like $8 billion to enable like $250 billion (I may be getting the exact numbers wrong) worth of trades on the NYSE because they can offset trades against each other as they come in and settle the trades hours after they are entered without needing cash at the moment the trade is placed. If cash was required at the moment of placing the order, much, much more cash would be required than is currently required.
I believe smart contracts could solve this. (I am not endorsing Ethereum.)
>which means there is no credit
Why not just have explicit credit instead of implicit credit?
Why not just have explicit credit instead of implicit credit?
I'm not really a finance guy, but just off the top of my head, explicit credit requires trust, which mostly defeats the purpose of the blockchain, where you're trying to transact without needing trust.
I also assume that explicit credit is more expensive administratively than the kind of liquidity provided by a clearinghouse. I guess technically the NYSE (or whoever the clearinghouse for the NYSE is) is extending traders credit in the sense that it must believe they are good for the trades they make without requiring them to post full collateral for every trade, so in a way, it is explicit, it's just not bilateral between each pair of traders.
But also, I'm in way over my head here.
I also assume that explicit credit is more expensive administratively than the kind of liquidity provided by a clearinghouse. I guess technically the NYSE (or whoever the clearinghouse for the NYSE is) is extending traders credit in the sense that it must believe they are good for the trades they make without requiring them to post full collateral for every trade, so in a way, it is explicit, it's just not bilateral between each pair of traders.
But also, I'm in way over my head here.
Once you start to do transactions that involve transfer of anything off-blockchain (ie. any really useful transaction) you still have the same issues with trust and credit as without blockchain or whatever. What blockchain solves is somewhat fast settlement of monetary-ish transfers, which to me looks like a problem that does not really exist. (In my exerience SEPA transfers are mostly instantenuous and generally irreversible)
To avoid the oracle problem you are forced to pre-fund you side of the contract with 'real' digital currency. But the financial system moves forward borrowing from the future and creating private money, neither of which is posible if you are forced to show upfront that you have the money to serve your financial obligations. Capitalism is not based on math, it is based on human trust, take that variable out and we are back into a pre-capitalist system, a medieval era.
TL;DR: Distributed ledgers don't allow enough circulating cash to make the economy go?
The author is debating using distributed ledgers for security trading, which I don't think anyone is seriously considering. Even if they are, the author is narrowly defining such a system and then attacking it based on it's narrow definition, without exploring the option of other financial instruments filling the gaps. I'm critical of blockchains/distributed ledgers/etc. in finance but this article just seems bizarre, until you try to see the original paper and hit a form wall.