|
|
@ofnumbers | |||||
|
Bitcoin has turned into an artificially expensive permissioned ledger & primary utility of BTC as bearer asset morphs into registered asset
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
re: fork, there are 2 reasons that financial institutions should rethink using a communal/public chain 2 transfer title of registered assets
|
||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
the first reason is that despite posturing by some CEOs/VCs, forks can and still do happen due to differing economic incentives, not tech...
|
||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
this 6-block fork cost $38,250 in lost wages for hashers who outsourced security (block making) to at least 3 pools (~40% of the hashrate).
|
||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
2nd reason, for entities using watermarked tokens like Open Assets (Chain, NASDAQ, Gyft), Counterparty, Omni: if a user of their product...
|
||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
...sent a transaction that was in one of the orphaned blocks, this orphaning could dramatically impact time-sensitive financial instruments
|
||
|
|
Wong Joon Ian
@joonian
|
7月4日 |
|
@ofnumbers meaning pointless to use watermarked tokens on btc blockchain?
|
||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
@joonian #1 watermarked tokens do not have post-trade finality: clearmatics.com/2015/05/no-bit… #2 it potentially destabilizes the network incentives
|
||
|
|
Gabriel D Vine
@GabrielDVine
|
7月4日 |
|
@ofnumbers @iang_fc Why artificially? Speculation on future use potential is a natural human process, like preserving fruit for the winter.
|
||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
@GabrielDVine @iang_fc the marginal costs of running a permissioned network is different. that is not to say one is "better" than the other.
|
||
|
|
Gabriel D Vine
@GabrielDVine
|
7月4日 |
|
@ofnumbers @iang_fc Then why is one more "natural" than the other?
|
||
|
|
Tim Swanson
@ofnumbers
|
7月4日 |
|
@GabrielDVine @iang_fc permissioned ledgers are more effective w/ off-chain, registered assets and permissionless with virtual bearer asset
|
||
|
|
Ian Grigg
@iang_fc
|
7月4日 |
|
@ofnumbers @gabrieldvine Essential diff is that if issued assets have an ISSUER then rules exist & state has modicum of control anyway.
|
||
|
|
Ian Grigg
@iang_fc
|
7月4日 |
|
@ofnumbers @gabrieldvine If assets issued to contract by ISSUER, there's little point paying for PoW. Permission is probably cheaper.
|
||
|
|
Ian Grigg
@iang_fc
|
7月4日 |
|
@ofnumbers @gabrieldvine (These are generalisms. NASDAQ can still experiment… so can you & I. But there's no avoiding the contract…)
|
||
|
|
Ian Grigg
@iang_fc
|
7月4日 |
|
@ofnumbers @gabrieldvine There is no avoiding the contract: blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015… Nor the liabilities. Snake oil not withstanding…
|
||
|
|
Otonomos
@Otonomos
|
7月5日 |
|
@ofnumbers not sure if same analysis applies to shares in non-publicly traded companies
|
||