193
194

Wall St talking about bitcoin at Consensus2015. Barclays: "45 blockchain experiments," Citi: "We tested. Bitcoin works as advertised", Sandander: "The tone around this has turned 180 degrees"... (i.imgur.com)

solled が 投稿

全 89 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]LeeWallis 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is this on video somewhere? Would love to watch.

[–]platypii 31ポイント32ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's so weird seeing the coindesk and citi logos together up on stage.

[–]jeanduluoz 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

it's so weird that coindesk literally still exists. I've stopped reading their articles

[–]Japface 9ポイント10ポイント  (9子コメント)

I know a lot of people here shit on lightning network, but i really hope sidechains and LN are up and running soon before big business comes in and imposes their will on the network to a point where change, experimentation, and decentralized transactions become a thing of the past.

[–]jimmydorry -5ポイント-4ポイント  (8子コメント)

I don't see what problem it solves. From what I understand, you are forcing everyone to pre-pay and lock away their funds for X amount of time for everything.

It also appears to rely specifically on being able to broadcast things on the blockchain, which applies the exact same pressure on the network as just transacting normally.

On a more fundamental level, using the lightning network would result in a completely different user experience than operating as we do now. We will be back to square 1 in terms of ease of usage... but maybe it can be made easier to understand. The more likely scenario though, is putting this technology further out of reach of the average Joe Bloe.

[–]Japface 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

well lightning network solves a lot of microtransaction issues, plus allowing refunds and what not, and it allows the network to do the kind of offchain transactions that a company like coinbase has to take completely off chain right now. lightning network isn't really as offchain as it sounds since any transactions that occur that don't fully connect immediately get dumped onto the regular blockchain. the broadcasts also only happen at the end of the period. so you could have had many transactions occur, but only the final balance of the collection of transactions is broadcast, which significantly reduces bloat.

also theres nothing forcing anyone to use the LN, you can still use bitcoin as is. its just the option is nice thats all. also sidechains allow us to develop other ideas using hte power of bitcoin without having to completely separate ourselves from it (ie building an independent blockchain).

[–]jimmydorry -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

I just had a look at the whitepaper, and it really does not appear to solve much at all.

One of the largest sections looks at how it all falls apart if blocks are full for any significant amount of time (i.e. a day or week). An attack like we are in right now, would literally kill LN... and that's before you even look at any of the LN specific attacks you could do.

It's novel to solve microtransactions, and a more structured approach to payment channels is nice... but it doesn't appear to solve the issue of normal payments, unless you want to start breaking all of your purchases into lots of small payments which seems to break the whole concept (you need to trust that all of those contracts can be resolved together).

Either I am missing the whole point of why it is hyped as a solution... or people don't understand what it is.

[–]exo762 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's novel to solve microtransactions, and a more structured approach to payment channels is nice... but it doesn't appear to solve the issue of normal payments, unless you want to start breaking all of your purchases into lots of small payments which seems to break the whole concept (you need to trust that all of those contracts can be resolved together).

Not sure what do you mean by "solving issue of normal payments".

unless you want to start breaking all of your purchases into lots of small payments

If you can do micro-transactions, you also can do normal transactions. Amount of money that can be send in one transaction is limited only by amount of money you have (or you hold in 2-2 multisig, in case of LN). You really don't understand how it works.

[–]Japface 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hmm I'm definitely no expert. Perhaps /u/nullc or /u/petertodd or someone else more knowledgeable could explain.

[–]jimmydorry -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think it's in their best interests to talk about it at all.

The best situation for them would be to just to continue pointing at it and say how it solves all of our issues and that the whitepaper is not reflective of how it will be implemented (because no code exists for it yet).

I would certainly love to hear how it fixes these issues, and the most fundamental issue that needs to be addressed of how they plan to get the number of transactions per person down ( I don't believe it would be possible to lower it to 3 transactions a year per user, like was mentioned in there ).

[–]3_Thumbs_Up 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The idea is that you can do an unlimited amount of cryptographically secure trustless transactions and still only need to settle 3 times per year on the blockchain. I could do all my yearly purchases with only using the blockchain a few times, without compromising security. What is not impressive by that?

[–]nullcGreg Maxwell - Bitcoin Expert 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Full" is the nearly perpetual state of blocks. When they are not at 1MB they are at some limit the miner is themselves imposing. The demand for free cost externalized highly replicated storage is effectively infinite.

In Lightning, if there is a dispute you will need to get your side in once someone has attempted a false closure before the user specified timeout expires. You can do this by paying enough fees, if there is some flooding dos attack and you find you haven't paid enough fees, your software will revise your transaction to pay the going rate. There is also a proposal called time-stop which can further reduces fees by extending your timeout if blocks are full of high fee transactions.

Your statement about breaking your purchases into lots of small payments doesn't follow for me. What are you thinking about there?

Up-thread you talk about "lock away their funds", though this isn't quite the case. A channel can have a bilateral close right away at any time (just the time it takes to have a transaction confirm); the time outs only come into effect with an uncooperative party on the other end of the link.

[–]exo762 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Real instant transactions without risk of double spend, micro transactions, scaling. And LN removes need for huge block sizes (whitepaper gives figure of 144MiB blocks to serve needs of whole humanity).

All those are pretty real, but they require a lot of work on level of LN nodes and wallets. It also requires that receiver is online when transaction is both initiated and finalized, which is not true for Bitcoin (apart from the fact that address generation is usually done per transaction and by receiver).

From user experience point of view not much changes.

[–]Introshine 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

"We tested. Math works as advertised."

~Citi

[–]baronofbitcoin 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Blockchain is plural in the slide. Hmmmm...what other blockchain could they be using?

[–]bitbombs 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the same question every attacker is asking.

[–]Bitcoinopoly 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

CitiCoin uses a blockchain.

[–]Introshine 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

My guess is Ripple. iew

[–]thieflar 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ripple doesn't have a blockchain.

TYL

[–]Bitfraud 12ポイント13ポイント  (47子コメント)

Is the word bitcoin being eliminated from peoples vocabulary?

[–]evoorhees 68ポイント69ポイント  (27子コメント)

Let them use the words they wish. It's been a beautiful rebranding... "respectable people" can now discuss this revolution without implicitly implying there is anything wrong with the current monetary system. The switch in terminology from Bitcoin to Blockchain is one of the best things that has happened.

[–]_axial 6ポイント7ポイント  (14子コメント)

Wont they just start using their own blockchain? edit: I mean not anything to do with Bitcoin.

[–]rezzme 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

their own blockchain?

This phrase is kind of a contradiction. If it's only one entity's "blockchain" then it's more or less an internal ledger. A blockchain necessarily distributes itself between peers and isn't "owned."

[–]DajZabrij 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because this one has network effect behind it, doesn't have national implication to it, and has huge amount of talent backing it.

[–]herzmeister 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I always thought that too, but as a banking IT guy recently told me, apparently banks also have many middlemen between them they want to eliminate (SWIFT etc); they do have lots of issues with inter-banking trading and settling, leading to legal costs etc, so a neutral protocol owned by no-one is a great tool for them as well

[–]Totenrune 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's kind of what I'm thinking. A business that created their own blockchain would be able to control the updates, fundamental changes and whatever. I may be wrong but I don't see large businesses simply rushing into bitcoin without having control of the core programming.

[–]ronnnumber 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

They don't control the internet and they use that.

[–]thieflar 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

A business that created their own blockchain would be able to control the updates, fundamental changes and whatever.

Yeah, the only problem is: there are no actual benefits of a centralized blockchain. It'd be like an "offline Internet terminal" - it's an oxymoron.

The entire benefit of a blockchain, the only reason why the tech is revolutionary, is the decentralized consensus it manages to achieve. Everything else can be done better and cheaper with a database, but that consensus is key.

So if you have a central authority instead, and they offer you a blockchain, the natural next question everyone will ask is: "What benefits would using this have?"

[–]hugolp 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

A centralized database is not a blockchain. So if they have their own "blockchain" they are not using blockchain technology, just a centralized database with a structure similar to a blockchain.

[–]gynoplasty -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why would they when there already is a great one supported internationally?

[–]Dranx 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Power, is this even a question?

[–]gynoplasty 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

They would lose that power if their chain got attacked. Not saying btc blockchain is impervious but it has weathered a few storms.

[–]TenshiS 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can't make your own blockchain and expect it to be a tenth as secure as bitcoin, which has a huge amount of computational power behind it. It's practically nearly impossible to catch up to it anytime soon

[–]Bitcoinopoly 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It costs $300million per year to run bitcoin. I think they have enough money to cover a system like that, but their greed will catch up to them and they'll make it cheap and weak.

[–]TenshiS -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody pays 300 million per year cash down for an experiment. You're kidding yourself of you think any company (except perhaps for the army) would be that crazy.

[–]solled[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

The common theme was that they're investigating all blockchains, from bitcoin to ethereum to their own. Many (e.g. Blythe Masters) said they're building tools/solutions to be blockchain agnostic.

[–]eragmus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where'd you get that from? Overstock said "agnostic". Blythe said she's using a combination of permissioned and permissionless (Bitcoin as the permissionless one).

[–]bitbombs 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

When do you think they'll figure out its nearly impossible to start a new chain securely. Especially if they advertise it.

[–]Rune4444 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Permissioned ledgers with low decentralization can cheaply be made to resist most attacks. Banks don't need decentralization, they just want transparency when they settle amongst each other.

[–]nad48 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

you don't need a blockchain for that. there has been many database auditing options for decades already and replication servers able to replicate at row, column, index, table and database level hugely escalable and with connections to any software package available in the world. blockchains were created to solve the byzantine trust problem. it is ridiculous to misuse the huge capabilities of db today but well the dazzled burocrats will talk with a it architect sooner or later. don't get me wrong i think blockchains are great but their main point is trustless nature and you need a blockchain that is not subject to any coercion and secure enough, if not you are missing the point and you could benefit of 30+ years of database advancee and of course already invested money in them. THE blockchain now is bitcoin, but well sadly we are going to live again the suffering of hundreds od customers from small centralized blockchain creators that offer a trust that is not there. we have seen it happen hundreds of times with many alts (some are interesting of couse but beware of the future sellet of the godly private blockchain because he will defraud many). wait and see

[–]Noosterdam 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

They have those already, and in whatever ways they don't, their developing new types of centralized ledgers is unrelated to Bitcoin or anything cutting edge about blockchain tech, despite the attempts to ride on Bitcoin's coattails (which is evidence that they have no actual useful product).

[–]Worle1bm 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why is it nearly impossible?

[–]Bitcoinopoly 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You'd have to hack their intranet. This is not a simple task of turning on some miners.

[–]sunshinerag 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Define what "respectable people" means to you?

[–]Cribbit 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

People who are already established in other money mediums.

[–]cqm -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not Taaki and neckbeards?

[–]Bitfraud -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Respectable like a gambling kingpin?

[–]pluribusblanks 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not according to the Citi quote: "We tested. Bitcoin works as advertised."

[–]DajZabrij 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Could you post a link?

[–]brighton36 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bitcoin is for drugs, terrorism, and not wanting to be labelled 'having been wrong'. Blockchain however can't be used for bad, and cures whatever ails you.

[–]cpgilliard78 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yeah, it's kind of interesting, as a developer, seeing large banks discussing data structures in this way. What's next? Hashtable experiments?

[–]btctroubadour 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Bitcoin is much more than a data structure, though. ;)

[–]cpgilliard78 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Blockchain is a data structure.

[–]Introshine 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes and Bitcoin (project) is made up of more than just the Blockchain. Wallet software, Mempool, mining pools, people, etc.

[–]cpgilliard78 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I know, but I wasn't talking about Bitcoin in my initial comment. I was talking about Blockchain. "Barclays: 45 Blockchain expiriments"

[–]Introshine 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure the use Doge and Feathercoin. jk

[–]btctroubadour 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

...and I was pointing out that the post you commented on was talking about Bitcoin, not simpy block chain(s). And obviously (IMO) the banks aren't discussing data structures, but the larger context in which Bitcoin exists, so I didn't understand why you framed your observation the way you did. Tongue-in-cheek, perhaps? :)

[–]gizram84 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Bitcoin is for drug dealers and domestic terrorists. Blockchain technology is for banks and venture capitalists.

Forget that we're all talking about the same damn thing.

[–]Introshine 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's marketing.

Example: You don't like co-located managed hosting for your VM's? Let's call it "Cloud VPS" and the suckers will come.

[–]ronnnumber 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Blockchain" is so ten minutes ago. We're on to "Shared Ledger Technology" now. Tee-hee!

[–]n0mdep 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

To be fair, a lot of those experiments have nothing to do with Bitcoin -- they're looking at private chains, often Ethereum forks for the smart contract capability.

[–]Introshine 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

private chains

They do realise that that is just a Database? better off using MSSQL Oracle or something for that.

[–]toomim 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

"Private" chains can be halfway between a private database and a fully-distributed blockchain.

For instance, you can take bitcoin and disable mining by giving a single trusted entity the power to mediate double-spends. You still get a distributed immutable ledger, where anyone can make and broadcast a transaction, hidden behind pseudonymous public/private keys. If the trusted entity goes down, the ledger still functions except for mediating double-spends. This provides many of the benefits of Bitcoin that a federation of private orgs might want without the cost of mining.

[–]Introshine 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

For instance, you can take bitcoin and disable mining by giving a single trusted entity the power to mediate double-spends.

The Bobchain already does this. http://intheoreum.org

[–]n0mdep 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This will never, ever get old.

[–]n0mdep 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They do not. All they know is "blockchain" is a buzzword and it could cut back office costs in half.

Eventually they will come to realise there's a free to use, incredibly secure, well tested, globally available and open access platform called Bitcoin.

[–]Kitten-Smuggler 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

The only question is.. Will bitcoin be the chain of choice

[–]toomim 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It'll be interesting when the public sees high-profile wall-street firms offering credible blockchains.

Then Bitcoin can be a distributed, trustless, global version of the slick thing.

Maybe it'll be like in 1995 when the public chose between AOL (closed, slick, corporate) and the Internet (open, crappy UI). The internet eventually won.

[–]bitbombs 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes or no, it's good for bitcoin. Yes means money will soon flood into btc. No means they'll waste their time and money building an alt that will get smoked almost immediately, and compared to bitcoin's rock solid network.

[–]MengerianMango 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Is it financially feasible for them to singlehandedly surpass the bitcoin network though? (Legit question, I really don't know.) If it is, then I'm not so certain we're out of the woods just yet.

[–]vegemitedelite 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Financially it's a walk in the park, but in terms of people or surpassing size of the network in computing power, not really feasible.

[–]MengerianMango 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's what I'm getting at though. People can be bought, nodes can be funded, and computing power can be manufactured. It's a matter of how much all of this costs.

Imagine the banks decide they want to replace it. They'd need to hire a few blockchain knowledgeable people, setup a team to run x nodes distributed throughout the world (possibly even using vps to save money), buy a lot of mining hardware, and then outmarket/outadvertise bitcoin. I'm sad to say I think the last step would be the easiest, so it pretty much reduces to the financial viability of the first three.

This is just what I'm afraid of. Like I said, I haven't calculated the total cost. We are talking about banks though, so it's almost surely insignificant by their standards.

[–]holytransaction 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How many of the 45 were Bitcoin related, I wonder.

[–]5tu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anyone else think PayPal has missed the boat now the big boys are interested?

[–]itsjawknee -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can't wait to undermine all this progress once the scaling debate percolates