andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2017-12-07 01:00 pm
doug: (Default)

Re: Australian stock exchange to move to blockchain

[personal profile] doug 2017-12-08 05:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, all this, which goes for most instances of "blockchain" other than currency.

To my mind, the whole point and brilliance of Bitcoin is the mechanism for decentralised consensus for agreeing the ledger, which works precisely because the resource used to enforce agreement (proof of work) is more-or-less fungible for money, which is what the ledger is supposed to be tracking in the first place.

In pretty much any other context, you really *don't* want that property, because the incentives won't align properly. And that property necessarily comes at a relatively large cost in transaction time: you need to be confident that the time taken to distribute the results of the last block to the majority of the hashing power in the network and for them to verify its correctness is small compared to the time taken to mine the next block. Which for entities used to working in the world of HFT is ... is not going to be terribly attractive.

Many of the 'private blockchain' proposals I've seen - including some that work fine as proofs-of-concept - have a restricted set of entities who are allowed to mine who are, to a first approximation, all mutually trusting anyway.