I enjoyed listening to Episode 151 of the podcast “Epicenter” (previously “Epicenter Bitcoin”) featuring Ian Grigg, inventor of Ricardian Contracts and blogger at Financial Cryptography. Here are my notes – part transcription, with some edits. This one is a goldmine and covers many topics: bonds, contracts, cash, Chaumian e-cash, DigiCash, financial cryptography, Ricardian contracts, digital signatures, smart contracts, dispute resolution, Ethereum, triple entry book-keeping, oh my!
Misunderstandings and paraphrasing errors are entirely mine.
This gets fairly technical; if this is hard to follow, it may be helpful to read my introduction to smart contracts first. Hmm, if it’s still hard to follow, also read about blockchains and bitcoin and Ethereum, and digital tokens.
Q&A with George Samman, co-author of KPMG’s report: “Consensus: Immutable agreement for the Internet of value”
This interview is posted on both www.sammantics.com and www.bitsonblocks.net. Interviewer is Antony Lewis (AL) and interviewee is George Samman (GS).
I have heard this comment many times:
“Blockchain” is a solution looking for a problem.
That is incorrect – here’s the problem statement, originally articulated in 2008:
The problem statement, to paraphrase, is
“How do people pay each other electronically without being at the behest of Financial Institutions?”
The proposed solution is:
This short article attempts to explain what people mean when they are talking about blockchains being a “single source of truth”. In classic Chinese Whispers style, the narrative has become confused about what is meant by “truth”.
This is currently relevant to discussions in the insurance industry where blockchain enthusiasts may be eager to promote blockchains as a solution to the problem of verifying if something has happened or not.
Here, I permanently recorded on Bitcoin’s blockchain a non-truth about the world.
This article attempts to explain the difference between the revolutionary disruptive innovation of bitcoin and the evolutionary efficiency innovations of industry workflow tools, and why calling them both “blockchains”, even as a generic term, is incredibly confusing.
For the rest of this post, I will use the phrase “industry workflow tools” instead of industry blockchains, as some of the emerging solutions being proposed in this space are not blockchains (eg, R3’s Corda is not a blockchain but Digital Asset’s solutions are – however, both companies are proposing industry workflow tools).
It’s official: Blockchains for everything!
KYC is a challenge that blockchains are being thrown at (see here, here, here). The premise is “KYC is a headache and blockchains are trendy”. However there is rarely much detail on the problem and insight as to why a blockchain might or might not be a good idea. I aim to explore this use-case more fully in this post.
I am often forwarded news articles of blockchain experiments run by banks or large companies, questioning “Why are they using a blockchain for this internal use-case?”.
Given that a blockchain is meant to replace a trusted external third party, or is meant to create trust between entities who don’t fully trust each other, an internal blockchain seems a contradiction in terms.
However, many of the publicly declared experiments, pilots and proof of concepts have focused on blockchains for internal use cases, ie a blockchain where there may be one or more nodes, but all under control of the same organisation, often within one department.
Although there has been much recent discussion about public (permissionless) vs private (permissioned) consortium blockchains, there has not been much debate on the virtues of internal blockchains.