The Wired.com headline (but not the headline here at HN) is misleading. Per an Overstock SEC filing, any securities they (or t0.com) issue "will not be issued on the Bitcoin blockchain ... the ownership and transfer of such digital securities will be recorded on a proprietary ledger that will be publicly distributed."
Except that this isn't decentralized - its a controlled blockchain that's only available for public download (which http does just fine) As does archive.org
The Wired headline is less misleading than your comment. Information about transfers of ownership will be recorded on a private ledger, and a hash of that information will be inserted into Bitcoin's blockchain, one hash inserted for each transaction.
In other words, the private details of each transaction will be recorded on a proprietary ledger so that those details can remain private. But the fact of each transaction's occurrence will be recorded publicly on Bitcoin's blockchain, and recorded in a form that allows parties privy to the transaction details to verify cryptographically that the entries in the proprietary ledger correspond to the sequence of transactions published to Bitcoin's blockchain. Basically, this scheme uses Bitcoin's blockchain to provide security (immutability) and public accountability while keeping private information private.
(This insert-a-hash scheme is typical of "colored coin" implementations even when privacy is not desired, since each Bitcoin transaction can insert only a small amount of data into the blockchain.)
The amended S3 filing [0] spells all of this out in detail. The most relevant section starts on page 35, and the first paragraph of page 36 describes the core of the scheme:
In connection with a digital securities transaction, the
tØ software will publish the transaction to the proprietary
ledger ... . Concurrently, the tØ software will electronically
publish the proprietary ledger and commence the process of
embedding in the Bitcoin blockchain information necessary
to mathematically prove the validity of available copies
of the proprietary ledger. Specifically, after a set of
transactions in our digital securities have been executed
and recorded to the proprietary ledger, the Pro
Securities ATS will send a de minimis amount of Bitcoin
from an ATS-controlled Bitcoin wallet to another ATS-
controlled Bitcoin wallet using the blockchain protocol.
This blockchain protocol provides for an editable field
that can be used to implant code or other data within the
Bitcoin transaction that will be embedded into the
blockchain, and the tØ software will use this field to
implant anonymized cryptographic hash functions for the
digital securities transactions reflected on the
proprietary ledger into the Bitcoin transfer made by the
ATS. The blockchain will validate this de minimis Bitcoin
transaction and embed it, together with the implanted
anonymized cryptographic hash function, into the Bitcoin
blockchain. As a result, once the Bitcoin transaction is
immutably embedded into the Bitcoin blockchain, an
immutable record of the digital securities transactions
reflected on the proprietary ledger is also recorded
within the Bitcoin blockchain. ...
Interesting, so they are using it as a timestamping service. Whatever bitcoin ends up accomplishing or not accomplishing in the money realm it seems like the distributed timestamping aspect is getting a lot of use. I wish there was a simpler P2P distibuted timestamp only system.
That's exactly what bitcoin achieved with mining. It's the biggest and probably only innovation of a blockchain. Doing it simpler probably isn't possible.
Timestamping is a different problem since there is no need to prevent double spend and less need for extensive data retention other than by the particular people who care about a particular timestamp. You don't need everyone to agree about anything and can cross reference with arbitrarily many external systems for greater reliability. Two of the papers that the bitcoin paper cites are about distributed timestamp systems, and while they aren't exactly what I am looking for they show some basic ideas.
One of the biggest advantages of blockchains is that you can create your own private blockchain, and then hash the state of it every X interval and then put the hash on the Bitcoin blockchain.
You get all the the security of a 6.6 billion network without the costs.
How does http do this at all? Unless you're talking about each company running an API? But then you run into difficulty with actually trading debt. Say you owe me $10 and I owe Bank B $10 and they owe you $10. With a blockchain situations like that are easy to spot and automatically resolve saving the number of required settlements.
The point is that you don't have to trust each other since everything is in the open and shared between participants.
> Ok and what does the html page do to solve the problem?
You should check out archive.org. You'd be amazed how much better a job it does at retaining records than blockchain.
> You seem to be a pretty big fan of bitcoin. I've noticed a huge blindspot in bitcoin proponents when it comes to private chains almost like they are threatened by them.
Because blockchains are bad at this, and most of us are in a position to know that.
> Bitcoin was never going to win the markets/use cases
Agreed
> private chains make sense in
Not compared to databases. Do you know when NYSE and Nasdaq will switch to a blockchain? The answer is 'never'
> Bitcoin went the way of ultra generalisation which has resulted in it being pretty much worse than everything else for everything else.
Heads up but if you click on the timestamp you can reply before the button appears.
I understand what archive.org can do I'm asking how it can help solve the situation I described? You have your web page with what on it exactly? How does that help cut down settlement requirements?
Also archive.org is centralized so all the participants would have to trust them. The people investigating blockchain alternatives are looking for ways around that.
>Because blockchains are bad at this, and most of us are in a position to know that.
But they aren't. Bitcoin is bad at it but that doesn't mean blockchains have to be it just means they will be if you go into the problem with bitcoin as your only toolset. One you remove the need for PoW they are barely any more inefficient than a master-master DB with the combination of immutability and known entry ordering.
>Not compared to databases. Do you know when NYSE and Nasdaq will switch to a blockchain? The answer is 'never'
Did I say it was better than databases for every usecase? The NYSE and Nasdaq are already centally trusted figures. There is little benefit they would get from a blockchain.
> One you remove the need for PoW they are barely any more inefficient than a master-master DB with the combination of immutability and known entry ordering.
Once you remove the PoW - it's no longer a blockchain. That is what a blockchain is. If you believe that blockchain's don't require PoW - then off the bat you have major security problems. But in addition to that - your definition of blockchains would mean that we've been using blockchains since the 80's
PoW literally has nothing to do with what the blockchain is only in deciding who can add the next block and there are a lot of ways to do that when you know all the participants.
Ok and what does the html page do to solve the problem?
I'm not talking about correcting errors in settlement I'm talking about removing the need for settlement.
You seem to be a pretty big fan of bitcoin. I've noticed a huge blindspot in bitcoin proponents when it comes to private chains almost like they are threatened by them.
Bitcoin was never going to win the markets/use cases private chains make sense in. Bitcoin went the way of ultra generalisation which has resulted in it being pretty much worse than everything else for everything else. But it can do lots of things. Just not well.
Though it will surely be a (very) long process, I'm excited about the ways in which blockchain technology can improve the efficiency of the financial system. There's an amazing disconnect between the speeds with which we can execute and settle trades. The former is on the time scale of milliseconds, while the latter is on the time scale of days.
Even if we disagree on the merits of HFT, we can surely agree that settlement is an unnecessarily slow and unreliable process. In September, 2011 (the most recent date for which I could easily find data), there was a failure to deliver $200M worth of stock per day! [1] In the Treasury market, the daily average is currently $50B! [2] Blockchain technology has the potential to solve this problem.
Failure to deliver is mostly due to naked shorts and can be easily solved by a corresponding regulation. It is completely orthogonal to the Blockchain concept: one can implement settlement rules which require locating shares prior to shorting them, another implementation wouldn't care about locating shares as long as there is an obligation to cover naked short at the end of the trading day.
Patrick Byrne from t0 will agree with you, but that's b/c he's against naked shorts.
Patrick is well known to be the CEO of Overstock, son of John Byrne (Geico fame), and enemy #1 of the Naked Short sellers. What may be less known is his unbelievable fight against cancer.
I read his speech from a charity event back several years back, periodically, to keep perspective.
What happens if a malicious forks is introduced in the blockchain? I see two possible outcomes, with the latter much more likely than the former:
a) The blockchain protocol is the final arbiter of ownership, and those who purchased the stock in the other branch of the chain no longer own the stock. Caveat emptor.
b) Courts rule in favor of the people who actually bought the stocks and marks the attack branch as invalid. This is possible because the attack was witnessed by so many people.
It's unlikely that a fork would be resolved with (a), but if it does, there would be a lot of very pissed of investors and lawsuits. All it takes for such a fork to happen is someone with the motive to do it and the means to lean on a few mining pool operators.
It's more likely that we would see outcome (b), in which case, the courts are the final authority and then what the heck is the point of using an expensive, slow, poorly scalable, decentralized consensus system?
I totally see the value of a decentralized system despite the shortcomings, but if you're coming to do away with that aspect, what on earth is the point?
How do the employees feel about the CEO constantly chasing one cryptocurrency project to the next? From what I've seen it's just costing them a lot of money with almost no success in any of the ventures but is the response positive from inside?
If he's smart he'll sell the company within the next 2 years and retire pretty nice on the exit. If that doesn't happen, I'd be shocked if they make it another 5 before total collapse.
I think this is a really interesting idea. If you could issue stock as a million "units" on a block chain, then you could transact fractional units easily. Assuming you trust the ledger it would mean you really wouldn't ever have to split the stock. More units, more ownership, minimal brokerage fees/control.
Of course stealing the private key of the hot wallet representing 10% of Overstock.com, well that would be a very juicy target indeed.
Normally I'd agree with this, but in this case one may suspect that Overstock's interest in blockchain technology is rooted in their war on naked shorting, which I guess is not possible if shares are tracked on a blockchain.
