Hacker News Reader

Comment by briatx | Hacker News Reader

> Maybe it's not the blockchain as storage that matters but the programming API

Even if that was true, you could easily implement a compatible API that doesn't use a blockchain under the hood, especially seeing as it is centralized by JPM.

I see this as JPM just trying to ride the hype wave, and as a contingency if blockchains go mainstream (spoiler: they won't).

View on HN

You could implement a compatible API, but it turns out that consistent distributed payment systems are a hard problem, and blockchains are a solution to that.

It's not a distributed payment system, its a centralized one (owned and controlled in every way by JP.)

There's no reason to add the problems of distributed data to your payment systems unless you HAVE to.

There's distributed and there's distributed. Blockchain might be overkill, but it solves the "JPM's transactional database of financial transactions is down" problem.

> owned and controlled in every way by JP

The benefits of private transactions without notifying the processor (and circumventing financial regulation, or at least delaying it), is immediately obvious. It's a distributed payment system. The control you mention, is subjective.

I’m curious why you don't think DLT will find traction. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it seems that a number of good use cases have been floated for it to replace “trusted third parties” and other intermediaries, minimize corruptibility, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com