Blockchain MATTERS

This video was produced April 2017 ( 3 months ago..ish) . I found the commentary interesting  - David Craig (the Thomson Reuters guy) made three observations about what Peter Smith of the Blockchain platform said ( n.b. not to be confused with the Blockchain technology in general)  1- Peter Smith said Blockchain was about efficiency , David Craig said "yes but but also about market structure and the way in which trust is federated" I agree with both comments here efficiency is the by-product  of trust being federated and I'm sure that had Peter Smith been there in person he would have concurred with David 2- He implied Banks were very politically efficient and so could be resistant to the technology being implemented .  though David suggested it was the operating centres that would be hit not the MD's in charge of M and A....and then he suggested there is yet to be an economic case that justifies the investment being put into the technology. Here I would

I like venture radars site and use it a lot  - they produced this slide ( September 2015 - so no doubt will need updating) on their view of the top 25 non financial blockchain start ups which I found fascinating 1- It illustrates the range of options being considered for this new technology which only a matter of months ago was viewed with  considerable cynicism 2- I love the depiction of the "past" and "present" players compared to the "future" - not sure  Zuckerberg or the folks at Uber and airBnB would like to be classified like this! 3- The underlying point  Venture Radar make in the slide is well made though..... The past was centralised ( monopolistic) the present is decentralised ( but still monopolistic in terms of capital ownership) the direction of travel for the future  is distributed ( low barriers to entry, distributed capital and no need for third party trusted parties)       No question IMHO - This technology is a whirlwind -

   Some say Block chain will do for banking what the Internet did for media.   Not so long most people involved in Blockchain spent the first three minutes of every  conversation  hey had in how shall we say "polite company" explaining how Blockchain wasn't anything to do with Bitcoin.  Bitcoin was this new technology supporting bad people who were undertaking dodgy transactions anonymously ( Silk road etc) - it wasn't the sort of place genuine folks with good intentions went.  It wasn't something corporate types ventured anywhere near.  A few years later and my how things have changed....far from the technology being bad its street cred is high, Blockchain initiatives have TRACTION and investment in Block chain Fintech   is going through the roof - the investment isn't quite at the heady dot com levels of 2000 but it isn't far off... What  has happened? A realisation that the technology under the hood of Bitcoin was profound.  Three f

Lots of talk , lots of prototyping, lots of hot air - where is the meat? IMHO It is only when Blockchain goes live in real markets with real transactions that  it will gain the professional credibility it deserves - here are a few of the candidates vying to be in the leading pack.  Here is a list of Heavy weight Blockchain orientated projects ( predominately Financial services orientated) that seem close to " about to happen" .....none as far as I am aware are actually live but they could be shortly......It's not meant to a complete list folks - more illustrative of the way the game seemed to be playing out ..If there are other projects around that you feel should be added to the list please advise below and we will add them 1- Trade Finance : Digital Trade Chain   " IBM won the contract to provide the cloud-based platform in a competitive bidding process. It will address the challenge of managing, tracking and securing domestic and international trade tra

Blockchain  like any other system is only as secure as the assumptions upon which it is based. When we look at different Blockchain architectures ( and there are lots coming out onto the market) we would do well to recognise this fact and compare  them against these objective criteria        The problem is  "trust" is a normative concept - you can't  put it in a wheelbarrow . Trust is hard won and easily lost...one rogue transaction and individual "trust" in the system  built up over years can be destroyed  almost overnight.  If we view all blockchains as "trustworthy" .... as "trust machines" we sadly miss the point. The question is how trustworthy?  "Security"  in contrast to "trust" can be measured objectively - You can statistically  say from a security perspective that 70%  ( 50% or 80% whatever) of all of nodes in a given system need to be fully functioning to maintain  a given consensus protocol.   You ca