Blockchain Enterprise struggles to carve out a niche

<div _ngcontent-c16 = "" innerhtml = "

The" revolutionary "changes the promise of the decentralized world without permission

Blockchain solutions
(including most cryptocurrencies) may have descended into a quagmire of schemes, scams and organized crime activities, but the blockchain as a whole is not dead yet.

What remains above the waterline: a more silent source of innovation that we call "blockchain d & # 39; enterprise". Contrary to their cryptic-cryptic problems, corporate blockchain solutions are widely permitted and centralized – thus potentially making them secure for business use.

These two trends are so different indeed, we should not group them together under a moniker name, let alone an overhyped as a "blockchain".

Still, the differences are not enough in the night-day category. Although the entrepreneurial blockchain has an indisputable business goal, it is still too early to say which business blockchain approach will become viable in the long run.

Blockchain: not as much as you thought Ted Knudsen

Protocols, mechanisms and architectures: pay your money, you have your chances

People like to compare today's emergence of the blockchain to the early days of the commercial Internet. However, this is an unfavorable comparison, since the initial success of the Internet depended on the broad acceptance of basic protocols such as TCP / IP and the Web, HTTP and HTML.

Blockchain has no such acceptance. Not only are there no significant protocol standards in the works, but there is not even an agreement on the best mechanisms for doing blockchain work.

Consensus mechanisms are the best example of this problem. Bitcoin uses the "work proof" mechanism that allows transaction processing nodes (known as "miners") to struggle to get a reward, but ends up consuming immense amounts of electricity in an unimaginable way.

In response, corporate blockchain innovators have developed numerous alternative consensus mechanisms, each with its strengths and weaknesses and, in general, none is interoperable with any of the others.

The Confusion over Decentralization

Ask your cryptic average fanatic what makes their currency of choice so revolutionary, and they are likely to propagate the decentralization of crypts. What they refer to is the lack of centralized decision-making authority. Basically, with any decentralized solution based on blockchain, nobody has control.

With centralized and authorized blockchain, on the contrary, some companies or consortia of companies control who gets the transactions, which rules must follow and also establishes a way to reach an agreement on possible changes to the blockchain technology itself.

Decentralized however, is different from distributed . The notion of distributed applies to architectures, not to decision-making policies. In fact, the distributed architectures have accompanied us since the '90s, as they were essential for the construction of highly scalable websites such as

eBay
and Yahoo! back in the day. Today, all cloud architectures are inherently distributed.

When you reduce the basics to zero, you end up with a secure distributed ledger – that is, a database with multiple nodes in different locations, with a secure mechanism to ensure all the nodes are sufficiently in agreement the one with l & # 39; other. Decentralization, in fact, is absolutely not part of the equation blockchain

Ledgers distributed in action

These distributed books are, in fact, not very revolutionary. They are a useful innovation for managing a certain class of multi-party transactions and these transactions are generally at the heart of current emerging blockchain solutions.

I have already discussed some business blockchain startups with new approaches to multiparty transactions. Gospel Technology for example, provides exceptionally granular security for data in such transactions ( in this article ).

Boardwalktech emphasizes the granular concatenation of transactions, keeping track of each field in a complex transaction. And Interbit from BTL treats individual blockchains as virtual machines and is thus able to generate a large number of ephemeral blockchains to track individual transactions (the last two present in this article ) . [19659003] Some distributed registries arriving on the market may not even be blockchain, as they do not block (not that such a distinction is really important). An example: R3 chord that only shares transaction data between nodes participating in a transaction. R3 is also following an open source strategy, offering a free alternative and a paid business version that adds additional features such as support for corporate databases, increased security and increased availability.

Even incumbent software vendors are entering the game.

IBM
invested heavily in Hyperledger an open source licensed blockchain initiative from the Linux Foundation. For IBM, blockchain is more a game of professional services than a product offering, consistent with its long-term business strategy.

However, IBM deserves to be praised for innovating in view of a clear market demand. "We did not start with a big bang" states Marie Wieck, general manager of IBM Blockchain. "We had to create something new, so we started experimenting and doing some customer pilots, and we saw that there was enough interest to move forward."


SAP
is following in the footsteps of IBM with the launch of Blockchain of the SAP cloud platform . This blockchain-as-a-service offering focuses on the Internet of Things, on production and supply chain solutions, and leverages Hyperledger and MultiChain another open source blockchain initiative focused on private chains, much like Corda does.

The Token Pitfall

IBM is also rolling out its new Blockchain World Wire (BWW) cross-border payment network, trying to facilitate international payment agreements that use more currencies.

Like many unauthorized blockbenches that have discovered the wannabes of processing international payments, one of the main challenges of an international payments business model is the value of the transaction in terms of cryptocurrency or other cryptotoken.

are, in fact, many problems with these tokens. In addition to the shortcomings related to cryptocurrency crime, the tokens that blockchain companies present also have their own disadvantages. In general, the value of these tokens is purely speculative.

Since the initial speculators of the coin mechanism (ICO) and founders of ICO-funded startups end up owning a large number of such tokens, their market value is unlikely to ever rise to the point of promoting a functioning coin mechanism. , in which buyers and sellers of such tokens determine a balance in the market separate from the speculative interest in the tokens.

BWW does not make this mistake. In the case of BWW, IBM is working with Stellar a payment technology built on the

Ripple
protocol. Ripple is yet another licensed blockchain game, in this case focused on international financial transactions. However, while the market value of Ripple tokens is subject to the whims of speculators, the stellar tokens that support BWW are "stablecoins", ie token with a fixed fiat value.

Stablecoins face the problem of speculators and founders who throw their tokens to depress a symbolic economy, but they are really little more than stunts for legal currencies, and we have already dealt with "stands" -in "because the first bank issued its own notes.

On the other hand, there are providers of corporate blockchain platforms that offer tokens on the open market. SophiaTX by Equidato offers a platform for the creation of third-party blockchain solutions with a particular strength in business integration and DECENT offers a similar platform, with tokens intended to promote a ecosystem of third-party party solutions on the platform, thus building an economy that provides symbolic value beyond what a single service provider could accomplish by itself – at least in theory.

The challenge of both SophiaTX and DECENT, however, is that speculative interest drives the value of their respective tokens. This interest puts money in the pocket through ICO to be safe, but now it represents an obstacle to long-term economic success that neither the producers know how to solve.

Long-term perspective of Enterprise Blockchain [19659003] This article only scratches the surface of current corporate blockchain initiatives – but it is hoped that it will indicate the diversity of these efforts in terms of technical approaches and business models.

This diversity, however, cuts in both directions. Wild West-style exploding mechanisms and architectures only show the level of overall immaturity in space. We can expect to see a consolidation of a handful of technical approaches of this kind, once the market calculates which ones work and which do not.

In terms of business models, moreover, diversity is perhaps smaller than the clamor around The blockchain could suggest.

True, coming up with better ways to handle complex multiparty transactions is bound to lead to a vibrant market category over time. But that category of the single market seems to be the full extent of the true commercial value of the blockchain.

Blockchain fanatics around the world refuse to believe it, but the long-term opportunity for blockchain falls well below the Internet-wide disruption that would indicate that this technology is something very close to the revolutionary.

Intellyx publishes the poster Agile Digital Transformation Roadmap advises companies on their digital transformation initiatives and helps sellers communicate their stories of agility. At the time of writing, Boardwalktech, BTL, Decent, IBM and SAP are Intellyx customers. None of the other organizations mentioned in this article are Intellyx customers. The author does not possess, nor does he intend to possess, cryptocurrencies or other cryptographers, neither long nor short. Image credit: Ted Knudsen .

">

The" revolutionary "," changes the promise of the world "decentralized, without permission
blockchain
solutions (including most cryptocurrencies) could fall into a quagmire of schemes, scams and organized crime activities, but the blockchain as a whole is not dead yet.

What remains above the waterline: a quieter focus of innovation that we call "blockchain d & # 39; enterprise". Contrary to their problematic crypto-cousins, corporate blockchain solutions are widely permitted and centralized, thus potentially making them secure for business use.

These two trends are so different, in fact, that we should not group them together under a nickname, let alone one as overhyped as "blockchain".

Still, the differences are not enough in the category of day and night. Although the entrepreneurial blockchain has an indisputable business goal, it is still too early to say which business blockchain approach will become viable in the long run.

Blockchain: not as much as you thought Ted Knudsen

Protocols, Mechanisms and Architectures: pay your money, you have your possibilities

People like to compare the emergence of today's blockchain to the early days of commercial Internet. However, this is an unfavorable comparison, since the initial success of the Internet depended on the broad acceptance of basic protocols such as TCP / IP and the Web, HTTP and HTML.

Blockchain has no such acceptance. Not only are there no significant protocol standards in the works, but there is also no agreement on the best mechanisms for doing blockchain work.

Consensus mechanisms are the best example of this problem. Bitcoin uses the "work proof" mechanism that allows transaction processing nodes (known as "miners") to struggle to get a reward, but ends up consuming immense amounts of electricity in an unimaginable way.

In response, corporate blockchain innovators have developed numerous alternative consensus mechanisms, each with its strengths and weaknesses and, in general, none is interoperable with any of the others.

The Confusion over Decentralization

Ask your cryptic average fanatic what makes their currency of choice so revolutionary, and they are likely to propagate the decentralization of crypts. What they refer to is the lack of centralized decision-making authority. Basically, with any decentralized solution based on blockchain, nobody has control.

With centralized and authorized blockchain, on the contrary, some companies or consortia of companies control who gets the transactions, which rules must follow and also establishes a way to reach an agreement on possible changes to the blockchain technology itself.

Decentralized however, is different from distributed . The notion of distributed applies to architectures, not to decision-making policies. In fact, the distributed architectures have accompanied us since the '90s, as they were essential for the construction of highly scalable websites such as
eBay
and Yahoo! back in the day. Today, all cloud architectures are inherently distributed.

When you reduce the basics to zero, you end up with a secure distributed ledger – that is, a database with multiple nodes in different locations, with a secure mechanism to ensure all the nodes are sufficiently in agreement the one with l & # 39; other. Decentralization, in fact, is absolutely not part of the equation blockchain

Ledgers distributed in action

These distributed books are, in fact, not very revolutionary. They are a useful innovation for managing a certain class of multi-party transactions and these transactions are generally at the heart of current emerging blockchain solutions.

I have already discussed some business blockchain startups with new approaches to multiparty transactions. Gospel technology, for example, provides exceptionally granular security for data in these transactions (described in this article).

Boardwalktech emphasizes the granular concatenation of transactions, keeping track of each field in a complex transaction. And BTL's Interb treats individual blockchains as virtual machines and then is able to generate a large number of ephemeral blockchains to track individual transactions (the last two in this article).

Some distributed registries that arrive on the market may not even be blockchains, as they do not block the blocks (not that such a distinction is really important). An example: R3 Rope, which only shares transaction data between the nodes that participate in a transaction. R3 is also following an open source strategy, offering a free alternative and a paid business version that adds additional features such as support for corporate databases, increased security and increased availability.

Even incumbent software vendors are entering the game.
IBM
has invested heavily in Hyperledger, an open source licensed blockchain initiative from the Linux Foundation. For IBM, blockchain is more a game of professional services than a product offering, consistent with its long-term business strategy.

However, IBM deserves to be praised for innovating in view of a clear market demand. "We did not start with a big bang" states Marie Wieck, general manager of IBM Blockchain. "We had to create something new, so we started experimenting and doing some customer pilots, and we saw that there was enough interest to move forward."

SAP
is also following in IBM's footsteps with the launch of the SAP Cloud Platform Blockchain. This blockchain-as-a-service offering focuses on the Internet of Things, on production and supply chain solutions, and leverages Hyperledger and MultiChain, another open source blockchain initiative focused on private chains, just like Corda does. [19659003] The Token Pitfall

IBM is also opening its new cross-border payment network Blockchain World Wire (BWW), seeking to facilitate international payment agreements that use multiple currencies.

Like many blockchains without permission The international payment processing emissaries discovered that one of the main challenges of an international payments business model is the value of the transaction in terms of cryptocurrency or other cryptotoken.

There are, in fact, many problems with these tokens. In addition to the shortcomings related to cryptocurrency crime, the tokens that blockchain companies present also have their own disadvantages. In general, the value of these tokens is purely speculative.

Since the initial speculators of the coin mechanism (ICO) and founders of ICO-funded startups end up owning a large number of such tokens, their market value is unlikely to ever rise to the point of promoting a functioning coin mechanism. , in which buyers and sellers of such tokens determine a balance in the market separate from the speculative interest in the tokens.

BWW does not make this mistake. In the case of BWW, IBM is working with Stellar, a payment technology built on
Ripple
protocol. Ripple is yet another licensed blockchain game, in this case focused on international financial transactions. However, while the market value of Ripple tokens is subject to the whims of speculators, the stellar tokens that support BWW are "stablecoins", ie token with a fixed fiat value.

Stablecoins face the problem of speculators and founders who throw their tokens to depress a symbolic economy, but they are really little more than stunts for legal currencies, and we have already dealt with "stands" -in "because the first bank issued its own notes.

On the other hand, there are providers of corporate blockchain platforms that offer tokens on the open market. Equidato's SophiaTX provides a platform for creating third-party blockchain solutions with a particular strength in business integration, and DECENT offers a similar platform, with tokens intended to promote an ecosystem of third-party solutions on the platform, thus building a token of economy that provides value beyond what a single service provider could accomplish on its own – at least in theory.

The challenge of both SophiaTX and DECENT, however, is that speculative interest drives the value of the respective tokens. This interest puts money in the pocket through ICO to be safe, but now it represents an obstacle to long-term economic success that neither the producers know how to solve.

Long-term perspective of Enterprise Blockchain [19659003] This article only scratches the surface of current corporate blockchain initiatives – but it is hoped that it will indicate the diversity of these efforts in terms of technical approaches and business models.

This diversity, however, cuts in both directions. Wild West-style exploding mechanisms and architectures only show the level of overall immaturity in space. We can expect to see a consolidation of a handful of technical approaches of this kind, once the market calculates which ones work and which do not.

In terms of business models, moreover, diversity is perhaps smaller than the clamor around The blockchain could suggest.

True, coming up with better ways to handle complex multiparty transactions is bound to lead to a vibrant market category over time. But that category of the single market seems to be the full extent of the true commercial value of the blockchain.

Blockchain fanatics around the world refuse to believe it, but the long-term opportunity for blockchain falls well below the Internet-wide disruption that would indicate that this technology is something very close to the revolutionary.

Intellyx publishes the poster Agile Digital Transformation Roadmap advises companies on their digital transformation initiatives and helps sellers communicate their stories of agility. At the time of writing, Boardwalktech, BTL, Decent, IBM and SAP are Intellyx customers. None of the other organizations mentioned in this article are Intellyx customers. The author does not possess, nor does he intend to possess, cryptocurrencies or other cryptographers, neither long nor short. Image credit: Ted Knudsen .

Source link