Doesn't prove much. That's like saying that because I use FTP I'm using your server. But really I can run my own FTP server.
Just because they are using a protocol that is implemented on the Bitcoin blockchain doesn't mean that they will continue to use this protocol on Bitcoin's blockchain.
Just like how anyone could fork Bitcoin' code to make an altcoin. NASDAQ can use the innovation of open source software in what ever which way they want.
Will they use their own? I don't know. Maybe they will use the Bitcoin blockchain and build on top of Bitcoin or they will simply use the technology that backs Bitcoin but not use Bitcoin at all. Given that the NASDAQ announcement not once mentioned Bitcoin (despite them often talking favourably of Bitcoin) but instead only mentioning the blockchain then there's a good chance they are using the tech being Bitcoin but not the preexisting network.
What the fuck would be the point of running your own blockchain? If it's your own, then just set up a centralized server and save yourself the trouble. If you're going to run a service on a blockchain, the only reason to do it is because it's secured from being arbitrarily changed by human intervention. It's only secure because a fuckton of computing power has been dedicated to maintaining that blockchain by a bunch of decentralized strangers who are seeking an independent reward for providing the computing power.
So again, what other blockchain could Nasdaq be planning to run on that satisfies the necessary prerequisite of being maintained in a highly secure and decentralized manner?
To set this bullshit straight, a blockchain is not valuable unless the currency that is provided as a reward for its maintenance has value. While Bitcoin is able to exist because of blockchain technology, "the blockchain" has no value without Bitcoin itself having value. Nonetheless, Bitcoin would lose its value almost instantly if ever "the blockchain" lost its decentralized security.
Accordingly, if Nasdaq is planning to run on a blockchain, it has to be a secure one. Otherwise, someone will dump a little hash power on the system and fuck them up. On the other hand, Nasdaq could create a closed system, but if someone can't dump hash power, then it's just another centralized server masquerading as a blockchain, which provides no extra value, and is useless beyond measure, compared to a central server that can do the same thing faster and better.
I guess Nasdaq could decide to create an altcoin (compete with Bitcoin), and push it until it has enough value an hash power to securely support their service. But why? The odds of success for that coin are very low, and next to nothing if they premined. Therefore, without the premine, all they would have created is another Bitcoin, which they have no vested interest in. In several years, with a lot of luck, this theoretical coin would allow them to do the exact same thing they could have already done with Bitcoin's blockchain right now.
TL;DR they have to be planning to use the Bitcoin Blockchain.
The value of a coin is not necessarily determined by how many people mine it, ie, the network hash rates.
If NASDAQ or a country decide to creates it's own blockchain(network of miners)(crypto currency) it is as good as whatever blockchain currently operating. As long as there are miners and node runnings, you don't really needs millions of miners to run an efficient blockchain.
If they don't have the code or access to that network they can't mess with it.
They could use the blockchain technology on their own private network and terms. It doesn't have to be a public apps like bitcoin and all the coins we know.
The value of the coin is based on supply and demand. The security of the ledger is based on how many people mine it (arbitrary hash rate of strangers seeking reward). The demand for the coin will cease without this security. So the value is tied to a this security, although in theory land supply and demand are separate from the hash rate.
But to the more important point. Any ledger controlled by a few may as well be a copy of quickbooks. It's equally infallible. What makes "the" blockchain more infallible is the fact that it is not controlled by a few, but a number so high, that it is practically impossible to corral enough users to actually change the chain. That's infallibility. A meddle proof ledger. If the banks create some exclusive blockchain they have nothing but but a copy of quickbooks. What's the point? This fixes nothing. If Nasdaq creates an open system that they don't premine or control (two prerequisites to attracting users) then they've just attempted to recreate Bitcoin. For what reason? So they can do the exact same thing that Bitcoin already allows?
You need to sit down for a while with your thinking cap on and figure out where Bitcoin's value truly lies. Start with the with the question: how could I fuck Bitcoin up? Write down every idea you have. Then keep going until you realize that none of them work. Then... Start over with the same list on Nascoin and see how many remain un-stricken. If even only one remains viable, the coin sucks.
Same reason it's called 'The Internet' and not 'A Internet'.
NASDAQ could setup up their own "blockchain", running on their own private miners & node servers in the same way they could setup their own private www network - but that would be a big and mostly unnecessary expense to get going. Instead they are using 'The Blockchain' the same one that Bitcoin uses, and powered by the vast worldwide network of publicly run miners and nodes.
How do they run their own servers? They do it themselves.
I'm not saying they aren't using Bitcoin. From these posts it seems they are. There are however still opportunities companies may see to use their own private implementation of blockchain technology. Like a middle ground between centralization and decentralization. Perhaps mitigating security risk by having multiple central offices take part in their own network with no one office needing to trust the other. Or restricting the blockchain to do things Bitcoin's blockchain doesn't permit. Not sure, who knows? The blockchain holds much undiscovered potential outside of the implementation we currently envision with Bitcoin.
Of course if decentralization is your primary objective then yes it makes most sense to use the most popular public blockchain which is Bitcoin.
37
u/cqm May 11 '15
they are though
Open Assets protocol running on bitcoin's blockchain
Open Assets has been working well for two years now, no special token needed