Brief thoughts on the Bitcoin block size debate

I’ve kept well away from the block size debate but the launch of Bitcoin XT is worth a quick mention.

My reasons for staying out of the debate are pretty obvious: I’m not a miner, I’m not a core developer, I don’t run a wallet service, I have no particular insight into the engineering trade-offs and, perhaps most importantly, I’m not mad. If I wanted to argue with people on the internet, there are far more interesting topics than Bitcoin’s block size…

But I’ve been asked by several people what I think.  And, at core, I think it might come down to three issues: 1) fear of two different types of failure, 2) a clash of visions and 3) no process for reconciling the first two issues.

Fear of Two Different Types of Failure

Fear of technical failure

I don’t contribute, but I do read the Bitcoin Development mailing list.  I find it immensely helpful in keeping up with much of the day-to-debate debate.  What becomes clear when you read it is that there are (at least!) two distinct cultures at work.

First, there is a very strong security engineering culture. I sometimes think the trick to being a good security engineer is to think like a software tester (and vice versa): “How could I break this?”… “How could an attacker get round this?”… “What could go wrong here?”… “How could I force the provider of this service to waste all their resources”  And so on.   Your job is to figure out all the ways something could fail, and fix it.

So, when presented with something like an increased block size, you obviously focus on all the things that could go wrong: miners on slow connections could get out-of-sync with those on the other side, the increased cost of running a node could create a centralisation pressure and so on.    And when you compare this against the potential benefits, you might not think the change makes sense:  there’s an increased technical and security risk but you haven’t fixed the underlying scalability issue at the heart of the system… you have, in some ways, just kicked the can down the road. So you might say that a driving issue here is “fear of technical failure”: the change, which has uncertain benefits, could cause catastrophic harm.  Better not do it just yet.

Fear of practical failure

But, on the other side, is a somewhat different culture, one that comes from a world where there are problems everywhere you look and they all need fixing.  So you pick the biggest one, fix it and move on.  The engineering functions of large companies are often like this.  You know your change might cause problems but if you believe “doing nothing” is not an option then it comes down to making the least-worst decision.  There are, after all, usually no good solutions, just compromises.

So, if you’re faced with a problem like blocks getting full in some foreseeable timeframe, it is natural to ask yourself: what is the risk of doing nothing? If your belief is that consumers mostly have choices and will simply abandon a system that can’t guarantee transaction confirmation in a reasonable period then you’ll likely see failure to increase the block size as something that will lead to a catastrophic exodus of users and your bias will likely be towards making the change.  For you, the issue is “fear of practical failure”: failing to increase the blocksize, a change which has uncertain risks in any case, will drive away users and make the system a failure in all practical cases.

I exaggerate for effect, of course and I’ve ignored many aspects of the argument (e.g. the fee market, etc). And I’m sure some of the details are simply wrong.  But note: even under this simplistic model, it doesn’t mean either side is “wrong” or “bad”: it is possible to hold either view quite legitimately and to passionately believe the other side is wrong

A Clash of Visions

Where it gets more complex is when it comes to vision: if there was common agreement on what outcome was desired (e.g. “x transactions per second across the blockchain by 2017” or “the system should support this number of consumer wallets”) then the discussion would be a pure engineering discussion: “what is the best way to achieve this goal?”  But it strikes me that there isn’t agreement on this underlying vision.

And so, the engineering discussions get lost in the sound of people talking past each other or, worse, resorting to ad hominem arguments.  If you’re arguing from different premises, you never get anywhere, sadly.  It’s what makes political discussions on the internet so tedious..!


In most projects, these issues can be resolved, ultimately, through the “benevolent dictator” model. Linus just decides.  Unfortunately, that process just doesn’t work in a system like Bitcoin. It’s not enough to control which code goes into the “core” distribution: the prevailing network rules are a complex function of miner adoption, full node adoption, wallet adoption, major merchant/processor adoption, and more.  It’s an inherently messy and political process. So the block size debate is likely to just be the first of many such controversies in this world.   The launch of Bitcoin XT is an interesting way to force the debate towards a conclusion but it’s likely to be messy.

And I hope those looking at “private blockchains” aren’t feeling smug as they read this. Managing the maintenance and upgrades of shared ledger systems between firms won’t be a walk in the park, either.

I have no particular insight into where this will go or which vision of the future will prevail.  But I hope (perhaps forlornly) that it will be resolved through the actions of professionals acting in good faith and that neither side will resort to “dirty tricks”.


Bitcoin and Blockchain: two revolutions for the price of one?

I gave a brief talk on Bitcoin and blockchain technology to an audience of non-specialists at a dinner last week.  It covers many of the themes I’ve explored on this blog before. But the short, fifteen-minute, format forced me to be brief and clear.  This is an edited version of the speech

A £20 note has an obvious, yet extraordinary super-power.   I can hand it to anybody in this room and £20 of value will be transferred instantly, directly, peer-to-peer, person-to-person. Settlement, with finality, in central bank money!  And nobody else need know.  And nobody can stop me.


Super £20!!   [I really hope there’s no law against posting photos of money…]

But this super-power only works at close distance.  If I want to transfer £20 of value to somebody in a different town or in a different country, I need to trust other people.  Sure: I could put the £20 in an envelope and post it.  But even then I’d have to trust the postal service.

Or I could use a bank.  But I’d be trusting them to be good for the money. And I’d have handed over control: if my name’s on the wrong list, the bank would be obligated to seize my funds. And if you’re on the wrong list, the bank will refuse to transfer the money to you…

“Digital” money is not the same as physical cash.

And the world’s financial plumbing – payments systems, correspondent banking, SWIFT, … – is a direct consequence of this observation: physical cash really is fundamentally different to every other form of money: only physical cash is a bearer instrument. And only physical cash can be transferred without permission – censorship-resistant.

Or so we thought.

Because a curious email to an obscure cryptography mailing list at the end of 2008 said something quite audacious. The email, from the hitherto unknown Satoshi Nakamoto heralded the arrival of Bitcoin and the advent of “purely peer-to-peer electronic cash”.


“A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash”

We all know the story of what happened next.

Except… what many people have missed is that the choice of the word “cash” in that email was absolutely critical and absolutely deliberate. What this email announced was the arrival of a digital bearer asset that is censorship resistant.  Digital cash.  A digital asset that you can hold outright, with no risk of confiscation, and which you can transfer to anybody you choose with no permission from anybody else.

And the funny thing is: the architecture of Bitcoin flows almost trivially (almost…!) from this requirement.  Proof-of-work, the peer-to-peer gossip network, mining, the mining reward, the blockchain.  The lot.  It’s as if the genius of bitcoin was to ask the question.

But why am I saying this in the summer of 2015? This exact same thing could have been said at any point from 2009 until now.  There’s nothing new here.


Nobody asks the obvious question:

Who actually wants a censorship resistant digital bearer asset?!

 Well… some people do, of course.  But none of them are banks or corporates.  At least, I’ve not yet met a bank that wants this.

So why are so many banks, corporates, VCs and startups spending so much money in this space?!

I think there are two completely distinct reasons and that that the world of “blockchain technology” is actually two completely different worlds, with different opportunities and different likely winners.  And those who don’t realise this might be about to lose a great deal of money.

First, let’s look at Bitcoin.

We should probably be realistic here.  Bitcoin is not the solution to Greece’s crisis and it won’t bring finance to the world’s poor.  But it turns out that censorship resistance is extremely valuable, even for people who don’t think they need it.

Because censorship resistance implies openness.

Anybody or anything can connect to an open network like Bitcoin to own and transfer value.  And anything that is open, standardised, owned by nobody and useful smells very much like a platform.  And we’ve seen how those stories play out.

But notice something else:  Bitcoin is worse than existing solutions for all the use-cases that banks care about.  It’s expensive. It’s slow. And it’s “regulatorily difficult”.  And this is by design.

So this makes it doubly interesting.

Because it means Bitcoin is probably worse than existing solutions for all the things most people and firms care about but vastly better for one single use-case (open access to value transfer) that could be very useful for some people.

Isn’t that pretty much the definition of a disruptive innovation?   Something that’s worse for existing use-cases but solves a niche use-case very well?

So, if this is true, we should expect to see adoption of Bitcoin come from the margins, solving marginal problems for marginal users.

But disruptive innovations have a habit of learning fast and growing.  They don’t stop at the margins and they work their way in and up.

So this is why I think so many of the big-name VCs are so excited about it.

So the incumbents should be keeping a very close eye on what’s going on.    If anything in this space is going to disrupt them, it will probably come from this world.  But it’s perfectly understandable that vanishingly few of them are actually engaging deeply in this world.

So if Bitcoin isn’t why banks are looking at this space, what are they looking at?  

How have so many people convinced themselves that there is something of interest here that is “separate” to Bitcoin or systems like it?

At this point, it’s customary to observe sagely that “of course, the real genius of bitcoin was the blockchain; that’s where the value is”.

But I’ve discovered something rather amusing.  If you push the people who say this, and ask them what they actually mean, most of them can’t!  And yet…   whether they understand why or not, they are actually on to something.

It comes down to how bitcoin delivers on the design goal of “censorship resistant” cash.

Imagine Bitcoin didn’t already exist and you were asked to design a system of censorship-resistant digital cash.  How would you do i?

Well… you couldn’t build it around a central database: the government could shut it down.  That doesn’t sound very censorship resistant.

And you couldn’t rely on a network of trusted people around the globe since law enforcement could simply collaborate to shut them down too.  And in any case, who would control the identity system that helped you be sure these people were who you thought they were in any case?

It turns out that the answer is quite unexpected… and it’s something I’d bet almost all engineers would consider completely mad.

The answer is that you get everybody who fully participates in the system to maintain a full copy of the ledger.   And every time somebody, anywhere in the world, spends some bitcoin, we’re going to inform everybody who’s maintaining this ledger and they’re going to store a copy of that transaction too.

Bitcoin essentially runs on a MASSIVELY replicated, shared ledger.  (The trick is in keeping it consistent, of course…)

It sounds insanely inefficient and expensive… and perhaps it is. But we also have to ask ourselves:  inefficient and expensive as compared to what?

And this leads us to the other world

Just look at the state of banking IT today…  Payments, Securities, Derivatives… Pick any one.  They all follow the same pattern:  every bank has built or bought at least one, usually several, systems to track positions and manage the lifecycle of trades:  core banking systems, securities settlement systems, multiple derivatives systems and so on.

Each of these systems cost money to build and each of them costs even more to maintain.

And each bank uses these systems to build and maintain its view of the world.  And they have to be connected to each other and kept in sync, usually through reconciliation.

Take even the simplest OTC derivative contract:  it is recorded by both sides of the deal and those two systems have to agree on everything for years.  Very costly to operate.

But what if…  what if these firms – that don’t quite trust each other –used a shared system to record and manage their positions? Now we’d only need one system for an entire industry… not one per firm. It would be more expensive and complicated to run than any given bank-specific systems but the industry-level cost and complexity would be at least an order of magnitude less. One might argue that this is why industry utilities have been so successful.

But a centralised utility also brings issues:  who owns it? Who controls it  How do the users ensure it stays responsive to their needs and remains cost-effective?

The tantalising prospect of the blockchain revolution is that perhaps it offers a third way: a system with the benefits of a centralised, shared infrastructure but without the centralised point of control:  if the data and business logic is shared and replicated, no one firm can assert control, or so the argument goes.

Now, there are lots of unsolved problems: privacy, performance, scalability, does the technology actually work, might we be walking away from a redundant (antifragile?) existing model? Who will build these platforms if they can’t easily charge a fee because of their mutualised nature?  Difficult questions.

But see:  this has nothing to do with funny internet money, bitcoin or censorship-resistant digital cash.  It’s a completely different world

Two revolutions for the price of one

So… the blockchain revolution is so fascinating because it could actually be TWO completely different revolutions…   both profound in their implications:

  • Censorship-resistant digital cash providing a new platform for open, permissionless innovation driven from the margins
  • And industry-level systems of record driving efficiencies for incumbents.

Neither of these are “sure things”… they are both high risk speculative bets… but they’re also very DIFFERENT bets…

[EDIT 2015-07-23 Gideon Greenspan has written a great piece that comes at this argument from a very different angle]

As ever, the thoughts and comment on this blog are mine alone and don’t represent the view of my employer….

Towards a Unified Model for Replicated, Shared Ledgers

Don’t Say The “B Word”!

I’ve come to the conclusion that saying “blockchain” has become unhelpful. It just confuses people. It means too many different things to different people and so it’s almost impossible to have a conversation in this space without talking past each other. So, as I argued in this piece on permissionless ledgers and this piece on permissioned ledgers, it can be useful to talk in terms of replicated shared ledgerssince I think this gets to the heart of what unifies – and separates – these two worlds.

  • Shared: because multiple actors can read or write to different parts of the ledger
  • Replicated: because everybody who needs a copy can have a copy, rather than relying on a powerful central entity

In this piece, I try to bring it all together – to explain why we should be thinking about permissionless ledgers as a classic example of disruptive innovation and how I think banks could think about permissioned ledgers in the interim.

In what follows, I build up the model below from its constituent parts:


A unified model of permissioned and permissionless ledgers?

Permissionless Ledgers: Censorship Resistance

Let’s be clear: the breakthrough of Bitcoin was to create the closest system yet of “digital cash” – something that you can own outright and transfer to anybody else without permission. Its design flows naturally from that objective:


Bitcoin’s design follows directly from its objectives. Its replicated, shared ledger is designed to enable the existence of a censorship-resistant digital bearer asset  

As I argued here, it’s little surprise that bankers and regulators look at it with deep suspicion! However, there’s a good reason why the smart observers aren’t dismissing it: censorship resistance implies an open, neutral platform that could be a driver of permissionless innovation:


Censorship-resistance enables permissionless innovation in digital ownership  

So, it’s not a surprise that we’re seeing innovation and experimentation in the fields of value transfer – such as micro-micro payments (nanopayments?) for video content – and in the recording and execution of agreements.   This is, almost but not entirely, exclusively being driven by people from outside the traditional financial sector. They’re taking a platform that is, in most meaningful ways, slower and more expensive than today’s financial system and using it for novel purposes.

I think the smart firms are keeping an eye on this because they know how stories like this end:

“Disruptive innovations usually find their first customers at the bottom of the market: as unproved, often unpolished, products, they cannot command a high price. Incumbents are often complacent, slow to recognise the threat that their inferior competitors pose. But as successive refinements improve them to the point that they start to steal customers, they may end up reshaping entire industries” (The Economist)

Permissioned Ledgers: Industry-Level Systems of Record  

Notwithstanding the promise – or threat – of permissionless systems, I sense that many financial firms are looking closely at permissioned systems, by which I mean technologies that allow multiple firms to run a private, shared ledger of some sort.   What most people fail to ask is: why?! If you don’t have censorship-resistance as your business objective, why are you looking at this space at all?

The answer, I argued, in this piece is that replicated, shared ledgers can also solve a different problem:   if you’re in an industry where multiple firms all run similar systems to keep track of records (account balances? derivatives positions? orders?) then you’re probably carrying cost you don’t need: everybody is paying to maintain these duplicated, non-differentiating systems. And, because they’re all slightly different, you need to reconcile them with each other all the time to make sure they agree.

So the argument for applying replicated, shared ledger technology to this problem is that you could mutualise the cost of running and securing a single logical ledger, copied across your firms so you each have your own copy and so aren’t reliant on a powerful central entity for access. So nothing to do with censorship-resistance and nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.   The idea, instead, is to move from each firm having its own systems of record to having systems of record at the level of the industry:


Is the promise of permissioned ledger the possibility of industry-level systems of record without a powerful central gatekeeper?

But we can take this thought-process further. Imagine such a platform existed: perhaps a replicated shared ledger that recorded all inter-bank balances or recorded all derivatives positions between firms.   What we would effectively have is a transaction processing system for that industry: if we all agree that this shared ledger is authoritative for records (e.g. who owes what to whom) then could we not also agree that this ledger is something to which we could deploy code that describes our agreements? Could this industry-level ledger also host inter-firm business logic? How much cost and complexity might that remove from firms?


Is a common ledger between firms the enabler for a common transaction processing platform for an industry?

And this is where, I think, the two worlds – those of permissioned and permissionless ledgers – come back together:

Unifying the worlds of permissionless and permissioned ledgers

In the permissionless world, some of the most interesting developments are happening at the level of transaction scripting and smart contracts. The Ethereum project is the most obvious example, of course, but even projects like Streamium are showing how Bitcoin features can be used to create interaction models that simply aren’t possible on today’s financial platforms.

Similarly, and as I argued above, the driver of innovation on permissioned ledgers might be the migration of inter-firm business logic from individual firms to a shared ledger between firms: think of code that represents an agreement between two firms, that executes “on” a ledger, which can take custody of assets on that ledger and execute in response to external events: if both firms have signed it off in advance, suddenly they don’t need all the cost and expense of their own systems.  I wrote about this idea in my piece on smart contracts.

So we see that the two worlds of replicated, shard ledgers – permissioned and permissionless – might actually be leading us to the same place: a world where business logic for money – automated fiduciary code, if you like – is deployed to a shared ledger and run autonomously.    


Perhaps the permissioned and permissionless worlds aren’t as different as they seem?    

Blockchain is where banks have the most obvious opportunity. But you ignore Bitcoin at your peril

Nasdaq’s recent announcement shows you need a strategy for both

I have argued for some time that the world of “blockchains” is actually two worlds: the permissionless world of “bitcoin-like systems” and the permissioned world of “ripple-like systems”. The reason we so often talk about them together is because they share a common architecture: the “replicated, shared ledger”.

But they solve very different problems. Tim Swanson has written about the permissioned-ledger world and my last post gave an argument for why banks, in particular, should be paying close attention to them.

But this observation can be dangerous if people believe they are building a “blockchain strategy” for their firms when they are actually focusing only on the permissioned world.

As this exchange between Jerry Brito of Coin Center and Michael Casey of the Wall Street Journal shows, Nasdaq’s recent announcement of a blockchain experiment is noteworthy because they are explicitly building on Bitcoin, using a colored coins protocol, not on one of the permissioned/closed ledgers:

I have no inside information into this project. But it should give pause to any who had dismissed bitcoin-based platforms as being irrelevant to finance use-cases.

Forget Bitcoin at your peril?

As I argued in my last post, the world of permissioned ledgers is pretty easy to think about: if you’re in a market where multiple firms in the industry are all building and maintaining undifferentiated systems that do pretty much the same thing – and they have to be reconciled with each other – then it can make sense to replace them with a single system that you all share. But if you’re concerned about having a single central operator then these new blockchain technologies give you an option that didn’t previously exist: you can implement the common infrastructure on a replicated, shared platform that you all help secure/maintain and so mutualise the effort of maintenance rather than delegating it to a separate entity.

But, all too often, the analysis starts and ends there and disregards the “bitcoin-like” world. To see why this could be dangerous, we need to go back to the beginning.

The first nine words of the abstract to the Bitcoin whitepaper tell you everything you need to know to understand its architecture:

Bitcoin 1

Everything you need to know to understand Bitcoin

“A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash”

Those nine words seem innocuous but they have profound implications and explain why so many people still steer quite clear of it. The key is “electronic cash”. What can you do with cash that you’d need to emulate in an electronic version?

  • First, cash is a bearer asset. The only way somebody can take away the money in my pocket is by confiscating it from me. Nobody in a central bank can “delete” my cash whilst leaving everybody else’s untouched.
  • Secondly, cash is a peer-to-peer instrument: I can pay you directly. There are no third parties we need to rely on, assuming we’re physically co-located

There’s a phrase for this set of requirements: censorship resistance. A true system of digital cash can only work if it is censorship resistant.  And Bitcoin’s architecture does a pretty good job of achieving this through a very novel architecture. I sketch out some of the details for interested readers at the end of this article.

There’s just one tiny problem…

Censorship resistance is not an objective that is shared by most governments, regulators, banks or most individuals! No wonder there is so much controversy around the system. Perhaps it’s just easier for respectable firms to steer well clear.

And it gets worse when one observes that Bitcoin is worse than existing digital money in pretty much every significant way! It’s slower, it’s more expensive to operate, its value jumps all over the place and it’s really hard for consumers to use safely. So ignoring it is perfectly understandable.

But it could also be a mistake.

Permissionless Innovation

Because it turns out that censorship-resistance implies an even more interesting property: permissionless innovation.

“Permissionless innovation”—the general freedom to experiment with new technologies and business models—has been the secret sauce that fueled the success of the Internet and the digital economy

Think back to the design goal for the bitcoin system: electronic cash. And how that implied a need for a censorship-resistant bearer asset. These scary properties from a regulatory and banking perspective imply some very interesting properties from a technical perspective: this is the world’s first asset that can be held by anybody or anything and transferred to anybody or anything without needing permission.

Why could that be interesting?  Let me sketch three simple scenarios:

The Internet of Things

How do you do KYC on a fridge? Do you really want your washing machine having your credit card details on file? Perhaps the future of machine-to-machine payments is one where the machines hold their own assets on an open system. Sure: you could build a permissioned payments system for device-to-device payments but the simplicity and open-access nature of Bitcoin could mean that it’s just easier to do it that way.

Firms for whom payments are a secondary concern

We often make the mistake of viewing this space through the eyes of incumbents. It can be useful to put ourselves in the shoes of others. For example, imagine you’re building a business for which getting a bank account and payment processing services would be difficult. Maybe you plan to operate in tens of countries. Or perhaps payments are a secondary concern for one of your use-cases… you just need a quick and easy way to make and receive payments. Sure… you could go through the process of getting a merchant account, signing up with a payment processor, proving compliance with various security standards. Or you could just use something with no barrier to adoption: bitcoin may have lots of problems but at least you can be up and running in seconds.

Second-order use-cases

Perhaps the most interesting future scenario is one where bitcoin isn’t used for payments at all. Instead, the security and censorship-resistance of its platform is seen as having value in and of itself – perhaps for notary services in the first instance – recording facts about the outside world – and so Bitcoin becomes nothing more than the token you need to own in order to purchase the services of the network.  It becomes an app-coin, if you like.

Why we need to keep an eye on the Bitcoin world

I accept that none of these use-cases is particularly compelling as I write this piece. There are lots of great counterarguments for all of them. But that’s partly the point: if any of these were obvious, nobody would be dismissing it.

And this is why I find the Nasdaq example so interesting.   Using the inherent security and open-access of the Bitcoin system to “carry” representations of real-world assets – “colored coins” – is an old idea*.  And it also fits into my “second-order use case” category above.

Now, Tim Swanson and others have written convincingly about many theoretical issues with the idea but we now have a brand-name firm experimenting for real and we’ll hopefully all learn from the exercise in time.

So, sure: bitcoin raises all kinds of conceptual, legal, technical and philosophical questions. But it would only take one of these scenarios to drive some adoption and, very quickly, bitcoin might cease to be a sideshow.  And, given that its core design goal of censorship-resistant digital cash has such disruptive potential – good and bad, this possibility alone is reason to keep an eye on it. Dismissing it entirely could be a big mistake.

Coda: How to build a system of digital cash

Note: you don’t need to read this section to understand the main argument of this piece.

Recall the implications of a true digital cash system: censorship resistance. This drives some very strong implications for anybody trying to design such a system:

First, you simply can’t have the concept of an issuer in such a system: the issuer could selectively choose to honour only certain claims.

So, if you can’t have an issuer of the currency on such a platform, it will have to be native to the platform. Hence Bitcoin as the currency unit and the interminable debates about why it has value and what that value should be, if anything.

Bitcoin 2

If you want true electronic cash, there can’t be an issuer. So the asset has to be native to the platform

Secondly, you can’t have an identifiable operator or processor for such a system, either: they could choose to block certain transactions and their central database would be an obvious target for those seeking to exert control. So this means you need to have lots of actors providing the processing services and they need to be able to join and leave. And they probably also all need their own copies of the ledger – we can’t have a single central one, after all:

Bitcoin 3

If you want true electronic cash, its ledger will have to be massively replicated and you’ll need a large pool of “processors”

Thirdly, you’ll need to pay the processors. You obviously can’t pay them with “real” money (since the issuer of that money could simply refuse to allow payments to be made to processors who refuse to co-operate with them). So you’ll need to pay the processors with the platform’s own asset:

Bitcoin 4

If you want true electronic cash, the processors will need to be paid in the currency of that platform.

The breakthrough of bitcoin was figuring out how to put these building blocks together: how to ensure sufficient scarcity of the currency unit? How to keep the multiple ledgers synchronized? How to ensure the processors’ incentives are aligned with those of the users of the system? And so on.

There’s more than one way to talk about it

Of course, this isn’t the only way to think about the system.  If you’re still interested, here’s my attempt to explain how it works by imagining how you could invent digital cash using an email system.

*Disclosure: I am an adviser to a colored coins firm (ChromaWay) in a personal capacity, albeit one that uses a different architecture to the one apparently being explored by Nasdaq

Bitcoin as a Smart Contract Platform

Distributed Ledger Platforms may be Getting All the Hype but the architecture of Bitcoin is more sophisticated than many people realise

I was a guest of the Financial Services Club Scotland last week. I presented an update on the world of cryptocurrencies to an engaged and well-informed audience in the library of the Royal College of Physicians.

I reprised my current theme that the world of “blockchains” is really two distinct worlds – the world of Ripple-like ledgers and the world of Bitcoin-like systems – that happen to be united by a common architecture, the Replicated, Shared Ledger. This unifying concept is based on the idea that each participant has their own copy of the entire ledger – and they trust the “system” – whatever system that is – to ensure their copy is kept in sync with everybody else’s.  The differences are about what the ledger records and how it is secured.

Bitcoin-like and Ripple-like systems

Broadly speaking, Ripple-like systems are focused on the representation of “off-system” assets and are secured by identifiable entities. Systems like Ripple, Hyperledger and Eris are broadly in this world, I think. The security model of these systems is based on knowing who the actors are: if somebody misbehaves, we can punish them because we know who they are!

Bitcoin-like systems are more focused on “on-system” assets and are secured by an anonymous pool of actors. Bitcoin and Ethereum are broadly in this space, I think. The security model here is based more on game-theoretic analyses of incentive structures: the goal is to make it overwhelmingly in the actors’ financial interests to do the “right” thing.

There is, of course, some ambiguity since all platforms have some notion of “smart contracts” – or otherwise recording real-world agreements, as well as asset ownership.  But this makes intuitive sense.  If your platform is concerned with real-world assets and agreements then you necessarily need some concept of identity (who are the issuers?). And if you’re reliant on the performance of real-world actors, why not also rely on them for the overall system security?   Likewise, if the whole purpose of your platform is to create and manage a new asset that can be controlled/subverted by nobody, then giving identifiable entities the power to control your security would seem to defeat the point!

Different design goals, different implementations.  And the value of such systems to banks, corporations or individuals is, ultimately, an empirical question. I imagine 2015 will be the year where we discover many of the answers.

Incrementalism versus “Disruption”

But I went further in my talk. I observed that these two worlds also differ in one other respect: the Bitcoin-like systems could be disruptive to existing institutions if they gained widespread adoption, whereas Ripple-like systems seem, to me, to be far more closely aligned to how things work today and are, perhaps, a source of incremental innovation.

If this observation is correct, then firms looking at this space probably need to assess the technologies through different lenses. The question for banks for Ripple-like systems is: “how could we use this to reduce cost or improve our operations” whereas the question for Bitcoin-like systems is: “how would we respond if this technology gained widespread adoption?”

And to answer the last question, one must be sure to really understand what the system under analysis really is!

Bitcoin as a currency might be to miss the point

For me, it is a mistake to think about Bitcoin solely as a currency. Because the Bitcoin currency system is a masterclass in mirage: underneath the hood, it’s a fascinating smart contract platform.

Or, as I said at the Financial Services Club, every time you make a Bitcoin payment, you’re actually asking over 6000 computers around the world to run a small computer program for you… and your only task is to make sure that the computer program returns “TRUE”.    Within the Bitcoin community, this is well-known, of course.  Indeed, the work done by Mike Hearn and others to document the platform’s capabilities has been around for years.  But I find most people in the broader debate are unaware that the platform is pretty much built on this capability – it’s not an add-on.

Bitcoin is a smart contract platform

I wrote a piece last year offering an intuition for how Bitcoin works, in terms of land. My point was that the fundamental building block of the system is the “unspent transaction output”, or UTXO.   The UTXO is what you get when somebody “pays” you some Bitcoin.  The “output” of their transaction is the money they paid to you. And whilst it sits in your “wallet”, it is, obviously, unspent. Hence “unspent transaction output”.

So you can think of the current state of the Bitcoin system as being a huge pool of UTXOs: all the payments that have been received by Bitcoin users that they have not yet spent:


Every payment that has not itself been spent is modeled in the Bitcoin system as an “unspent transaction output”. In general, each UTXO can only be spent by the owner of the “address” to which it was sent (not always, and this is the point; see later).  And each UTXO has an identifier (the transaction it appeared in and its position in the list of outputs of that transaction) and a value: how many Bitcoins are represented by that UTXO.

But what people often miss is that these UTXOs are actually tiny little computer programs that live on the ledger, control access to bitcoins and run in response to specific incoming events. Smart Contracts, if you will. And the only way you get to spend the money controlled by that contract is if you can provide some input data that allows every node on the system to execute the program and check that it returns “TRUE”

If you can make the program return “TRUE”, you get to say what happens to the funds. If you can’t, then you don’t.

So, when you want to spend your money, here’s what you do:

Your wallet software writes a little computer program for you and then sends it into the bitcoin network. It effectively says to the network: “Please run this little program I’ve just given you.  Then please find a program (“smart contract”?) on the platform with this ID for me. When you’ve done that, feed the output from my program into program you just located”.   So this is a two step process:  you provide your own little program… and the output of that is fed to the UTXO program that you want to spend.


The way you spend money in Bitcoin is to ask the platform to run a small computer program that you provide and feed the output of that program to the “smart contract” that is storing the funds you want to spend. If you can make this second program run successfully, you get to spend the money. In Bitcoin terminology, the program you provide is “scriptSig” and the UTXO program is “scriptPubKey”. Your goal is to provide a “scriptSig” whose output can be fed into “scriptPubKey” to make it return “TRUE”

So what are these little programs? In the common case, they’re really simple. The “UTXO program” simply says: “provide me with a digital signature that proves you own the key associated with the following Bitcoin address (and please also prove that you know the public key that corresponds to the bitcoin address)”. That’s why it’s called the “scriptPubKey”.

And the program you provide is just a way to ensure the bitcoin system sends this proof into the scriptPubKey program in the right way. It’s a way of providing a digital signature. Hence it’s called the “scriptSig”

If you don’t know the private key then you can’t generate the right signature and so you can’t create the input necessary to get the smart contract (scriptPubKey) to run successfully and you don’t get to spend the funds. So this, seemingly complex model, is just a way to ensure that the only person who can spend money at address 1abcde… is the person who knows the private key… exactly as we would want.

Why is it this complex?

But notice how powerful this is…   because the other thing you do is tell the system to replace the existing scriptPubKey program with one or more new programs. And this is how your payment is modelled in the system.  You pay somebody by creating a new program (a new scriptPubKey) that only they will be able to execute successfully.  In this way, you can pay different people or send change back to yourself.  The program that only you can run is replaced with ones that only the payees can run.  And, in this way, the value has been passed from you to them.

So the result is that the original program living on the ledger is replaced by one or more new programs. In the usual case, one or more of these new ones will be associated with somebody else’s bitcoin address so only they will be able to control it. You have, in effect, paid them that money since the funds are now under their control


Paying somebody in Bitcoin is the same as replacing the program you control with ones they control. In this diagram, the funds you controlled have now been split between two new recipients. Only they can spend those funds.

Smart Contracts?

So what does this have to do with smart contracts?   The key is that the model I outlined above is quite generic.   The programming language is (just about) powerful enough to implement some interesting business logic that goes beyond “Richard paying money to Bob”.   For example, you can write a program that will only return “TRUE” if you provide proof that you know the private key to multiple bitcoin addresses.  This is a way to model “a majority of Board Directors must jointly sign before these funds can be spent”, perhaps. The Bitcoin “contracts” wiki page goes into far more depth.

However, the reality is that the capabilities of the platform are actually quite constrained – and I think this explains a lot of the interest in other platforms, such as Ethereum.  However, it should be noted that Gavin Andresen has argued that Bitcoin’s limitations need not be a constraint.

So what?

Some might argue that it’s not necessary to think about Bitcoin in this way. But I think that would be a mistake. Because, while lots of people are getting excited about the potential of smart contracts for business, we’ve had a sophisticated smart contract platform running quite successfully for over half a decade, in the form of the Bitcoin network.

Sure – it’s very limited (that’s why systems like Ethereum are getting built).   But it might be a mistake to bet that it won’t evolve.

Ultimately, my point is this: even if there’s a low probability of success for a potentially disruptive system, it surely makes sense to understand everything possible about what that system can actually do…

[Disclosure – I provide advice to Hyperledger in a personal capacity.]

[Update – 2015-03-30 Typos and replaced first diagram… I accidentally included an older version that used random IDs for UTXOs that looked like bitcoin addresses, which was very confusing…]

A Central Bank “cryptocurrency”? An interesting idea, but maybe not for the reason we think

The retail use-cases get all the press… but the killer-app for digital central bank money might be smart contracts

This post on a concept called “FedCoin” by David Andolfatto of the St Louis Fed raises the really interesting possibility of a world with central-bank-issued digital assets which can be held by a broad range of people.


Andolfatto’s FedCoin post

The core idea is essentially a variation on the digital cash theme: a digital bearer asset that is redeemable for dollars. So, on the surface, just like m-pesa but for dollars, right?

Not quite. Because Andolfatto’s FedCoin idea has two important differences.

  • First, FedCoin would be issued by the central bank. That contrasts with most other digital cash systems, where the holder has a claim against a telecoms firm or a commercial bank. In those systems, you have to trust the central bank not to inflate away the currency (as you do here) but you also have to trust the commercial issuer not to go bust – or any deposit insurance scheme to bail you out if they do. A central bank digital asset doesn’t have that second issue.
  • Secondly, Aldolfatto suggests this currency could be issued on a distributed ledger. As he writes in an update to that post, many people have questioned why that might be necessary. Surely if you trust the fed enough to hold its currency, you trust it to run an accounting system!   However, I wouldn’t dismiss this suggestion just yet, as I’ll argue below.

Robert Sams has an intelligent and thoughtful analysis of the overall idea.

So why am I writing about it now?

It’s not just the US: what about the Bank of England?

No sooner had the FedCoin idea been discussed and dissected, the Bank of England published its 2015 “Research Agenda”: a paper summarizing all the questions they plan to examine this year.

Turn to page 31 and guess what… there’s a section on Digital Currencies. If you haven’t read it, I urge you to do so. Because it doesn’t say what one might expect it to. Most official papers on “digital currencies” are influenced by Bitcoin and talk about volatility, monetary questions, the tedious question of whether cryptocurrencies pass the “money test”, regulation and so forth.

This paper doesn’t. Instead, it follows the same line of reasoning as Andolfatto and focuses directly on the question of what a central bank-issued digital currency might mean. And the paper does something really valuable: it lists a set of questions that anybody planning to do something in this space would have to answer.

Bank of England

The Bank of England’s Research Questions for a Central-Bank-issued digital currency

And these are important questions. Imagine something like FedCoin was built and you were able to hold a digital asset that represented a claim on the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve. The implications for commercial banks could be huge: why would you lend your money to (aka “deposit with”) a retail bank if you could hold the same money in a counterparty-risk-free form?

So the commercial banks would probably have to compete for your deposits with higher interest rates. But wouldn’t that make them more risky and more likely to fail?   So perhaps the central bank would have to charge you to hold their digital asset (a negative interest rate?) to encourage you not to hold too much of it and lend the rest to the commercial banks. But now the digital “cash” isn’t the same as physical cash…

And there’s another question. If everybody has access to central bank money, then why do we need payment systems? I wrote a simplified explanation of how money moves around the banking system a while back – and the noteworthy thing about it is that pretty much all of the payment infrastructure in the world exists because most money isn’t central bank money. If you imagine a world where everybody holds central bank money, suddenly the picture begins to look a lot simpler…

Central Bank Money for all

Do you need need most payment systems in a world with only FedCoin…?

There’s more… Do we really want people having access to unlimited amounts of digital bearer assets denominated in GBP or USD? Do central banks have the culture, systems and experience to oversee such a scheme and spot misuse, fraud and crime?

So perhaps a hybrid implementation, would emerge where consumers have to nominate a “sponsoring” commercial bank, which provides safekeeping services, has oversight responsibilities and, perhaps, has the ability to block suspicious transactions?

Who knows.   And I should stress that I don’t think anybody is proposing a system like this in any case…. These are research questions.   But it suggests that the BOE questions are a very good starting point for thinking about these issues.

A solution looking for a problem?

But there’s a small issue: this intellectual exercise is fascinating but is a central bank digital currency actually needed?   With a few notable exceptions, depositors don’t tend to lose their deposits when commercial banks fail. (But businesses and other large depositors often do…) And aren’t capital rules and prudential supervision designed to solve that problem in any case?

Remember I said the “distributed ledger” aspect of FedCoin was interesting…

Think back to the Andolfatto piece. He mused about building “FedCoin” on a distributed ledger.   On its face, that doesn’t seem to make much sense.

But if we open the topic of distributed ledgers, it also brings Smart Contracts into play. In my recent piece on the topic, I suggested a definition for a smart contract as follows:

“A smart-contract is an event-driven program, with state, which runs on a replicated, shared ledger and which can take custody over assets on that ledger.”

Implicit in my definition was that these “assets” could be native assets to the ledger (e.g. Bitcoin). But , more likely, they would be representations of real-world assets: GBP tokens issued by Barclays or HSBC or Coop, say.

For example, you could imagine consumers paying £50 a month into a “mobile phone insurance smart contract” and, if they can provide proof that they’ve lost their mobile phone, the smart contract will pay out enough money to replace the phone, using the funds that have been paid in by all the policyholders.

Perhaps the “proof” would be in the form of a “proof of purchase”, signed by a retailer and an “attestation of loss”, cosigned by the policy holder and a police officer. The details here don’t matter too much.

But what does matter is the payment.

How would you write a contract like this so that it could be sold to as many consumers as possible?  They probably have accounts with different banks and, if we imagine a world of distributed ledgers, they’d all be holding different tokens: GBP-Barclays, GBP-Coop and so on.

Which tokens should an insurance contract accept from its customers?   Only tokens issued by “safe” banks? Which ones? Who controls the list?   What about a £1000 IOU from me? Would the smart contract accept that?   What about a £1000 IOU from a billionaire?

What happens when the contract pays out?  If you had paid in GBP-Barclays, how would you feel about receiving an arbitrary mix of GBP assets when you made a claim, based on whatever happened to be in the pool at the time?

Too many issuers

Writing a smart contract that deals with GBP issued by multiple issuers gets complicated very quickly…

Systems like Ripple solve this problem by explicitly modeling the idea of an asset and its issuer. 50 GBP-Barclays is different to 50 GBP-HSBC and Ripple is built on that insight.   So you could certainly configure the contract to trust some issuers but not others.

But it gets complicated. What happens if one of those issuers gets taken over? Goes bust? Who updates the list of “trusted” issuers in the smart contract?

And now, scale the problem up to the institutional side of the world, where the sums involved in derivatives contracts are enormous. Suddenly the identity of the issuer really matters.

And this is where I think a central bank digital currency could make sense on a distributed ledger. It would clear away all that complexity.

You could simply write the contract to demand payment in the central bank token.   Policyholders would have the responsibility of converting other GBP assets into the central bank issued asset.

Now, perhaps this wouldn’t be a problem in real life – maybe you could just write the smart contract to only accept GBP-Barclays, say, and insist customers of other banks convert into Barclays tokens in order to use the contract.   But having a counterparty-risk-free representation of fiat currencies on these smart contract systems feels like it could be extremely useful.

But time will tell, as always.

Cost? Trust? Something else? What’s the killer-app for Block Chain Technology?

Could decentralized ledgers change the face of accounting?

When I speak to people about decentralised ledgers, some of them are interested in the “distributed trust” aspects of the technology. But, more often, they bring up the question of cost.

This confused me at first. Think back to where this all started: with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is deliberately less efficient than a centralized ledger! Its design adds really difficult engineering constraints to what we already had. How could this technology possibly be cheaper than what we already have?

And yet the claims keep coming. So perhaps this “cost” claim deserves closer consideration. Perhaps there are some scenarios where the “cost” camp might be right?


So much comment in this space talks about “distributed ledgers” or “decentralized ledgers”. But there is very little reflection on what we actually mean by “ledger”.

Investopedia has a good definition of a General Ledger:

A company’s main accounting records. A general ledger is a complete record of financial transactions over the life of a company. The ledger holds account information that is needed to prepare financial statements, and includes accounts for assets, liabilities, owners’ equity, revenues and expenses.

There are some key points here: “complete record of financial transactions”… “information that is needed to prepare financial statements”. I find this a useful definition because it captures two insights that will become important.

  • first, we use ledgers to record facts… things that the company has done, transactions it has entered in to.
  • second, the ledger is not an end-product; rather, it’s something from which we prepare other documents – our balance sheet, for example.

A worked example

So let’s work through an example of a balance sheet to test the “cost” argument.

In what follows, I’ll work through a really simple and not-representative example that constructs a balance sheet for a small firm – and asks if there are any opportunities to apply decentralized consensus technology to the problem.  (And, as will become painfully clear, I’m not an accountant…)

The world’s smallest and most naïve investment bank…

Imagine you had a fetish for being regulated and decided to start your own TINY investment bank. You persuaded your friends and family to invest £1m and opened the company.   You haven’t started trading yet so your accounts are really simple: you have put the £1m you raised in the bank (let’s say Barclays) and, since your friends and family own the firm, you also have £1m of equity – which represents their ownership of the firm. Let’s call it RichardCo.

Hang On – What’s a Balance Sheet?

In my mental model, a Balance Sheet is the financial statement you use as a snapshot of the firm’s financial position at a point in time:

  • What are all the things you owned at that point (your assets)?
  • And what are all the things you owe (your liabilities?).
  • If the difference is positive, great: this is your shareholders’ equity in the business. If it’s negative, it’s game over: you’re insolvent.

So the “balance sheet” for RichardCo on day one might look like this:

Balance Sheet 1

RichardCo’s simple balance sheet. There’s £1m in the bank and you record your shareholders’ funds on the liability side of the balance sheet. The “scroll” is the ledger.

By convention, we put the assets (the things you own) on the left and the liabilities (the things you owe) on the right. And we’ve captured a couple of likely entries from various ledgers that explain where the entries on the balance sheet came from.

Notice how we put the shareholders’ funds (the equity) on the “liabilities” side of the balance sheet. This is because the shareholders’ funds can be thought of as a “residual claim” on the company. If you shut it down (or were shut down), you’d have to sell the assets, use the proceeds to pay off everybody you owed money to and, whatever was left, would be the shareholders’. You’d be liable to pay it to them. So we think of the equity as a liability.

Now, like I say, we haven’t done any business yet. But, already, there’s some complexity here

Think about that £1m in cash. It appears on your balance sheet as an asset and you’ll have a record somewhere recording its receipt from your shareholders and another recording the fact that you paid it into the bank. (Actually, you’ll be using double-entry book-keeping and so you will have four entries in the ledger but let’s leave that to one side for now)

Now think about it from the bank’s perspective. They will also have a record. After all, they took it in as a deposit.  So it will also appear on their balance sheet – but this time as a liability. They owe it to you.

So there are multiple ledgers in two different organisations all recording the same pieces of information and two balance sheets that reflect the position:

  • Your balance sheet, recording the claim against Barclays: an asset
  • Barclays’ balance sheet, recording their obligation to you: a liability

Balance Sheet 2

Your £1m asset in the bank also appears on the bank’s balance sheet, as a liability.

Great – this is as it should be and it makes it possible for us to keep an eye on things. When it’s time to get your accounts audited, the auditor doesn’t just have to trust your ledgers. They can phone up the bank and get them to verify that their recording of the position matches yours. The fact you know this can happen acts as a disincentive to cheat in the first place.

If only banks really were this simple…

But, in reality, it’s far more complex than this.

In reality, banks aren’t funded primarily by equity… they also have a HUGE amount of debt…

So let’s imagine you have gone to some pension funds and borrowed £2m – you want to be prudent for now.

Youou decide to build out your broker-dealer arm first so you use the money you borrowed to buy some shares for inventory: £2m of IBM stock. That gets you about 20,000 shares, which you deposit at a custodian bank for safekeeping.

Let’s also imagine that you enter into some interest rate swaps with some other banks. Perhaps LCH.Clearnet, acts as central counterparty for all these trades.  And, brilliant news! Your derivatives positions have moved in your favour and it looks like you’re up £1m on them!

Great. So your balance sheet now looks like this.

Balance Sheet 3

Your balance sheet after borrowing £2m, entering into some derivatives contracts that move in your favour (£1m mark-to-market – MTM) and buying some IBM shares. Notice how Shareholders’ Funds (equity) has increased by £1m as your assets (the money owed to you by LCH) have increased in value, whilst your debt has stayed the same.

Now think about all the book-keeping at all the other firms

For every position on your ledgers that goes into creating this balance sheet, at least one other entity will also have a ledger that records the same position (from their perspective).

So you might end up with a picture like this:

Balance Sheet 5

Your (still very simple!) balance sheet will be reflected on ledgers and balance sheets all across the financial system.

And this picture isn’t the full story. Remember we said the clearing house stepped in and became your counterparty? So the other participants will, in turn, have their own ledgers on the other side of the clearing house. And your shareholders presumably have their own records. And so on.

Making sure all these ledgers are kept in sync: reconciliation

One of the many important control functions in a bank is to check regularly that all these ledgers line up – that your counterparties agree with you on what it is that each of you own or owe to each other.

But, interestingly, you only really need to agree your positions – not the valuations. You could, quite legitimately, come to different conclusions about the value of some positions. For example, let’s imagine that the pension fund thinks there’s a chance you’ll default on your loan. They will still have a record that you borrowed £2m but they may only value the position on their balance sheet as a £1.9m asset.

This is an interesting subtlety: the fact, as shown on the ledger, is that you owe £2m but the pension fund’s balance sheet may reflect their opinion that they’ll likely only recover £1.9m

Similarly, the fact of your derivatives positions is recorded on your (and LCH’s) ledgers. And you’ve probably agreed to pay (or receive) whatever cashflows their systems calculate. But how you value your overall position on the balance sheet could depend on a whole other set of factors.

So perhaps the picture actually looks like the one below: the “facts” that we need to reconcile between firms are those contained on the underlying ledgers, not the subjective valuations on the balance sheets:

Balance Sheet 6

In principle, we need to reconcile our ledgers to keep everybody accurate and honest. But it’s perfectly OK for the subjective valuations of some of the positions (as reflected on the balance sheets) to be different – such as with the pension fund here.

So, to simplify hugely, we could say that our problem is one of keeping all these disparate ledgers in sync:

Balance Sheet 7

The same picture as before but with the other firms’ balance sheets removed for clarity. Our problem is to make sure these ledgers always agree with each other when they record information about the same transactions.

So we see in the picture above that the facts that underpin my view of the world need occasionally to be checked against at least four other ledgers in other organisations and, in reality, many more.

Enter Decentralised Ledgers

So now let’s turn attention back to the world of decentralized consensus.

I said earlier that it’s hard to argue a decentralised ledger system like Bitcoin that replicates ledger data thousands of times can be more efficient.   But perhaps it (or something like it) can.

Imagine we’re living five or ten years in the future. Perhaps we have a securities block chain that records ownership of all securities in the world. Perhaps we have a derivatives smart contract platform that records (and enforces?) all derivatives contracts? Maybe, even, there will be a single, universal platform of this sort.

If so, perhaps all participants would have a full copy of this ledger.   And so now maybe we can redraw the picture.

Balance Sheet 8

A possible future: all firms record their external obligations and claims on a single shared, massively replicated ledger. Would this reduce (remove?) the need for systems duplication and reconciliation?

Sure – everybody still has a copy of the data locally… but the consensus system ensures that we know the local copy is the same as the copy everywhere else because it is the shared consensus system that is maintaining the ledger. And so we know we’re producing our financial statements using the same facts as all the other participants in the industry.

Does this mean we no longer need audit? No longer need reconciliations? Obviously not, but perhaps this approach is what is driving some of the interest in this space?

But notice: this is just a way of ensuring we agree on the facts: who owns what? Who has agreed to what? We can still run our own valuation algorithms over the top and we could even forward the results to the regulator (who could also, of course, have a copy of the ledger) so they can identify situations where two parties have very different valuations for the same position, which is probably a sign of trouble.

Of course, this is a very simplified example and the real-world is considerably more complex. In particular, some really difficult problems stand in the way of making this a reality:

  • Scale – think about how many transactions would be recorded
  • Security – imagine what would happen if somebody managed to subvert the ledger. This also has implications for who controls it, runs it and is allowed to connect to it. Bitcoin’s pseudonymous consensus system is unlikely to be appropriate here?
  • Privacy – do you really want everybody being able to see all your positions?
  • … and so on.

So I’m really not saying this is how things will pan out but I think it’s a useful thought experiment: it shows a potential use for replicated ledgers that might have utility but which doesn’t depend on being “trust-free” or “censorship-resistant”.

Perhaps this is what some of the other commentators in this space have in mind?