On Distributed Databases and Distributed Ledgers

Why can’t companies wanting to share business logic and data just install a distributed database? What is the essential difference between a distributed database and a distributed ledger?

Last month, I shared the thinking that led to the design of Corda, which we at R3 will be open sourcing on November 30; and Mike Hearn and I were interviewed by Brian and Meher of Epicenter last week. We’ve been delighted by the response and are looking forward to working with those seek to build on Corda, help influence its direction or contribute to its development and maturation;  there’s a lot of work ahead of us!

But one or two observers have asked a really good question. They asked me: “Aren’t you just reimplementing a distributed database?!”

The question is legitimate: if you strip away the key assumptions underpinning systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum, are you actually left with anything? What is actually different between a distributed ledger platform such as Corda and a traditional distributed database?

The answer lies in the definition I gave in my last blogpost and it is utterly crucial since it defines an entire new category of data management system:

“Distributed ledgers – or decentralised databases – are systems that enable parties who don’t fully trust each other to form and maintain consensus about the existence, status and evolution of a set of shared facts”

“Parties who don’t fully trust each other” is at the heart of this. To see why, let’s compare distributed databases and Corda.

Comparing Corda to a distributed database

In a distributed database, we often have multiple nodes that cooperate to maintain a consistent view for their users.   The nodes may cooperate to maintain partitions of the overall dataset or they may cooperate to maintain consistent replicas but the principle is the same:  a group of computers, invariably under the control of a single organisation, cooperate to maintain their state.  These nodes trust each other.   The trust boundary is between the distributed database system as a whole and its users.    Each node in the system trusts the data that it receives from its peers and nodes are trusted to look after the data they have received from their peers.  You can think of the threat model as all the nodes shouting in unison: “it’s us against the world!”

This diagram is a stylised representation of a distributed database:

 distributed-database

In a distributed database, nodes cooperate to maintain a consistent view that they present to the outside world; they cooperate to maintain rigorous access control and they validate information they receive from the outside world.

So it’s no surprise that distributed databases are invariably operated by a single entity: the nodes of the system assume the other nodes are “just as diligent” as them: they freely share information with each other and take information from each other on trust. A distributed database operated by mutually distrusting entities is almost a contradiction in terms.

And, of course, if you have a business problem where you are happy to rely on a central operator to maintain your records – as you sometimes can in finance it should be said – then a distributed database will do just fine: let the central operator run it for you.  But if you need to maintain your own records, in synchrony with your peers, this architecture simply won’t do.

And there are huge numbers of situations where we need to maintain accurate, shared records with our counterparts. Indeed, a vast amount of the cost and inefficiency in today’s financial markets stems from the fact that it has been so difficult to achieve this. Until now.

Corda helps parties collaborate to maintain shared data without fully trusting each other

Corda is designed to allow parties to collaborate with their peers to maintain shared records, without having to trust each other fully. So Corda faces a very different world to a distributed database.

A Corda node can not assume the data it receives from a peer is valid: the peer is probably operated by a completely different entity and even if they know who that entity is, it’s still extremely prudent to verify the information.   Moreover, if a Corda node sends data to another node, it must assume that node might print it all in an advert on the front page of the New York Times.

The trust boundaries – the red curves in the diagram- are drawn in a completely different place!

decentralised-database

In Corda, nodes are operated by different organisations and do NOT trust each other; but the outcome is still a consistent view of data.

To repeat, because this distinction is utterly fundamental:  nodes of a distributed database trust each other and collaborate with each other to present a consistent, secure face to the rest of the world.   By contrast, Corda nodes can not trust each other and so must independently verify data they receive from each other and only share data they are happy to be broadly shared.

And so we call Corda a distributed ledger, to distinguish it from distributed databases. A distributed ledger that is designed painstakingly for the needs of commercial entities.

Put more simply: you simply can’t build the applications we envisage for Corda with traditional database technology.  And that’s what makes this new field so exciting.

Advertisements

Introducing R3 Corda™: A Distributed Ledger Designed for Financial Services

UPDATE: The Corda introductory whitepaper is now available! And this blog post gives more context.

As reported in Bloomberg this morning, I’m delighted to confirm that R3 and our member banks are working on a distributed ledger platform for financial services: Corda™. I explain it on our official R3 blog and reproduce it here.

For the last six months, my team and contributors from our membership have been building a distributed ledger platform prototype from the ground up, specifically designed to manage financial agreements between regulated financial institutions. I am massively excited by the progress our team, led by James Carlyle, our Chief Engineer, and Mike Hearn, our Lead Platform Engineer, are making and I think the time is right to share some details.

Corda: A Distributed Ledger for Recording and Managing Financial Agreements

Corda is a distributed ledger platform designed from the ground up to record, manage and synchronise financial agreements between regulated financial institutions. It is heavily inspired by and captures the benefits of blockchain systems, without the design choices that make blockchains inappropriate for many banking scenarios.

Corda’s key features include:

  • Corda has no unnecessary global sharing of data: only those parties with a legitimate need to know can see the data within an agreement
  • Corda choreographs workflow between firms without a central controller
  • Corda achieves consensus between firms at the level of individual deals, not the level of the system
  • Corda’s design directly enables regulatory and supervisory observer nodes
  • Corda transactions are validated by parties to the transaction rather than a broader pool of unrelated validators
  • Corda supports a variety of consensus mechanisms
  • Corda records an explicit link between human-language legal prose documents and smart contract code
  • Corda is built on industry-standard tools
  • Corda has no native cryptocurrency

Corda’s design is the result of detailed analysis and prototyping with our members and will be open sourced when the code has matured further.

In the remainder of this post, I want to share some insight into our thinking.  Why are we building Corda?  Why have we made some of the design decisions we have?  When will the code be ready for others to examine and build upon? How does this relate to other platforms and projects?

A thought experiment

When I joined R3 from IBM in September 2015, I forced myself to stop and think.  The blockchain bandwagon was running at full speed, I’d just been appointed CTO of a project intended to bring blockchains to finance but there was a nagging worry at the back of my mind…  how could I avoid falling into the trap of believing all the hype?!

I imagined myself sitting in front of the CIO of one of our member banks some time in the future.  I imagined we had naively selected a “blockchain for finance” based on what was popular at the time and widely deployed a range of products and services on top of it. And I imagined we had believed the hype, had suspended our critical faculties and had omitted any engineering.  In this imagined scenario, I now found myself facing an angry CIO, who wanted to know why the system I had built had just failed calamitously. Why on earth did I build it the way I did?!

I concluded that an entirely inappropriate answer to that question would be: “because blockchains were cool in 2015”!  No. That simply won’t do.

The reality is that solutions based on selecting the design first and then trying to apply it to arbitrary problems never work out well.  Every successful project I’ve worked on started with the requirements, not some cool piece of technology, and I was determined to bring that discipline into our work at R3.

Remind me again why a system designed to replace banks is also supposedly their saviour?

And there is a second reason for this caution: the technology and finance industries collectively “decided” some time in early 2015 that “blockchain technology” was somehow the future of financial services.

Indeed, I am one of the most active proponents of precisely that claim. But the reason for blockchain technology’s importance is extremely subtle – and this subtlety is something that most people seem to have missed.

To understand this, we need to look at Bitcoin.

Bitcoin’s architecture, as I have often written, is a marvel.  Its interlocking components are one of those rare examples of something so elegant that they seem obvious in hindsight, yet which required a rare genius to create.

But what is often missed is that the cleverest part of Bitcoin isn’t actually its architecture; I think the cleverest part was to articulate the business problem.  We don’t tend to think of Bitcoin as being the solution to a “business problem” but it can perhaps be thought of as a wonderfully neat solution to the problem of: “how do I create a system where nobody can stop me spending my own money?”   Now, I can’t claim to know the mind of Satoshi and he certainly didn’t write the whitepaper in this way but it triggers a very useful thought-experiment.

In fact, once you write this ‘business problem’ down, the design drops out almost trivially!  (Almost…) You want always to be able to spend your own money? Then you can’t have a central point of control.  It could be shut down by the authorities.  You can’t even have a collection of validators with known identities as they could also be shut down with concerted effort.  Very quickly you realise you need a massively replicated consensus system and, if you don’t want to tie actions to real-world identities, you need something like Proof of Work to make the voting work.  You work the logic through and pretty much the whole design (the blockchain, the need for mining, block rewards, maybe even the UTXO transaction model, etc., etc.) drops out.  Of course, it does push a lot of work onto the users: confiscation of somebody’s bitcoins is easy if you know their private key… but let’s leave that to one side for now.

And this way of looking at it is important because it highlights how Bitcoin’s blockchain can be thought of as the solution to a business problem.    Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t wake up one morning wanting to “apply Blockchain to finance”.  Blockchain was the tool that was invented to solve a real problem.

So we have a conundrum, right?  If that’s the case, then what on earth is the argument that says blockchain has any relevance at all to banking?!

Indeed, last time I checked, banks have the inverse of my Bitcoin problem statement!

What is the defining characteristic of blockchain systems?

So I spent most of October sitting in a dark room (really! This was our first London office… a tiny four-person room in a shared working space in the City of London) questioning some of the most fundamental assumptions about blockchains.  What is it exactly that makes them interesting to banks?

Most people had already made the mental leap that the “bitcoin package” was unacceptable as a take-it-or-leave-it deal: proof of work is unnecessary for private deployments, for example.  But, as I looked around, all I could see was firms who had accepted everything else…  It seemed strange to me that, as an industry, we could tease apart one part of the “blockchain bundle” but then stop there.

I spent several of my earlier, formative years at IBM in a role called “technical sales”.  If you’ve ever bought technology from a large IT vendor, you’ll have met somebody like me.  We’re the people who visit clients with the sales rep and act as the technical expert: we explain how the product works, make sure we’re proposing the right solution to the client and ensure there is no technical barrier to closing the deal.

A lesson I learned very early in that role was: it doesn’t matter how hard you wish or how many client meetings you schedule or how aggressive the sales rep gets, if you can’t show how your solution is going to solve the client’s business problem then the deal almost certainly won’t close.  And those that do are the ones you’ll live to regret…

Fast forward a decade, and as I surveyed the blockchain landscape in October 2015, all I could see was excitable (and vocal!) firms touting solutions that made very little sense to me for the kinds of problems I was trying to solve.  I will confess to many moments of self-doubt:  maybe they were all sane and I was the mad one..?!

But I ploughed on: even if they are right that a “take it or leave it” blockchain design is the saviour of the financial industry, I’ll be doing our members a favour if I could explain why.

So we started picking away at what can perhaps be called the “blockchain bundle”:  the collection of services that blockchains provide to those who use them.

We concluded that a blockchain such as the ones underlying Bitcoin or Ethereum or any of the private variations actually provide at least five interlocking, but distinct, services.  And the right approach is to treat them as a menu from which to select and customise… different combinations, in different flavours, for different business problems.

CONSENSUS

The first, and most important, feature of blockchains – and the thing that is probably genuinely new in terms of scale and scope – is that they create a world where parties to a shared fact know that the fact they see is the same as the fact that other stakeholders see:

“I see what you see… and I know that what I see is what you see”

And, critically:

“I know that you know that I know”! 

And:

“I know that you know that I know that you know…”

And so on…

And it makes this promise across the Internet between mutually untrusting parties.  Sure: consensus systems and replicated state machines have existed for years but consensus systems at Internet scale, between untrusting actors, that work in the face of powerful adversaries? That’s a step forward.

In Bitcoin, the shared facts are things like: “What are all the bitcoin (outputs) that have not yet been spent and what needs to happen for them to be validly spent?”.  And the facts are shared between all full node users.

In Ethereum, the shared fact is the state of an abstract virtual computer.

But notice something interesting: there isn’t some law of nature that says the set of people who have to be in consensus is the whole world.  Bitcoin just happens to work that way because of its unique business problem.   If you don’t have Bitcoin’s business problem then be very wary of those trying to sell you something that looks like a Bitcoin solution.

VALIDITY

The second feature in the “blockchain bundle” is validity. Tightly linked to consensus, this feature is the one that allows us to know whether a given proposed update to the system is valid. It is how we define the rules of the game.  What does a valid “fact” look like in the system?  What does a valid update to that fact look like?

UNIQUENESS

The third feature in the blockchain bundle is its “uniqueness service”.   I can quite easily create two perfectly valid updates to a shared fact but if they conflict with each other then we need everybody who cares about that fact to know which, if either, of those updates we should select as the one we all agree on.  The “anti-double-spend” feature of blockchains gives us precisely this service and it’s hugely important.

IMMUTABILITY

The fourth feature in the “Blockchain Bundle” is often, if misleadingly, termed “immutability”: data, once committed, cannot be changed.

This isn’t quite true: if I have a piece of data then of course I can change it.  What we actually mean is that: once committed, nobody else will accept a transaction from me if it tries to build on a modified version of some data that has already been accepted by other stakeholders.

Blockchains achieve this by having transactions commit to the outputs of previous transactions and have blocks commit to the content of previous blocks.  Each new step can only be valid if it really does build upon an unchangeable body of previous activity.

AUTHENTICATION

The final critical feature in the “Blockchain Bundle” is authentication: every action in the system is almost always associated with a private key; there is no concept of a “master key” or “administrator password” that gives God-like powers.   This is quite different to traditional enterprise systems where these super-user accounts are prevalent and petrifying from a security perspective.

So what is the financial services business problem?

So why did I take us through this analysis?  Because it gets us to the heart of the distributed ledger domain: the thing that is genuinely new is the emergence of platforms, shared across the Internet between mutually distrusting actors, that allow them to reach consensus about the existence and evolution of facts shared between them.

So if that’s what this is all about, then what are the “shared facts” that matter in finance? What business problem would we need to have for any of this work to be of any use at all?

And this is the light bulb moment and the fundamental insight driving the entire Corda project:

The important “shared facts” between financial institutions are financial agreements:

  • Bank A and Bank B agree that Bank A owes 1M USD to Bank B, repayable via RTGS on demand.
  • This is a cash demand deposit
  • Bank A and Bank B agree that they are parties to a Credit Default Swap with the following characteristics
  • This is a derivative contract
  • Bank A and Bank B agree that Bank A is obliged to deliver 1000 units of BigCo Common Stock to Bank B in three days’ time in exchange for a cash payment of 150k USD
  • This is a delivery-versus-payment agreement
  •  … and so on…

The financial industry is pretty much defined by the agreements that exist between its firms and these firms share a common problem:  the agreement is typically recorded by both parties, in different systems and very large amounts of cost are caused by the need to fix things when these different systems end up believing different things. Multiple research firms have postulated that tens of billions of dollars are spent each year on this problem.

In particular, these systems typically communicate by exchanging messages: I send an update to you and just hope you reach the same conclusion about the new state of the agreement that I did.  It’s why we have to spend so much money on reconciliation to check that we did indeed reach the same conclusions and more money again to deal with all the problems we uncover.

Now imagine we had a system for recording and managing financial agreements that was shared across firms, that recorded the agreement consistently and identically, that was visible to the appropriate regulators and which was built on industry-standard tools, with a focus on interoperability and incremental deployment and which didn’t leak confidential information to third parties.  A system where one firm could look at its set of agreements with a counterpart and know for sure that:

“What I see is what you see and we both know that we see the same thing and we both know that this is what has been reported to the regulator”

That’s Corda.

How does Corda choose from the “Blockchain Bundle” Menu?

So now we understand the financial services requirement, we can look again at the “Blockchain Bundle” menu from above and outline the choices we’ve made.

CONSENSUS

A critical piece of the Corda philosophy is that our problem is to ensure that “I know that you see the same details about a shared fact that I see”.

But this does not mean that a third party down the road also needs to see it: our consensus occurs between parties to deals, not between all participants.

VALIDITY

Furthermore, in Corda, the only people who need to be in agreement about a fact are the stakeholders to that fact:  if you and I agree about something that pertains only to us then why should we care what some completely unrelated third party thinks?  And why would we even think of sending them a copy so they could opine on it? So, in Corda, we let users write their validation logic in time-tested industry-standard tools and we define who needs to be in agreement on a transaction’s validity on a contract-by-contract basis.

UNIQUENESS

Just like every other distributed ledger out there, we need to be sure that two valid, but conflicting, transactions cannot both be simultaneously active in the system.  But we also recognise that different scenarios require different tradeoffs. So Corda’s design allows for a range of “uniqueness service” implementations, one of which is a “traditional blockchain”. But it doesn’t need to be and, for our purposes, we also need implementations that make different tradeoffs under Brewer’s CAP theorem: in particular, some financial services use-cases need to prioritise consistency at the expense of availability in the event of a network partition.

IMMUTABILITY AND AUTHENTICATION

Here, Corda’s design departs very little from existing systems: our data structures are immutable and our building block is the exchange of digitally-signed transactions.

So Corda is very traditional in some respects – we directly apply the “authentication”, “immutability” and “uniqueness service” features of blockchains but we depart radically when it comes to the scope of “consensus” (parties to individual deals rather than all participants) and “validation” (the legitimate stakeholders to a deal rather than the whole universe or some arbitrary set of ‘validators’).

How is Corda Different?

Hang on?  Isn’t this the same pitch that every other blockchain firm is making? Not quite.

Notice some of the key things:  firstly, we are not building a blockchain.   Unlike other designs in this space, our starting point is individual agreements between firms (“state objects”, governed by “contract code” and associated “legal prose”).  We reject the notion that all data should be copied to all participants, even if it is encrypted.

Secondly, our focus is on agreements: the need to link to legal prose is considered from the start. We know there will still always be some disputes and we should specify right up front how they will be resolved.

Thirdly, we take into the account the reality of managing financial agreements; we need more than just a consensus system. We need to make it easy to write business logic and integrate with existing code; we need to focus on interoperability. And we need to support the choreography between firms as they build up their agreements.

Different Solutions for Different Problems

But… we should be clear.  We are not viewing Corda as a solution to all problems.  This model is extremely powerful for some use-cases but likely to be less well suited to others.  It’s why we continue to engage extremely deeply with all our partners who are working on complementary platforms in this space; we are not omniscient.  Moreover, there are still many significant design and research questions we have to resolve: there is still a great deal of work to do.

Furthermore, I have been deeply impressed by the quality engineering embodied in the many platforms that have passed through our labs and you will continue to hear about projects we are delivering on platforms other than Corda: different solutions for different problems is our mantra.  Indeed, those who have attended panels or workshops in recent months will have heard me saying this for some time now.

Corda does not seek to compete with or overlap with what other firms are doing:  indeed, we are building it because no other platform out there seeks to solve the problems we’re addressing.  That’s what makes this space so endlessly exciting.

What next?

In the coming weeks and months, you’ll hear more about Corda, about our initial projects and about its design.  We will also be gearing up to release the core platform as open source, possibly as a contribution to other endeavours.  Watch this space.

And… we’re still hiring: there is a great deal of work still to do!

How to explain the value of replicated, shared ledgers from first principles

“Digital currencies” aren’t needed to explain why distributed ledgers are important.

In this post, I develop an argument for replicated shared ledgers from first principles. It is intended to be an “education piece” aimed at those, particularly in the finance industry, who prefer explanations of new technologies to be rooted in a description of a real-world business problem rather than beginning with a description of a purported solution.  So, in this piece, you’ll find no mention of digital currencies, etc., because it turns out you don’t need them to derive an argument for distributed ledger technologies!

(Note to regular readers: see the end of the piece for some context)

We’ll start with banking systems

Start by thinking about today’s banking systems. In what follows, I use a bank deposit and payments example. But the same logic applies everywhere you look, as I’ll argue later.

Let’s imagine a world with three banks: Bank A, Bank B and Bank C and two customers, Customer A and Customer B. Each bank runs their own IT systems that they use to keep track of balances. This is a world very much like today.

So Bank A’s systems record the balances for Bank A’s customers, Bank B’s systems record the balances for Bank B’s customers and so on.

Perhaps the picture looks something like this:

Bank Systems 1

Balances at three banks for two customers.

Two immediate observations jump out:

  • First, look at Banks A and B. Bank A’s systems record that it is owed £1m by Bank B. And Bank B’s systems also record this fact: they record that Bank B owes £1m to Bank A. So the same information is recorded twice, by two independently developed, maintained and operated systems. And in other domains, this duplication is much greater and more expensive, as we’ll discuss below.
  • Secondly, look at Customer A. They are owed money by banks A and C and are overdrawn at Bank B. Put another way, Banks A and C owe money to Customer A. Who records this fact? Banks A and C! We take this situation for granted but it does seem very odd that Customer A has to trust both that the bank will be good for the money and that the bank’s records will be accurate. That feels like a conflict of interest, if ever there was one…

So we have two interesting phenomena: deposit-makers have to trust their banks to be good for the money and to account for things correctly. And the banks themselves have to spend a lot of time and money developing systems that all do pretty much the same thing – and then spend even more time and money checking with each other to make sure their systems agree on common facts.

Even in our simple example, there are potentially 7 separate matching entries to be verified.

Bank Systems 2

Banking “facts” are usually recorded by at least two different entities and an expensive process of reconciliation is needed to make sure each party’s view of the world is the same

It’s not just bank deposits. Securities and Derivatives Markets have the same pattern

This story is about bank deposits. But exactly the same story could be told about securities systems and derivatives systems. Indeed, in the latter case, the problem could be even worse: not only do we need to be sure everybody agrees on who has done which deals with whom, we also need to be sure that their systems agree on the resulting obligations that arise – they also have to agree on the business logic.

Think about how many near-identical systems exist across the financial landscape, each one working slightly differently and producing ever-so-slightly different results that have to be investigated and resolved. It’s hugely expensive.

Back to the banking story

But let’s focus on the banking example for now.

You can do something really interesting with the five ledgers we’ve been working with. You can write them a different way, with all the same information stored in a single table, rather than spread across five different tables:

Bank Systems 3

The five separate ledgers on the left can be written, exactly equivalently, as the single table on the right – and vice versa. You can derive one from the other. The only difference is that the table on the right has an extra column so we can record both the issuer and the holder of a claim .

In other words, rather than having a partial view of the world held by each bank, we could have a single table that records everything and achieve the same outcome.

So why not just have a single banking ledger for the world?

This raises an interesting question. If it’s so expensive and complicated for each bank to run its own system that contains its own narrow view of the world – and then have to check it matches the other systems where the facts overlap – why not just pay somebody to run a single ledger that everybody agrees will be authoritative?

After all, as we showed above, any bank that wanted to could easily derive its own view of the world from this mega-table, completely trivially.

Of course, we’d have to give thought to how to mediate access to the ledger – who is allowed to observe or update which records – but we know how to do that… and it’s not an impossible problem.

Are you mad?!

Now, it is tempting to say that such a thing would be insane: imagine how powerful would be the firm who ran such a system. And imagine the catastrophic implications for the world if there was a system outage! Perhaps the expensive, error-prone, but fundamentally decentralised and robust (anti-fragile?) system we have today is a price worth paying.

But this means an interesting question arises: what if there a way to achieve the benefits of a globally shared system but without having to grapple with the difficult political question of how to control an all-powerful operator or how to deal with the risk of an outage of such an important, central piece of infrastructure?

Perhaps we can achieve this…

The Replicated, Shared Ledger

Remember what we achieved in the diagram above: we created a single table that could describe all bank balances and which was inherently shared: different actors had different permissions to update different parts of it.

But the worry in the section above was that a shared global ledger would be controlled by a single powerful entity and that this centralized system could be a systemic risk. So can we make two tweaks to the model?

  • First, why not replicate the ledger massively. So, rather than one copy, have lots of copies. Perhaps one copy at every bank. So now there isn’t a single point of failure. We would have to worry about how those copies are kept in sync, of course, so this isn’t an unambiguous “win” but having copies at each bank might also make integration with existing infrastructure somewhat easier, too. Perhaps this would also help ease adoption.
  • Secondly, why not have those who participate in the system – maybe just the banks or maybe their customers too – also be jointly responsible for maintaining and securing it. We know who everybody else is in this world, after all, so we know whom to punish if they cheat. So we replace a single powerful entity with a model where everybody contributes to the system’s security.

If so, perhaps the picture would look like this:

Bank Systems 4

If a single copy of the global, shared ledger is undersirable or risky, then replicating it to all the participants could give the best of both worlds. Now the problem becomes one of automatically keeping the systems in sync rather than manually reconciling and dealing with breaks.

The picture above looks superficially like the one I drew at the start of the article. But there’s a critically important difference. In this model, all participants have a copy of the ledger but only have the right to amend entries pertinent to them. So it is both replicated and shared.

And so this is why I call this concept the “replicated, shared ledger”.  I think this wording is better at evoking the right mental model than “distributed ledger”, for example.

And depending on whether you want to model balances, other assets or even agreements between parties, there are startups working on a project.  I wrote a piece last year that attempted to make sense of the various players out there – and many more have emerged since then.

“Smart Contracts”

It it worth paying particular attention to the idea of adding business logic to this concept: so that the “facts” being recorded aren’t just who owns what but actual agreements between parties.

This opens up the intriguing possibility of “smart contracts”: a world where derivatives counterparties agree that a shared piece of code represents the agreement they have made with each other and they execute it on the shared, replicated ledger – perhaps completely eliminating the need to build, maintain, operate and reconcile their own proprietary derivatives platforms? Maybe even allowing the code to take custody of assets on the ledger, to manage cashflows and margin automatically?

Outstanding questions

But I should stress that this approach raises lots of technical questions: it’s not an unambiguously good idea. For example, do we know that the underlying replication technology works as described? Under all plausible threat scenarios? How can we be sure that one bank (or customer) can’t see (or amend…) another’s information? How much data would such a system hold? Would it scale? Is it really a good idea to model legal agreements in code rather than English?!

Conclusion

There do appear to be multiple examples of expensively duplicated systems in multiple areas of the banking system. The idea of a shared ledger holds promise, with replication by participants being a mechanism to reduce risk and mutualise its operation.  But whether this argument holds in practice needs to be tested. So I fully expect to see more and more experimentation by banks and others in the coming months and years.

Thank you: I’m extremely grateful to Lee Braine for input/review of the logical argument in this post

 

Note to regular readers

For the avoidance of doubt, in the piece above, I was not talking about Bitcoin – I’ll post a separate follow-up that attempts a derivation for Bitcoin’s design given some plausible real-world requirements; this post is about the domain I sometimes call the non-“Bitcoin-like-world”, as defined in this post)