[briatx]

> Maybe it's not the blockchain as storage that matters but the programming API

Even if that was true, you could easily implement a compatible API that doesn't use a blockchain under the hood, especially seeing as it is centralized by JPM.

I see this as JPM just trying to ride the hype wave, and as a contingency if blockchains go mainstream (spoiler: they won't).

[philwelch]

You could implement a compatible API, but it turns out that consistent distributed payment systems are a hard problem, and blockchains are a solution to that.

[hobs]

It's not a distributed payment system, its a centralized one (owned and controlled in every way by JP.)

There's no reason to add the problems of distributed data to your payment systems unless you HAVE to.

[philwelch]

There's distributed and there's distributed. Blockchain might be overkill, but it solves the "JPM's transactional database of financial transactions is down" problem.

[reallydude]

> owned and controlled in every way by JP

The benefits of private transactions without notifying the processor (and circumventing financial regulation, or at least delaying it), is immediately obvious. It's a distributed payment system. The control you mention, is subjective.

[StacyC]

I’m curious why you don't think DLT will find traction. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it seems that a number of good use cases have been floated for it to replace “trusted third parties” and other intermediaries, minimize corruptibility, etc.