Blockchain Challenge by Bank of England

http://blockchain.bankofenglandearlycareers.co.uk/

by jimsojim • 11 years ago

75 111 11 years ago

blockchain.bankofenglandearlycareers.co.uk

brighton3612• 11 years ago

The bank of england has no capacity to determine what a good blockchain idea is. And if it did - there's no damn way the winners would want their prize. This is hilarious

kitd• 11 years ago

Edgy.

I assume you mean "capability"? If so, the BoE has about as much as anyone else.

And wouldn't it be up to the entrants to decide whether they want the reward? Sure they might not enjoy it, but it would certainly be educational.

brighton3612• 11 years ago

There's maybe 100 people in the world who have a good concept of what a good blockchain project is, and they are all in very, very high demand - and principally working on Bitcoin projects.

I don't think the BoE has this capacity, as demonstrated by the design of this landing page. I'd be willing to bet that the BoE thinks blockchains are for checksumming.

kordless• 11 years ago

What could you win? Firstly, your whole team will get an exclusive invitation to visit the Bank. You’ll meet some of the key people in our Projects, Data and Technology team.

My advice would be to not share your ideas with anyone who would take ownership of them when the possible "reward" is minimal.

jchendy• 11 years ago

If you keep reading, you'll see:

You’ll win a six-week paid internship if you’re in your first, second or penultimate year of study.

I don't know much about UK culture, but it's possible that this is quite valuable.

CydeWeys19• 11 years ago

I'm already employed full time as a software engineer, as I suspect are most other readers here. This doesn't appeal to me at all.

Also, if I really had a cool idea that I could execute on that could potentially change the world of finance, why would I give it up for a measly six week paid internship? I'd do a start-up, of course.

smashed• 11 years ago

Give us your best Blockchain based idea and a working proof of concept and "win" a visit to the bank and a 6 week internship (if you are eligible). Is it me or that does not sound really great?

Rugoretto• 11 years ago

I guess this is their equivalent of the Federal reserve bank? I could see it as valuable for someone who might want to make some potentially valuable connections among regulators. Maybe especially students that might want to make a future career in policy/govt in that country and combine it with their love/knowledge of Digital currencies. At least I can see myself being open to an equivalent offer from the Feds

vegabook• 11 years ago

The Bank of England is one of the very best places you could start to make contacts and learn about finance, in the world's capital of international finance.

chowes• 11 years ago

Well, that's assuming that both a) the best idea is worth something on the free market, and b) the person submitting would possess the know how to take their PoC and capitalize on it themselves.

Hopefully, anyone that fits in A&B would agree with you and wouldn't submit. For everyone else, this seems like a fun way to add to their resume.

CydeWeys19• 11 years ago

I love how blockchain has been completely de-branded out of Bitcoin, as if Bitcoin is some heinous forbidden term that can only be associated with criminality and must not be mentioned even once. The blockchain, of course, is the entire raison d'etre of Bitcoin. It's the innovation that makes Bitcoin work as a decentralized currency. Everything else Bitcoin does -- signature verification, P2P, cryptographic hashing, public-key cryptography, etc. -- was on a well-trammeled path. The blockchain is the break-through, and to disassociate it in this way is misleading and petty.

retube• 11 years ago

The separation of "bitcoin" and "blockchain" is not only correct, but further more it's a good thing people/media are becoming aware of the distinction between the blockchain as a protocol and bitcoin as an application (one of potentially thousands) based on this protocol.

Big finance doesn't give a sh*t about bitcoin. They don't see it as a threat, it barely registers. What they do see is the enormous applications and potential cost-savings that blockchains could enable - in areas like settlements, transaction signing, new products and so on. Hence coverage is moving from "Bitcoin" to "Blockchain".

CydeWeys19• 11 years ago

The blockchain is only useful if you need decentralization across pseudo-anonymous actors. This doesn't apply to Big Finance. The blockchain is also only useful with a large mining base, because security is achieved through having a large aggregate hashing power that cannot be overpowered by a bad actor. That is why almost all Bitcoin competitors are worthless -- they have nowhere near the hashing power, and are thus nowhere near as secure. The network effects here are huge. Having multiple blockchains is like running multiple competing power distribution networks across the country operating at different voltages. It makes more sense to standardize and have everything operate on one good one. And that's what Bitcoin already is.

zeeshanm• 11 years ago

A blockchain is only as good as its network. And bitcoin happens to be on the biggest blockchain network to date.

zekevermillion3• 11 years ago

You can have a blockchain without bitcoin, but why is that useful or interesting? Isn't the Nakamoto distributed consensus the key innovation of bitcoin as a protocol? Without that incentive structure in place, we can't trust the state of the blockchain without also trusting the participants. This may work fine for banks, but so does ACH.

IkmoIkmo• 11 years ago

The blockchain is nothing. It's just a database with some transactions which have a hash of the previous blocks... it's just a simple database in and of itself, no better than an ordinary (centralised) database.

The cool part is that it's decentralised, and you can only do that with bitcoin, or some equivalent decentralised value token (call it a currency if you want, doesn't matter but there has to be a token with value).

Big finance has very silly ideas about a bitcoinless blockchain. No other POW or equivalent protocol has a value token anywhere near the size of bitcoin, and thereby nowhere near the security. The blockchain is nothing without bitcoin, until it is usurped and there's zero indication of that happening.

There are lots of 'internal' blockchain ideas floating around right now, i.e. not decentralised, proprietary 'blockchains', which are really just ordinary centralised databases which have nothing to do with the concept 'blockchain' at all and are not novel in any way and have been around for many, many years, and Big Finance is eating that stuff up. It's nonsense really.

zekevermillion3• 11 years ago

Right. I take this verbal tic as an indication that the banks do not think bitcoin is a viable financial protocol, as the reward structure of bitcoin is essential to how it works. Blockchain without bitcoin, or blockchain that distributes tokens arbitrarily, is not trustworthy. It is "trusted" ie vulnerable to defection by any member institution. The banks pushing blockchain without bitcoin might as well be using the Ripple protocol for their desired applications, given that they do not seek the benefits of nakamoto distributed consensus.

woah3• 11 years ago

You don't really understand blockchains very well if you think that a trusted party blockchain is vulnerable to defection by one member institution. In fact, they are vulnerable to defection by 1/3 of the member institutions (or 1/3 of validation power, if you're assigning different amounts of validation power to different institutions). Also, a compromise leaves a huge paper trail implicating those responsible.

Ripple is overly complicated, includes the XRP currency for the sole purpose of enriching the founders, and has been shown to not be secure on networks larger than one node. There's no real reason for a bank to use it instead of just building their own application with the underlying technology. When I see comments like this, I always assume the commenter owns XRP or BTC.

return0• 11 years ago

The blockchain, of course, is the entire raison d'etre of Bitcoin.

... but not the other way around, hence it can be omitted.

jeffbr13• 11 years ago

Blockchains are necessary for Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is not necessary for blockchains.

"The Blockchain" (big B) is the original blockchain (small b) used for Bitcoin, but it's only one possible implementation. It's like saying Postgres, MySQL, etc. aren't 'true' SQL databases only Codd's original implementation is -- now, obviously the metaphor doesn't quite hold because of the distributed nature of blockchains, but it's disingenuous to say that there's only one canonical implementation of a technology.

The Blockchain and Bitcoin are valuable proof-of-concept implementations of blockchains, but there's value to be gained from separating the general ideas from specific instances.

adrianmacneil5• 11 years ago

This is only partially true. While you can have a blockchain without bitcoin, you cannot have a blockchain without some sort of native digital asset giving value to the network supporters (in bitcoin terminology, the miners). I think many people don't realize this, and think they can somehow spin up a new blockchain without needing to also create a separate currency and convince enough people to start giving it value.

Realistically, most "blockchain" tech these days is actually using the bitcoin blockchain, because it is the most secure and widely-supported blockchain available.

ultramancool• 11 years ago

This article makes it particularly bad by saying things like "blockchain" where should really be "blockchains" or "blockchain technology". I just reads as technically illiterate to me.

'Blockchain has the potential...' should probably be 'Blockchains have the potential...'. "Blockchain" is not a single technology but a group, it's like saying "teleporter can move you from place to place" vs "teleporters can move you from place to place". Blockchain isn't a proper noun, but a plural grouping of many implementations.

pjc502• 11 years ago

Bitcoin consists of two parts: a one-legged Merkle tree which I'm going to call a "merkle ledger", and a very very expensive proof-of-waste distributed stamping service to prevent double-spend.

One of the obvious things about Merkle ledgers is that everyone can have their own. You could have one per tradeable instrument on an exchange, for example. Anyone can start an altcoin; why not the BoE?

The proof-of-waste system allows the system to be fully distributed by continuously burning electricity such as to push up the minimum cost of overwriting some other node's choice of doublespend (note: NOT ability to forge transaction!) to very high levels.

If you discard the "distributed" requirement, you can save a lot of electricity by having a single or multiple CA-like series of authorized stamp-issuers. It then looks a lot more like Chaum's digital cash.

If you discard "pseudonymous" as well, noting that bitcoin pseudonymity is both fragile and directly contrary to KYC/AML, you can make further optimisations.

signature verification, P2P, cryptographic hashing, public-key cryptography

Old, but not yet widely deployed outside of the browser-CA system. Getting banks to use proper digital signature technology would be a major upgrade.

(Also, remember in the UK we have both EMV and "faster payments", so the US problems of stolen magswipes and waiting for cheques are not so prevalent.)

Ono-Sendai2• 11 years ago

"proof of waste" - I like the phrase, sums it up well.

If you drop the distributed requirement you can run an equivalent system on on a pentium 4 in someone's basement, without wasting GWs of power and spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

CydeWeys19• 11 years ago

There's nothing particularly special about a one-legged Merkle tree though. It was around before Bitcoin and it wasn't widely used for much. Without proof-of-work you don't actually have a functioning distributed currency system. What is the point of a blockchain without proof-of-work? What problem does that solve in a uniquely good way? Or are you just saying that banks are so far behind in technology in general that even this (i.e. cryptographically signed transactions) would be a big improvement?

Cshelton4• 11 years ago

I'm going to leave this here: https://www.ethereum.org/

If you haven't heard of Ethereum, check it out. It seems to be one of the leaders in blockchain platforms. Even Microsoft is working with it, along with many others.

Bitcoin, although the largest chain right now, will be a small player in an enormous field. The idea of one cryptocurrency to lead them all is not going to work. In fact, the 'currency' part is somewhat insignificant relative to what the blockchain industry will be. Every 'token' or 'currency' that represents an asset in a smart contract, or an asset such as cash, will be easily and instantly exchangeable for any other liquid asset. (i.e. U.S. Dollars). Having something like bitcoin is actually little use to us. That's not saying I think bitcoin was stupid or bad, it has done much to further the blockchain advancement.

brighton3612• 11 years ago

Ethereum's chain is a mess. It's only burning 25k USD per day, and the project plans to switch off of it entirely. The claim that this project can cure whatever ails you on such a weak foundation is at best dubious, and probably just a scam.

pipermerriam2• 11 years ago

Yes to this.

Thus far it is shaping up to be a powerful platform with some realistic potential to changes to how internet software is built.

CydeWeys19• 11 years ago

Bitcoin, although the largest chain right now, will be a small player in an enormous field.

I don't know how you can say this with any degree of certainty (read: I want your crystal ball). Network effects are incredibly important here, as the security of the system is exactly its total hashing size. Bitcoin has such a head start that I don't see how anything could overtake it without providing incredible new features that can't be implemented even as side-chains.

adrianmacneil5• 11 years ago

It's all just part of the curve of slow bitcoin adoption.

First, bitcoin was completely unknown.

Then, bitcoin was outright laughed at (some HN commenters are still at this stage of evolution).

Next, people jumped on "blockchain" as a sort-of gateway drug, using it in sentences which amount to: "Well, computers are useless. But the Internet, the Internet is where the real power comes from!".

Eventually, we will come full circle and people will realize that you cannot have a blockchain without bitcoin (or a close analog), which is what the bitcoin fanatics were saying right from the start.

jbpetersen4• 11 years ago

I strongly believe we'll end up with an ecosystem of major blockchains with smart contract support where it's standard to push transactions across them as needed to interface with applications working with a given blockchain or set of blockchains.

Not to mention sharding solves a lot of scaling issues.

martinald• 11 years ago

Guys, it's on their 'early careers' website. I don't think this is them trying to be YCombinator.

I think it's quite a cool little idea for them to get people from non-traditional backgrounds into the BoE. Most crypto people would never think of applying to the BoE for an internship normally I don't think.

moondowner• 11 years ago

Ah, I love it when people share challenges moments before they close.

peteretep• 11 years ago

It's worth pointing out for non-UK readers that "Bank of England" is not like "Bank of America", it's like "The Federal Reserve".

markhall• 11 years ago

important context, thanks for providing

tdkl2• 11 years ago

The founders of FED just repeated the scam that fueled Bank of England [1]. Andrew Jackson must be fed up with rolling in his grave. [2]

[1] http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/01/who-owns-the-bank-of-e...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War

btilly3• 11 years ago

Andrew Jackson is also the guy who thought it fine to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling that under established treaty the Cherokee owned their land, sent the US Army in to evict them, and wound up killing a third of their population.

I'm not exactly a fan of his public policy positions.

johansch• 11 years ago

Why are we promoting job ads for banks?

kamilszybalski• 11 years ago

Would be interested if they supported something like this - https://stampery.com

Cshelton4• 11 years ago

I encourage any students reading this:

While this seems like a great opportunity for some, and not so for others, I urge you to think it over yourself first.

Yes, this could actually be a very good opportunity for the right student to get an internship/possible job in a market that will be extremely hot. It it's a good way for BoE to find students that want to get involved in this industry.

On the other side, please know that this is not the only way. The community in many growing blockchains is very good. There are many resources that are available and free for you to explore your idea and create something new that is actually YOURS.

I'm not saying you should try and do something on your own out of school, it is perfectly okay to get a regular job, and this might be what you want. However it is also perfectly okay for you to not participate and expand on your idea on your own or with partners. There are/will be many opportunities and positions out there in this industry in the near future, this is not your only option.

EDIT: Another interesting point is the time frame which this challenge is allowing. I do not know when it was announced, but I'm assuming based on the timer that, when it started, the time given is 24 hours. It seems odd to me. This is a challenge that should be given more time, especially given how many students are wrapping up their semester and will be heavily involved in projects/finals right now.

Blockchain Challenge by Bank of England

Related Stories