Further thoughts on Interoperability with Consensus Computers
Interoperability needs to be understood alongside two vectors: a) between consensus computers and b) with the real world of law and regulation.
Consensus Computers need to talk to one another, speak the same language, share the same characteristics and modularity stack-wide, see previous posts here and here. Consensus Computers also need to interact fully with current legal constructs. What a CC shows ownership-wise needs to be fully compatible with how ownership is construed in the real world.
Hence, I view interoperability needing to toe as closely as possible to a "magic" optimal line. Too much focus on technology related interoperability oversimplifies the problem and risks pigeoning Consensus Computers to a restrictive "internet of value" mindset. In other words the transfer of ownership is not equal at all to the transfer of data. Transferring data is easy. Transferring ownership is eminently complex. Technology protocols cannot be developed in the abstract and without tie ins to the real world of law and regulatory oversight. Protocol design needs to incorporate in a very granular way real life legal domains. Therein lies the real power of true interoperability.
As such, any interoperable protocol needs to be developed with a careful consideration of both vectors.
Interoperability Optimal Frontier:
Thoughts?
Sr. Software Engineer
9 年The domiciles who embrace the benefits of globally decentralized systems will enjoy greater economic benefits than those domiciles who are closed to progress. Those domiciles whose laws are open to technological progress, and understand the underlying benefits of the technology, will create systems to leverage its value and will amend its laws. Those domiciles whose laws are closed to technological progress, because the technology would heavily disrupt the status quo, will close itself off to the economic benefits of an international system, and will slowly lose market share of international capital. // Some further reading, always good to review history. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGDF2000/Resources/CH6--118-139.pdf
Director at BCG | Web3, AI and ESG
9 年Isn't this representation a bit too simplistic on itself? It's not something I can disagree with but there are so many other considerations to make that I fail to understand the point of your post. Yes technology without an application doesn't work but legal can (and did) work fine without technology.
Non Executive Director at Bitpanda
9 年Interoperability must also not be managed by one or small number of bridging nodes - it must be part of the consensus Dna and be distributed
Wayz Infratek
9 年But if we take a look at what happened in cloud computing which was also a disruptor, momentum has picked up , but interoperability has not evolved. Some standards have been formulated but it has not picked up. It means that there were enough reasons to justify moving to the cloud and interoperability was not a concern as the advantages outweighed the absence interoperability. Here the market forces are at play.