Haus
I am Big Balls!
- 15,221
- 61,994
Yes, the computational needs are definitely very serious. As I understand it, how current blockchains handle this is that they have nodes running which process transactions, and those nodes share in the transaction fee applied to each transaction. Right now, if I hop onto Metamask and want to swap out two tokens on ETH for instance, I put together that transaction and submit it, then all the nodes running have to come to consensus on it and process the transaction. When I put together the transaction based on network activity and availability of nodes/resources I have to pay a "gas fee" to fuel the transaction.
There are abstractions about how this works (like you'll hear things like Proof of Work versus Proof of Stake) but the underlying idea is that you get rewarded for having the nodes doing the work of the collective chain. Any blockchain is essentially a distributed computational platform.
In private blockchains (like the one IBM runs and sells usage of to it's logistics customers) a vendor supplied the horsepower to underpin the chain.
The needs for something big enough to run the whole stock market would be massive, but also you'd have a massive number of systems involved in such an endeavor, so that gives you a head start. On the transactions you have a gas fee, and divide that up as a payout to those doing the computational work. This would self-regulate the transaction fee because computational providers would participate so long as the reward was enough to profit from providing the service. Then you could have a commitment from certain backbone entities (like the existing stock markets) to also provide computational power and support for this blockchain. So long as no one individual controlled over half the computational power behind the blockchain then you'd be OK. If someone controls over half the computation power they could functionally create their own transactions and alter the ledger, there's been concern by some that a nation state like China, could, for instance, take over more than half the computational power (called "hash rate") of BTC which would let them just re-write the ledger since it works on a concept called "consensus" which is basically "if more than half the existing nodes agree that transaction X is valid, then it's valid.".
If you make stocks into NFTs you could also work the cost of running the network into the NFT contract. With an NFT contract you can literally say "Any time this NFT is traded a certain portion of the value is assessed as a fee and transferred back to wallet XYZ". So , for instance, any time a stock got traded they could say there is something small like a .01% transaction fee.
There are abstractions about how this works (like you'll hear things like Proof of Work versus Proof of Stake) but the underlying idea is that you get rewarded for having the nodes doing the work of the collective chain. Any blockchain is essentially a distributed computational platform.
In private blockchains (like the one IBM runs and sells usage of to it's logistics customers) a vendor supplied the horsepower to underpin the chain.
The needs for something big enough to run the whole stock market would be massive, but also you'd have a massive number of systems involved in such an endeavor, so that gives you a head start. On the transactions you have a gas fee, and divide that up as a payout to those doing the computational work. This would self-regulate the transaction fee because computational providers would participate so long as the reward was enough to profit from providing the service. Then you could have a commitment from certain backbone entities (like the existing stock markets) to also provide computational power and support for this blockchain. So long as no one individual controlled over half the computational power behind the blockchain then you'd be OK. If someone controls over half the computation power they could functionally create their own transactions and alter the ledger, there's been concern by some that a nation state like China, could, for instance, take over more than half the computational power (called "hash rate") of BTC which would let them just re-write the ledger since it works on a concept called "consensus" which is basically "if more than half the existing nodes agree that transaction X is valid, then it's valid.".
If you make stocks into NFTs you could also work the cost of running the network into the NFT contract. With an NFT contract you can literally say "Any time this NFT is traded a certain portion of the value is assessed as a fee and transferred back to wallet XYZ". So , for instance, any time a stock got traded they could say there is something small like a .01% transaction fee.
