Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Please spend sometime reading up on Enron before saying this. As it has been pointed out Enron's book was clean. The problem was mainly due to "Revenue Recognition" [1] and valuations. It basically describes when a revenue can be added on to the books. Enron booked it's revenue as soon as deal was booked. So, if they got 100 million deal for next 5 years, they should be booking 20 million each year. What they were doing was to show 100 million as revenue for this year. This is not a single entry as many people believed rather a series of credit and debits which always balanced.

The amazing thing is blockchain, specially things like Monero or Zercoin, makes it even more difficult to spot this as Enron would have been able to open accounts as they wanted.

I am writing a piece on blockchain transactions and I still don't understand how this triple account thing applies.

Let me explain how double accounting works - You and I have 100 in Bank A. The Bank A notes:

Bank's Liability to: You - 100

Me - 100

Total - 200

Asset for:

You - 100

Me - 100

Total - 200

When I pay you 50 out of it, the book shifts:

Bank's Liability to :

You - 150

Me - 50

Total - 200

Asset for:

You - 150

Me - 50

Total - 200

Both side in balance.

Now this book is obviously internal. Can you use this same example and explain how triple accounting works in blockchain?

[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenuerecognition.asp




This is indeed not what blockchains prevent. If you have bad rules (ie. government is complicit either accidentally or intentionally) there is nothing that can be done.

And because governments really don't want to admit to their constituents how much they really spend and what they spend it on, the rules are ... less than perfect.

But a blockchain can vouch for the fact that the ledger was made according to the (supposed to be published and fair) rules, and that the rules didn't change except with total agreement.

So enron would have been able to book things in against the rules, but an easily written automated program would have detected such shenanigans, and there would not be anything Enron could do to prevent that program from raising red flags when the transactions don't follow the rules (so it would not be possible to book in such transactions, then not book in payment in full when it's due. If you're wondering how that's possible, consider that in bitcoin there just isn't any credit. So the only way to place an order using a bitcoin directly is to stake they money ahead of time, optionally with an instruction that it'd be paid back if an "oracle" (anyone else on the blockchain) says it's not delivered correctly)


One question - Before you pass a judgement on government "bad" rules, let ask you something, have you ever run any company of decent size? Because if you do, you will realize things are more difficult than you realize.

Let's take an example of a retailer. She buys stuff from a company to sell in her stores. And she has How or when does her book it as a revenue? When it is bought? When it is sold? Common sense says after it is sold. What happens if there is a return? There are so many rules to cater to so many things. It's something you can hardcode into program code.

> bitcoin there just isn't any credit.

And far from you belief, it is not a good thing.

> optionally with an instruction that it'd be paid back if an "oracle" (anyone else on the blockchain)

I like how a statement defending cryptocurrencies goes all over the place.

Pray tell, how are "oracles" implemented in "bitcoin"?

Also, why should people not trust the government but random "anyone else on the blockchain"?

That said, I am still waiting for someone to explain me this "triple accounting" thing on blockchain.


I do not think lack of credit is a good thing. Or rather, I have the game theory opinion. It is not a survivable thing.

Given 2 economic systems. One with credit and one without. The credit based one will crush the non-credit-based one.

Does that mean credit is good ? No, but it makes it a moot point: we will have credit. Point. Bitcoin will not survive, in the long term. I get that.


Triple accounting is explained. You have an incorruptible third party that attests to the accuracy of the computation.


I am sorry but given that you can't explain using the simple example of double book keeping makes me doubt if you even know accounting at all. Just repeating the standard blockchain lines over and over again.


The accuracy of the computation is pretty much never the issue anyway. That's checkable by any auditor. As far as I can tell triple entry accounting adds one buzzword..


When was the last time you checked the books of the bank where your money is stashed ?

Because for your bitcoins, that would be "45 minutes or less".


The essential point of the third entry has been made.


How about using the above example and showing where the third entry is made?


The blockchain is the third entry.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: