Why would they even need a blockchain to move money between themselves?
it's unclear to me as well. even if you have a (semi private) public ledger,
it doesn't need to be a blockchain as the units are fiat debt instruments,
not scarce digital assets like Bitcoin.
Even if they consider their fiat debt as being valuable it makes absolutely no sense to use some home-brewed "Blockchain-technology" for asset transfer if it does not offer superior security.
The Bitcoin blockchain offers high security because it is (for now) a highly decentralized multi-node network. If some banks set up their own blockchain, there's no security benefit, because there are the same entities involved in securing the chain as would be involved in a direct transfer. A direct transfer is much more efficient than setting up a blockchain.
I get the impression that it's currently in vogue doing something "Blockchain" without even having a proper use case for it. Sadly, banks can't just use Bitcoin, because this would demonstrate that they're becoming obsolete...
ya.ya.yo!
well yes I agree with you, but the security is integral with what is being secured. you can't really secure fiat debt as there is no real substance to it. iow, the banks can always either dispute or agree with someone else's balances, versus Bitcoin, there is no negotiation. you either have the private keys or you don't.
