Topic: Bitcoin woke up the Giants (Read 2936 times)

I'm not interested in semantic gymnastics, really

Until I see some bank actually employing the blockchain technology as it is commonly understood, and it will be something different than Bitcoin (or like Bitcoin, for that matter), I remain skeptical about real benefits and advantages this technology could offer to the banking sector. I heard it in the news myself that some banks had been studying it, but that seems to be all so far

you're not understanding what blockchain is.
imagine it like the difference between

DBMS - database management systems
RDBMS - relationship management systems

even your quote is saying the opposite of what your thinking.

not

in short a blockchain can work on one system. a blockchain can be edited by having multisig instead of hashes. which the owners of the keypairs have full access to.
a blockchain has no big built in technology requirements to be deemed a blockchain. it just needs something(literally anything) that links one lump of data to another lump of data.
that is all..

once you realise that the quote you pulled up is trying to specifically talk about bitcoins blockchain by talking about transactions, proof of work(mining) and decentralization.. rather than the fundamentals of a blockchain. you will realise that blockchain alone is not big of a deal. but what can be done once you add on the other options could make it a big deal.
emphasis: options added ontop.

now as for HOW the banks will use that simple mechanism.. well there are a million ways it can use it.
options outside of the term blockchain, but easily programmable in to increase security of a blockchain
it could go PoA, PoS, PoW, PoL, PoT
it could use SHA, ripemd, md6, (list goes on) or a combination
it could be central to one location, or distributed to regional hubs, distributed to local bank branches.
it could be split up. where local locations only holds one block of data per location and the region just holds the headers of all locations
it could be split up. where central location holds all data, and the region only holds the headers of all blocks
it could be split up. where specific location only holds the headers of all blocks and the region holds all data
all options are open
now all the stuff above is just protecting the outer shell (the blocks)

as for the data inside
the data can be anything. doesnt need to be financial (eg ID, medical records, inventory, even a phonebook/yellowpages)
the data can be locked with hashes, or signatures or timestamps, or any other method.
the data can be stored/checked as anything, hex, json, ascii, xml or anything

again a blockchain is not a big deal alone. but opens up the possibility to what can be done
the blocks and data within blocks can be secured not by requiring storing the whole data on every secure system. but just storing the link between the block securely

eg
"data123data123data123data123"-linkabc-"data456data456data456data456"-linkdef-"data789data789data789data789"-linkghi
you dont need to store all of the line above. you can as an option ontop. have the main 'checking' mechanism just stores
linkabc-linkdef-linkghi
and program it so that the system should reject a block unless its 'header' (link) is recognised.

now again how the banks will use blockchain. is another question that cannot be answered. because blockchain is just a small tools that allows MANY things top be built ontop of it and inside it... that traditionally were not being done

blockchain is not the end solution with built in security. its just a new tool that expands what the old database models limits were. and allows freedom to build layers ontop and new ways of storing/distributing/validating/editing/securing.

think of it as changing from a DBMS to a RDBMS where it opened up new options of use.
blockchain is just the next level up from that. allowing more options of use. but alone is not a big deal

They were threatened by the new technology that's why they act and then keep up with the changing financial system in order to keep their business. There will always be innovations given that from time to time there is always something new emerging so in order for them not to lose their business, they should invest and research on what's the better way to have an edge against their competitor.

That is not what OP is saying i guess, he is saying that they are awaken because they see bitcoin as a thread to their banking systems, that is why they are giving too much attention to their clients so that they don't leave them and move towards bitcoin or any other thing, so for that reason he said bitcoin has woken up "Giants".

They are interested in the technology behind bitcoin and not bitcoin itself because the decentralized nature of bitcoin means bad business for them, so now they are looking at how the technology can be twisted so that it would be business as usual.

The revelation bitcoin opened our eyes  to about banks, isn't something they can easily sweep under the carpet, they have been milking us dry all the while, but with bitcoin, we now have a voice to say enough is enough!

Yeah i agree but thats all about to change.....lol   

and about time too ......

The "Giants" will never fall back. If they can't stop Bitcoins, they will try to buy them. What I mean is that they can start accepting and using Bitcoins, but changing some things to benefits them, like increasing fees in countries over BTCs. They just want the profit, if they can get it, even with BTCs, no problem, but if they can't, they will do anything to achieve what they want!

Dont think so. It ia just wisheful thinking. It would be really great though imagine being a millionaire !! xD

If you really think so, then don't tell me that the blockchain technology could help banks somehow

Because it most likely can't, and that was my question precisely. Namely, whether there is any real benefit or advantage of using the blockchain technology by banks, since many on the forum have been claiming that banks are either interested or already implementing their take on it. Blockchain is blockchain which means that a transaction (or what can be loosely called a transaction) is accepted by a consensus (majority) of independent nodes in a trustless network thereby validating it, and then it gets written down into a ledger with each node having an identical copy of it provided the transaction is valid (emphasis added):


Basically, you start claiming one thing (that the blockchain technology could actually help banks) and then proceed to something very different, which is inconsequential to the matter in question

is the most profitable ?

They're still not there yet IMO, bank transfers are still painfully slow and until that changes, I'd still prefer Bitcoin and even Paypal for practical use, meaning just sending money to someone.

And I think they are just interested in the technology behind Bitcoin, but afraid, I don't believe that.

yet again your thinking about bitcoins blockchain and how bitcoin functions.

ill repeat for a third time. a block chain is just a block of data linked to another block.
it does not require to be distributed.
does not require PoW,
does not require Sha
does not require the data to be financial based
dos not require immutability and endless growth
does not require these things but still defined as blockchain.

its just a relationship database (if you want to use old terminology)

however its more programmable than traditional databases to allow it to be secured in a multitude of different ways,
it can be where each branch just stores "headers only"
or yes it could be each branch has all account details of all branches
or even regional centres holding a percentage of the data and/or just headers.
its fully open to options and utility.
 
as for how i see banks using it.. some of the ethical concepts(towards society and customers)  i have thought of probably wont be what or how banks will use their hyperledger chains


again your thinking of it in terms of bitcoins immutable ever growing blockchain that due to the amount of customers requires x,y,z. rather then just thinking of a relationship database, where data can be edited/split into clusters.

imagine it like a block of data is a database table, linked by a reference to another database table. and certain nodes only need to store certain tables and table could be altered if there were a number of authorisations to do so. thus preventing a single user from changing everything.

blockchain is not much of a big new perfect technology. its just a tool to then build ontop on with other things.

in short a blockchain is not a big powerful new thing. yes its a new tool for data utility. but a blockchain alone (without other security features) is not much by itself.
the only way you know what extra security layers and what way it will be used would be to talk to those contracted to build it.

blockchain is not the end tech.. its just the introduction.. bitcoin has many other mechanisms that make bitcoin special.

Do you suggest that branches of a bank should each keep an authentic copy of their blockchain of transactions, and with every transaction made they should broadcast this transaction to every other branch of the bank? What if there are thousands of such branches? I simply can't accept this idea as both feasible and meaningful. On the other hand, if a few branches become disconnected from each other, make transactions and end up with different blockchains, this would obviously wreak havoc in such a system. Since how would they synchronize their blockchains later? I'm strongly inclined to think that processing data in a centralized way is the only viable alternative in this case...

And that seems to be what payment processing systems like PayPal, Mastercard or Visa do

That's the best thing that happen to be completely honest about it. The more that the big conglomerates are forced to bend to the people's will and not the other way around, the better. Having alternatives that can't be bought or sold are even better ways to make sure something like this happens.

The internet, the dissemination of information, and alternatives to the forced mainstream retailers and vendors are a benefit to the people, and not the globalist interests.

This were the same companies that since the begining were trying to kill bitcoin, since they had fail doing those they now are trying to follow bitcoin, sure they are scared, some people opened their eyes already, and the huge fees we paid before sounds a big wast that we had done since we use banks and others services.

We will see what happens re the IRS and taxes soon. They will be asking us to put down how much and what type of cryptocurrency we own. At any rate the higher atm fees, inconveneice and other friction with bitcoin will be offset by tax savings for those that take advantage of it.

Well, considering that there are no people to arrest and no centralized distribution point people can attack to bring down the network, I would especially believe that something like this is possible, now that anyone has the potential to get themselves out of the banking system and into something that frees them up. Banks only have the advantage of moderate security and insurance now.

blockchain does have many advantages over standard databases of the olden days. but fundamentally it is just a database. and its what the data will be and how that data is secured that changes things.
think of "blockchain" as simply "relationship database", but much more programmable and layer-able then standard

it all depends on what layers and uses they have

users EG local bank branch and a customer can use multisigs. for the accounts
think of it like each bank branch is a block of data. holding many multisig transactions.
then outside the block(bank branch) the head office signs the entire block and has other bank branches double audit that particular bank branch(block of data)

thus that block is then linked to a chain held by head office.
the bank branch or customer cannot simply edit the block. they need the head office and syndicate of other branches to sign off on the block to then update it. (more of PoA/PoS concept).

meaning the customer alone cant change anything.. the bank branch manager cannot edit anything alone. where it could require between 4-xx of entities to edit an entry.

because blockchain is soo loose in its actual definition. it can be utilised in many ways.. however, the only way of knowing how banks are actually going to use it requires you looking at hyperledger or getting gmaxwell to discuss what he and his employers are upto.

And how could all this help store data more efficiently in the blockchain as you said in your previous post? I think any decent database will do that by far more efficiently. On the other hand, If a client of a bank wanted to sign a message or an order (say, to transfer money of make a payment), he would just use his digital signature that the bank provided him with and with which the bank can authenticate this user. This client already trusts the bank (since he holds his funds there), so there is no use for blockchain, right? Note that I'm not talking about Bitcoin here...

I just want to see if the blockchain technology is really useful for banks in any meaningful way

firstly you have not grasped what blockchain is.

its like your trying to skip some steps. grab an idea and then run backwards blindfolded.

bitcoins blockchain is fixed data. due to many SEPARATE mechanisms, one of which is called proof of work that locks the data via hashes.
blockchains in general do not need to be locked in as a permanent unchangeable dataset.
blockchains dont have to uses hashes, PoW. blockchains dont even need to be distributed.

forget all you know of the dozen or so security features of bitcoin.. and peel it all away and think about one aspect. blockchain
forget json, forget SHA, forget PoW, forget transactions, forget distribution with anonymous parties.

blockchain is just a block of data linked to another block of data. like a chain of blocks.

put it another way

if i had some data.. it could be a list of transactions, a chapter of a book or some medical data
i and someone else can sign it so it becomes a block of data.

but we also add a piece of data from another block so that they are linked together.
now you have a blockchain.

if you think a blockchain has to be virtical and has to grow forever it doesnt. a chain can wrap around its self or replace a link in the chain
data can be edited in a blockchain as long as it meets the rules of what linked it together.

bitcoin is a whole different concept. of multiple security features ONTOP of blockchain.. that has many many many more layers to make it near impossible to edit and technically immutable data in regards to the limits of circumventing all of bitcoins other security measures.

again once you realise how small of a security measure blockchains are. you realise it does have some utility.. but is no where near what bitcoin is.