Topic: Bitcoin's killer app? banks could use 1 shared ledger (Read 1032 times)
Bitcoin is not threatened by any bank sharing ledger because people will always value privacy so both will likely co-exist.
So if I get this correctly they are trying to make a shit alt-coin which is centralized?
Basically they want to make the bank version of Ripple, right?
Basically they want to make the bank version of Ripple, right?
Something like that I suppose but this one will have a better more suitable name.
RipUall - if you say it fast enough it sounds like Ripple
So if I get this correctly they are trying to make a shit alt-coin which is centralized?
Basically they want to make the bank version of Ripple, right?
Basically they want to make the bank version of Ripple, right?
I don't think they would want that. Each banks have their own policy. If they maintain a shared ledger, it will be opened to auditing and some of the confidential information would be revealed. Plus, with that kind of thing, there is no way of having manipulation to adjust the balance and it would be way out of the norm of what they are currently practicing. If you understand what I mean.
If I understood right, you mean that banks will share between them all the information related to all the transactions they make.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
yes, I think this can be viable.
example:
if bank A ( in Germany ) wants to transact with a bank B ( in Panama ) and there is large transaction cost and also default risk, bank A might choose bitcoin to do the transaction to avoid both costs
This means that they would use the public ledger only for a tiny fraction of their operations. I thought that you meant to move to a public ledger, not just use it scarcely.
If I understood right, you mean that banks will share between them all the information related to all the transactions they make.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
it cannot in fact, because it would require to share also info about customers(you can't do that because of the privacy law) around the world if we are talking about different national banks, which are cooperating togetherThat would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
banks can do a transaction with bitcoin where they do not share details of clients and of which only they know the details.
the general public will only see a transaction between bank a and bank b and NOT know the end clients
They interact mainly by sending some info to the central bank or institutions like the ones holding lists of people that don't pay back loans. But from that to the point they show publicly every cent where comes from and where it goes (100% use of a public ledger)... it's a huge difference.
Bitcoin is too far ahead to be bypassed by an altcoin.
If a new altcoin will be succesfull, this will also drive populairity of Bitcoin.
If a new altcoin will be succesfull, this will also drive populairity of Bitcoin.
if this is true fact happen then banks see new operational opportunities in the things that they are not supported in the past.
It's already happening << http://blog.btcgermany.eu/ubs-bank-partnered-coinstructors-present-mind-gap-crypto-2-0-virtual-seminar/ >>
The banks are already looking at Alt coins with manipulation features and less anonymity for a substitute to Bitcoin and their own in-house private ledger. ^evil^
The banks are already looking at Alt coins with manipulation features and less anonymity for a substitute to Bitcoin and their own in-house private ledger. ^evil^
That means that they have finally realized that "If you can't beat them, join them".
Plus they also realized that some person or a group of people have demonstarted to be better in global economics than they will ever be.
It's already happening << http://blog.btcgermany.eu/ubs-bank-partnered-coinstructors-present-mind-gap-crypto-2-0-virtual-seminar/ >>
The banks are already looking at Alt coins with manipulation features and less anonymity for a substitute to Bitcoin and their own in-house private ledger. ^evil^
The banks are already looking at Alt coins with manipulation features and less anonymity for a substitute to Bitcoin and their own in-house private ledger. ^evil^
Do you suggest making a public ledger on an alt coin for a bank ledger? I do not think the bitcoin network can be extended as a bank ledger in its current state, except if the banks simply maintain bitcoin wallets. This has to do only with the nature of the blockchain. I could see this existing in an altcoin or sidechain specially designed for this
The BankCoin - surprised nobody made an alt with this name yet - or did they?
If they didn't they probably will now that it has been mentioned
On another note, I thought banks (in the same country) were all connected.
They are where I live.
Unless the OP means internationally.
Because if that is the case then I highly doubt that will ever happen.
If I understood right, you mean that banks will share between them all the information related to all the transactions they make.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
it cannot in fact, because it would require to share also info about customers(you can't do that because of the privacy law) around the world if we are talking about different national banks, which are cooperating togetherThat would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
banks can do a transaction with bitcoin where they do not share details of clients and of which only they know the details.
the general public will only see a transaction between bank a and bank b and NOT know the end clients
If I understood right, you mean that banks will share between them all the information related to all the transactions they make.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
it cannot in fact, because it would require to share also info about customers(you can't do that because of the privacy law) around the world if we are talking about different national banks, which are cooperating together
We should also figure out how best to build cars and houses for dinosaurs.
yes, I think we should
to speed up adoptation
what is succes of whatsapp?
because it works with your current phone, network provider and contactlist
If I understood right, you mean that banks will share between them all the information related to all the transactions they make.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
yes, I think this can be viable.
example:
if bank A ( in Germany ) wants to transact with a bank B ( in Panama ) and there is large transaction cost and also default risk, bank A might choose bitcoin to do the transaction to avoid both costs
We should also figure out how best to build cars and houses for dinosaurs.
If I understood right, you mean that banks will share between them all the information related to all the transactions they make.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
That would mean that a lot of different competing companies (the banks) will share between them (or with all the world? I am not sure about what you meant) all the info about what they do (you'll see that from the list of transactions).
Do you really believe that such thing can happen? I don't.
here is my logic
1 any financial operating organization could use a shared ledger (for example by using bitcoin) to do a trustless transaction right now
2 with a trustless transaction, the overhead (direct cost of transaction and cost of risk of default of counterparty) of doing these transactions is much, much lower than traditional systems. with this lower cost, a shared ledger / blockchain can create a direct competitive advantage to financial institutions.
3 if a blockchain is chosen to be used, bitcoin is best candidate due to market capitalization (protection against 51% attack)
4 banks have proved to start new business models beside normal operations. sometimes they even create separate entities ( called 'direct' ) to bypass their current legacy organization and even competing with the 'old' organization.
some challenges:
A risk: if bitcoin price crashes / bitcoin will be hacked
B bitcoin market capitalization is much, much too small to carry any real transaction volume
1 any financial operating organization could use a shared ledger (for example by using bitcoin) to do a trustless transaction right now
2 with a trustless transaction, the overhead (direct cost of transaction and cost of risk of default of counterparty) of doing these transactions is much, much lower than traditional systems. with this lower cost, a shared ledger / blockchain can create a direct competitive advantage to financial institutions.
3 if a blockchain is chosen to be used, bitcoin is best candidate due to market capitalization (protection against 51% attack)
4 banks have proved to start new business models beside normal operations. sometimes they even create separate entities ( called 'direct' ) to bypass their current legacy organization and even competing with the 'old' organization.
some challenges:
A risk: if bitcoin price crashes / bitcoin will be hacked
B bitcoin market capitalization is much, much too small to carry any real transaction volume
I don't understand that picture 
But , what's the point of that bank ledger ? We will lose our anonymity & transparency
Furthermore, bitcoin & bank goals are totally different. So, i think shared ledger is useless
But , what's the point of that bank ledger ? We will lose our anonymity & transparency
Furthermore, bitcoin & bank goals are totally different. So, i think shared ledger is useless
OP doesnt talk about the Bitcoin. He talks about the implementing a modified version of blockchain(i.e. shared ledger). IMHO, blockchain isnt used as its huge potential. It can be used in the internal of the banking accounting system or intra-banks transfers system.
From cost perspective, I believe shared ledger technology is much more cheaper than current system. You will cut DB cost and may be server costs. Also you have cheap redundancy.
From anonimity perspective, there are already anonymous options for altcoins, they can be integrated to planned system. And its not necessary to keep ledger totally public, it can be kept in banks' system. Yes, Its not secure , of course. However, this limits potential attacks - I guess-.
Just by looking at the picture, I'm already confused as to what belongs to who even though there are pointers. Also, why would bitcoin share its ledger to the banks when in the first place it is conceptualize that we are going against the current financial system? By sharing the public ledger, bitcoin is also sharing what's unique to its concept and structure: transparency, which the banks don't offer afaik.
Do you suggest making a public ledger on an alt coin for a bank ledger? I do not think the bitcoin network can be extended as a bank ledger in its current state, except if the banks simply maintain bitcoin wallets. This has to do only with the nature of the blockchain. I could see this existing in an altcoin or sidechain specially designed for this
Jump to: