They like the transparency, trust and cost effectiveness that blockchain technology brings, but they dislike Bitcoin and instead wants to tweak the same technology to develop an altcoin, that would provide for them the control that Bitcoin denied them of. At any rate and whatever they do, Bitcoin is here to stay and a copy could hardly be better than the original
And how are they going to make use of that?
I mean employ the "trust and cost effectiveness that blockchain technology brings" to their advantage in practice? As I see it, for that they would need to create another decentralized network which would basically cost them nothing, like the Bitcoin network costs nothing since no single individual or entity grabs all the profits. Of course, the Bitcoin network does cost a lot, but these costs are compensated by profits that are shared in the same network, so it is basically a win-win situation and no costs entailed. I don't think that banks would be able to leave the costs to the network while themselves would only reap profits. In other words, who will be running network for them for free?
Banking processes as presently is, is expensive and very time consuming as it relies heavily on a team of people to nose through books and figures. Use of blockchain technology however offers some relief that are irresistible and here is what some banks are making of the situation:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/big-banks-plan-interbank-blockchain-platform/articleshow/56770736.cmsI was reading the article and it suddenly struck me why this idea might not work out. Below is the interesting part that pushed me toward this conclusion (emphasis added):
Unlike existing technology systems in which a bank maintains its own database, a blockchain system would allow banks to maintain a copy of the transactions. As they occur, the system would update all the records simultaneously, removing the need to reconcile transactions between different banks
So why would any bank want to make its transactions known to other banks? I understand that they can be made anonymous, but how would the banks then find out who is the receiver of the funds sent (in the sending bank) and who sent them (in the receiving bank)? For this system to work, the banks would have to disclose all the details of the transactions they are sending to another bank to all other banks in this system. Indeed, they could encrypt the contents but why then not send the transaction directly to the receiving bank signing it with the public key?
I still don't see any sense in this endeavor
