fiat is not using the crypto 'signing' mechanism
however if we delve into a broad 'authorisation' analogy comparison
fiat is a 2of 3 multisig
when the government has not frozen your account. your bank has not found you breached their ToS and you request your money out of your account. then yes its 3 sig, no problem
however if you breach the banks terms by trying to get £1k out of an ATM that only allow £500. the bank wont sign. and government AML laws wont sign. meaning your 1 sign aint enough to allow it
a bank can only freeze funds within the government authority/allowance/rules
and if a government and bank have reason to freeze funds and hand it to the government. they dont need your signature
but in most cases as long as your following AML the government will always autosign. meaning as long as your not breaching banks conditions they will sign too.. so your signature then gives it ultimate authority as your the one requesting the destination for the funds, thus triggering the transaction
fiat is not a 1 of 3 or a 3 of 3 multisig
Topic: Fiat is a three way multi-sig virtual currency. (Read 148 times)
Multi-sig has been a discussion that I've seen on different areas and I think it is really beneficial. There is doubt with fiat because banks still kinda control and hold your money, but an example of multi-sig in the blockchain space is Symbol which accounts can be converted to multisig.
From that moment on, the multisig account cannot announce transactions by itself. A multisig cosignatory has to propose a transaction involving the multisig, wrapping it in an AggregateTransaction.
To record the transaction in the block, the other cosignatories will have to agree.
From that moment on, the multisig account cannot announce transactions by itself. A multisig cosignatory has to propose a transaction involving the multisig, wrapping it in an AggregateTransaction.
To record the transaction in the block, the other cosignatories will have to agree.
I agree with the comment of it being multi-signatory, and the banks who are the financial institution usually seeks to satisfy the interest of the gov't and not the individual(s)
In China for example; which is the nation most interested in launching a centralized digital currency, the government set the deadline and give the directive to the People's Bank of China to meet that target. Some believe it's a move to try and overthrow the U.S Dollar as the global currency.
Other countries may be less stringent that China where the government has total control, but they would still be signatories to all assets.
do you think that banks are trying to cut out the governments as signatories in the alt currencies they are trying to create at the moment.
I don't see how this is possible, money control is a political move most of the time and the governments are always actively involved in it.In China for example; which is the nation most interested in launching a centralized digital currency, the government set the deadline and give the directive to the People's Bank of China to meet that target. Some believe it's a move to try and overthrow the U.S Dollar as the global currency.
Other countries may be less stringent that China where the government has total control, but they would still be signatories to all assets.
This comment was made by a subscriber in the Ivan on Tech chat.
It is something that hadn't occurred to me, but I think there is a certain amount of truth in it. The three signatories are you. the bank and the government, and in these days of toxic debt, bank fraud, and profligate governments, people are starting to seek alternatives, and to lose confidence in most national currencies. Of course I am referring to the virtual deposits in fiat that are recorded by the banks.
What do you guys think of this opinion, and do you think that banks are trying to cut out the governments as signatories in the alt currencies they are trying to create at the moment.
I miss typed "most" as "mist" in the phrase "mist local currencies", and I was tempted to leave it.
It is something that hadn't occurred to me, but I think there is a certain amount of truth in it. The three signatories are you. the bank and the government, and in these days of toxic debt, bank fraud, and profligate governments, people are starting to seek alternatives, and to lose confidence in most national currencies. Of course I am referring to the virtual deposits in fiat that are recorded by the banks.
What do you guys think of this opinion, and do you think that banks are trying to cut out the governments as signatories in the alt currencies they are trying to create at the moment.
I miss typed "most" as "mist" in the phrase "mist local currencies", and I was tempted to leave it.
Jump to: