Topic: Santander Quits R3 Blockchain Consortium - It's beginning to crumble - page 2. (Read 1879 times)

Well when R3 joined hyperledger and several banks area also part of hyperledger, there is no need to be with R3 anymore I guess.
And banks still like the idea of blockchain or distributed ledgers because they may improve their inner processes and operations with it.I'm speaking of increase of speed, cutting costs and circumvent other middle man.
This is nothing the average bank customer may have any advantage from of course.For them I think Bitcoin and other open decentralized Blockchains secured and supported by many nodes and miners around the world will still be the main choice.

Doesn't seem too long ago when I read about Santander adopting blockchain. Seems hasty to have jumped on and then off so quickly.

I also believe there are some individuals capitalising on blockchain hype and the relative ignorance/naivety of traditional financial institutions to pitch private blockchain to banks.

ICO dump scams here, private ledgers for the big boys.

i see that R3 joined hyperledger. there is no need for banks to be under the R3 group while also being part of hyperledger, when they can instead freely invest direct to hyperledger and not have the middleman(R3).. especially if R3 is making financial demands just to stay under the R3 banner.

as for why the banks are investing in the hyperledger, firstly it costs them nothing. their millions of dollars are a tax right off, while then being able to on the side still use the funds even after having it wrote off as a loss.

as for why banks are inventing the hyperledger. because unlike traditional DBMS(database management systems) and RDBMS(relational database management systems) blockchain adds extra layers, in essense an extra programmable layer to RDBMS to give them more freedoms of what they can do with their data that the old RDBMS could not.

as for why not use bitcoin.
banks want more control and choice to how their system works. afterall they are regulated to handle legal tender, so bitcoin has issues with that.

as for why we should not be asking banks to use bitcoin.
we dont wont/need banks to make bitcoin into fiat 2.0. bitcoin should remain independent and open. and not turned into the fiat controlled system that doesnt empower people openly without judgement.

Why would a private ledger based on the Blockchain technology be more efficient and cost effective than Bitcoin? Bitcoin is more secure and it has a established global user base. The main focus of these private ledgers are to decrease the cost of transfers between banks. < not paying Swift > and to decentralize their security.

Bitcoin can already do both of these, and it has a proven track record. You did not need to dump Billions of dollars into research and development, because Bitcoin already had all the boxes ticked.

The only thing they did not have with Bitcoin was full control. This is the main reason why they developed their own technology. ^hmmmm^

Latest from Coin Desk, http://www.coindesk.com/santander-drops-out-r3-blockchain-consortium/

The idea of "private blockchains" and without the use of Proof of Work was not so smart to begin with. How could their private blockchain make things more efficient for them? Is it not that their current system is good enough for what they are trying to do? Why don't the banks use a shared database? That would be much easier for them. I believe there are groups of individuals who are scamming to make the banks ride the blockchain band wagon.

A blockchain for banks is nothing but hype.