31–39 of 39 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they could start their own closed blockchain instead of mining for Bitcoin.
Or they could just maintain their own ledgers for 1 billionth the computational cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the ledger is public, yes. Everyone can see tampering. Right now, the top 3 Bitcoin mining pools have 52% majority control of Bitcoin. The top 6 have 80% control. Bitcoin mining hasn't been distributed for a long time now.
"Seeing" tampering is a completely different proposition than preventing tampering. Any good centralized architecture can demonstrate tampering. Google docs does this all the time.
I can't believe that there's any possibility of banks doing anything of value on the Bitcoin blockchain when they could easily coopt the blockchain tech and set up trusted miners. The public immutable ledger with full transaction history is obviously interesting to Wall St. but what are the chances any of these banks will trust anything of value to the current ideological devs of a ~$3B commodity controlled entirely…
You seem pretty intent on posting strawman arguments and fud in every bitcoin related thread. You do realize that it is basically impossible for a miner to roll back last month's transactions and that no such thing has happened at all, right?
> and that no such thing has happened at all, right?
Except that time when 184 billion Bitcoin were created out of thin air and dispersed to two wallets.. Then the devs/miners agreed that the previous 5 hours' worth of transactions shouldn't count and hard-forked at an arbitrary point in the past.
One of the most critical parts of the Bitcoin network is the number of competing (non-colluding) parties doing proof of work. Re-writing the ledge would be entirely possible (and possibly easy) if there were only one or two parties processing transactions.
If its just the NYSE "using Bitcoin technology" then haven't they effectively encoded transactions into a linked-list with a few frivolous hashes placed throughout? You need a lot of competing minors to produce the trusted ledger the global Bitcoin network enjoys. If these banks are serious about using Bitcoin (or at least what I define as Bitcoin) then how do they plan on incentivizing a diverse set of non-colluding minors?
I've read many of these "The NYSE is using bitcoin!" articles and I'm still not sure if the banks are using the wrong words, or if the journalist are? Maybe I'm missing something? One of the most critical parts of the Bitcoin network is the number of competing (non-colluding) parties doing proof of work. Re-writing the ledge would be entirely possible (and possibly easy) if there were only one or two parties processi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't they do that already? What is a 'closed blockchain' if not a sql server? The only value a blockchain has is as a public resource.
A closed blockchain is still distributed (just not open to everyone), and still has different nodes checking up on each other, while an SQL server is a single point of potential fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem pretty intent on posting strawman arguments and fud in every bitcoin related thread. You do realize that it is basically impossible for a miner to roll back last month's transactions and that no such thing has happened at all, right?
Colluding miners could pretty much do whatever they wanted.. > and that no such thing has happened at all, right? Except that time when 184 billion Bitcoin were created out of thin air and dispersed to two wallets.. Then the devs/miners agreed that the previous 5 hours' worth of transactions shouldn't count and hard-forked at an arbitrary point in the past. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A closed blockchain is still distributed (just not open to everyone), and still has different nodes checking up on each other, while an SQL server is a single point of potential fraud.
Do banks process actual transactions through a SQL Server?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Seeing" tampering is a completely different proposition than preventing tampering. Any good centralized architecture can demonstrate tampering. Google docs does this all the time.
That requires trusting Google. The goal is to do this without a single trusted party.