Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

Post by jon_richards » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

roymurdock wrote: post #32

For anyone who needs a (very simplified) primer on the blockchain and why it's relevant for banks: A blockchain is a ledger (piece of paper that records transactions) with perfect memory of every single transaction that has ever occurred within a certain network. This makes double spending within the network impossible as you can trace every single coin in the network back to its origin, verifying that your trading p…

Post by forgotmysn » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 10:23 PM UTC

roymurdock wrote: post #36

johndevor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something about the financial industry's interest has really turned me off the blockchain and its possible implementations. What exactly? And don't you think banks will be more apt to use Bitcoin once things like the lightning network roll out (offering much greater transaction volumes)?

I think I was turned off because I envisioned a much grander future for blockchain tech than a glorified clearinghouse for big banks. Banks will never use a public network (like Bitcoin) to manage inter-bank transfers. They'll take the underlying technology and create a custom, private network where they can tweak protocols to their liking. The hard part will be for the banks to form a board to oversee the network, b…

Post by ant6n » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 10:53 PM UTC

jon_richards wrote: post #41

roymurdock wrote: post #32

For anyone who needs a (very simplified) primer on the blockchain and why it's relevant for banks: A blockchain is a ledger (piece of paper that records transactions) with perfect memory of every single transaction that has ever occurred within a certain network. This makes double spending within the network impossible as you can trace every single coin in the network back to its origin, verifying that your trading p…

How do the banks ensure that aren't outmined? One of the key components of a blockchain is that no one mines more than half that chain. If you have too many blockchains, then you split the miners between the chains and open the doors for a big player to come in and overwhelm the other miners on that chain. I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate,…

Post by sanswork » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 10:53 PM UTC

tibbon wrote: post #46

jon_richards wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do the banks ensure that aren't outmined? One of the key components of a blockchain is that no one mines more than half that chain. If you have too many blockchains, then you split the miners between the chains and open the doors for a big player to come in and overwhelm the other miners on that chain. I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate,…

I was wondering the same. What's the incentive for me to mine (verify transactions) on their blockchains?

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 11:08 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #34

logfromblammo wrote: post #11

"Ditching" Bitcoin? Wouldn't that imply that they had previously adopted Bitcoin to some meaningful extent? Bitcoin is merely proof of concept for the underlying technology. I expect that there will be many more offshoots in the future, beyond the pieces used by the existing banking system. But I won't really care about any of them, until one of them allows me to work, buy, and sell without being forced to trust any…

I don't see what advantage an offshoot would have. The current blockchain is the longest; there's no reason to ditch it.