71–80 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blockchains are highly inefficient for decentralized consensus as well.
But they are the most efficient known solution to the problem. Efficiency is relative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issuing banks provide credit and insurance, and quite a lot of effort in the system goes to anti-fraud. Especially for online payments.
It used to be that way but with all the data available to us now, managing fraud isn’t as difficult as it used to be. Definitely not to the tune of 3-4% both ways combined in many cases.
(Not counting Amex cards, which take 3% off the merchant and hand most of it back to the customer)
This headline is goofy. Central banks have been using digital electronic currencies for decades. The difference is that now they want to include all Swedes in the electronic currency system, not just Swedish banks, as they have been for decades. (And the claim that this uses "blockchain technology" is just a lie; it's a centralized database. It's no more a blockchain than Git is.) I think this is a terrible idea give…
A CBDC (central bank digital currency) does not have a public ledger, and is not distributed. If they are using a blockchain internally (an entirely pointless concept done only for the addition of a buzzword to their webpage), that doesn't make it a crypto in the currently known sense.
So I ask again: how is this different to digital/electronic currency that already exists? I can open my bank app, check the funds, send them to another person instantly. None of that involved paper, and all of it was backed and controlled by the central bank. What makes this any different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem with a central server for money is that it makes the whole state vulnerable. If everybody use central bank e-currency you can just attack their sever to destroy the flow of all money. But if it is distributed like real crypto currency, you have to be able to attack and take down hundreds or thousands of severs geographically spread.
I don’t disagree with you, but central server for money is what we have had since the beginning of time right? We have central banks, where banks have cash, and and central securities depositories, where they have their securities.
My company’s suggested implementation made it to the second round of proposals. Unfortunately we are not involved any more. There are some serious challenges that needs to be ironed out. Two that comes to mind is how to solve offline payments, the other one is how to live up to the requirement from the government that the currency needs to be liquid also during a crisis (what if electricity or telecom doesn’t work?)…
I couldn't help but chuckle at the two typos (Freudian slips?) of Riksbank: "The Riskbank" and "The Rikabank" (bank of the rich).
> The pilot will run until February 2021 and will use block-chain technology, the Riksbank said. Will it really? Riksbanken can have a central server to resolve any double spends, which is only really a problem in a decentralized network. Once you have a singular authority you can just let them decide, and you'll have no need for an inefficient cryptocurrency. > which is being developed by consulting firm Accenture A…
There are still a few benefits of crypto here:
- the “service” can stay up even when gov’t servers go down
- you can even make some transactions without network access at all
- transparency about money supply
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people really don't like cryptocurrencies
Is it just pure hatred ? There don't seem to be much arguing going on...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without proof of work
having proof of work or not is orthogonal to whether it's a blockchain or not. see: blockchains for proof of stake cryptocurrencies.
So maybe proof of work can be replaced, but without some consensus protocol it's not a blockchain in any meaningful sense.