Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#61

Post by nickpsecurity »

ihsw wrote: post #30

It should be noted that there is a far more interesting implication -- tech and banking giants ditch SWIFT for their own blockchain. The blockchain and SWIFT are very similar in spirit and in actuality, and it stands to reason that there is consensus that a private blockchain network would be more robust, fast, and secure than SWIFT.

My thoughts exactly given I've designed, but not developed, tech specifically aiming to replace SWIFT. What they do need not cost so much or be so difficult. I was thinking highly secure endpoints and link encryptors to authenticate otherwise P2P traffic with optional 3rd party involvement where extra accountability is needed.

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#63

Post by yc1010 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #49
jsprogrammer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No reasons? The nature of the Bitcoin's SHA-256 POW means that individuals can no longer meaningfully contribute to the integrity of the chain, and this responsibility is increasingly held by fewer individuals with access to (relatively) expensive specialized ASIC machines. The Bitcoin system has (relatively) few legit trade opportunities yet, but is well used by scammers and black marketeers. The median person has l…

There is not reason to use this web thing (thats fully of dirty porn and nerds) for shopping when we have paper catalogues

There is no need to send email when you can send a fax

There is no need to carry a brick with you to make calls

There is no need for plastic cards when one can use cash

And so on, just because YOU do not grasp advantages and possibilities that bitcoin has brought along, does mean the rest of us dont. I use Bitcoin daily BTW it has already improved my life in ways only rivaled by the rise of the web, mobile in last 20 years

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#64

Post by zik »

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…

I doubt their private blockchain will work for the very same reason they want a private blockchain - they're not trustworthy. The bitcoin blockchain is secured by the large number of disparate people mututally checking the system. When it's just banks involved the number of players is reduced by many orders of magnitude and it becomes very much easier to game the system.

The incentive to steal large amounts of money is high and the security is relatively low. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#65

Post by brighton36 »

sanswork wrote: post #51
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,…

Banks don't need mining for their chains. >I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate, but I don't know whether this has been done or not. This is what everyone is talking about. They aren't talking about mined chains.

If there's no mining its not a blockchain. Objective truth is the innovation that Bitcoin offered. These proposed system achieve consensus by merely voting for truth, which is technology we've had since the 80s

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#66

Post by brighton36 »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #59
sanswork wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know all the participants and they don't use PoW. The benefits of a blockchain are known entry ordering and immutability. It sounds like you are missing a lot by having a bitcoin centric view of the problem space.

Every time Ive ever heard blockchain on here it was a Bitcoin- or Xcoin-centric view involving mining. I always countered with stuff like you just said from old research into distributed, fault-tolerant DB or SCM design. I had no idea until now that there was even parallel blockchain work with no proof of work. So there might be a greater press problem at work here not bringing out knowledge of other aspects of block…

The so-called non-work based blockchains are typically just presented as blockchains for the marketing hype. These are run of the mill paxos databases which isn't very useful compared to modern signed message sending platforms that companies like swift use

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#67

Post by brighton36 »

mongol wrote: post #58

The Economist article on this I found good. "The notion of shared public ledgers may not sound revolutionary or sexy. Neither did double-entry book-keeping or joint-stock companies. Yet, like them, the blockchain is an apparently mundane process that has the potential to transform how people and businesses co-operate. Bitcoin fanatics are enthralled by the libertarian ideal of a pure, digital currency beyond the reac…

This article was a PR release for factom which is an obvious scam (they sell checksums). Notarization for the underserved is not a real idea.

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#68

Post by brighton36 »

mbgaxyz wrote: post #29
DennisP wrote: post #19

It makes sense for the banks to do this, because they have different requirements. Bitcoin is great because it works with an unknown set of untrusted entities, and there's no counterparty risk because the ledger is the currency. Banks have a known set of semi-trusted entities, and want to track off-chain assets. They'll still have counterparty risk, but if they see a way to use chained blocks and something like Byzan…

Yep. Here's an example of creating a private blockchain, issuing and sending assets (all in 90 seconds). https://makebitcoingreatagain.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/creat...

And why is this better than MySQL?

Re: Tech and Banking Giants Ditch Bitcoin for Their Own Blockchain

#69

Post by sanswork »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #59
sanswork wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know all the participants and they don't use PoW. The benefits of a blockchain are known entry ordering and immutability. It sounds like you are missing a lot by having a bitcoin centric view of the problem space.

Every time Ive ever heard blockchain on here it was a Bitcoin- or Xcoin-centric view involving mining. I always countered with stuff like you just said from old research into distributed, fault-tolerant DB or SCM design. I had no idea until now that there was even parallel blockchain work with no proof of work. So there might be a greater press problem at work here not bringing out knowledge of other aspects of block…

I think the main press issue is that these other chains aren't really for public use so there is little benefit to pushing for press unless you're a company that develops them trying to find clients and we do actually see a lot of stories about this in the financial news.
Post reply on HN