4 ms·
What if instead of coopting the tech, they add their resources to the existing blockchain, making it more robust?
by jedi_stannis 11y ago
What if instead of coopting the tech, they add their resources to the existing blockchain, making it more robust?
- unimpressive 11y agoThe entire point of the above comment is that the bitcoin community and software is not trustworthy for their purposes.
- Hermel 11y agoNot today, but maybe tomorrow if banks start mining themselves and dedicate developers to the project.
- icebraining 11y agoYes, but they could start their own closed blockchain instead of mining for Bitcoin.
- oh_sigh 11y agoOr they could just maintain their own ledgers for 1 billionth the computational cost.
- icebraining 11y agoBitcoin by itself doesn't actually need much energy - it could easy run in a single server. The reason it uses so much now is because so many miners have joined, so the software increased the computational difficulty to keep generating 1 block every 10m. If you run the bitcoin daemon in "regression test" mode, which creates a private, disconnected blockchain, it can actually generate ~200 blocks per minute using just a single CPU.
- dllthomas 11y agoIf a block chain is closed and the membership known, you could use some metric of "organizationally distinct signatories" to determine the length (/cost) of a chain rather than proof of work.
- brighton36 11y agoDon'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.
- icebraining 11y agoA 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.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoDo banks process actual transactions through a SQL Server?
- icebraining 11y agoSure, where do you think Oracle gets all their revenue? :) I mean, interbank transactions go through a clearing house like FedACH, but even that is just a remote RDBMS.