5 ms·
Not today, but maybe tomorrow if banks start mining themselves and dedicate developers to the project.
by Hermel 11y ago
Not 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.