4 ms·

Although the article doesn't really specify, it sounds like these banks plan on making their own blockchain instead of using the Bitcoin blockchain. I'm curiou

by dmihal 11y ago

Although the article doesn't really specify, it sounds like these banks plan on making their own blockchain instead of using the Bitcoin blockchain. I'm curious to see how the blockchain will preform without the Bitcoin network backing it.

toomim 11y ago
The article DOES specify that they don't know: > Rutter said the initial focus would be to agree on an underlying architecture, but it had not yet been decided whether that would be underpinned by bitcoin’s blockchain or another one, such as one being built by Ethereum, which offers more features than the original bitcoin technology. If you're curious, look at Ethereum. It's a blockchain without the Bitcoin network backing it.
- giancarlostoro 11y ago
  Wouldn't the other bitcoin forks be examples? I wouldn't imagine they're part of the exact same network?
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago
    Ethereum is a good example because it's proof of stake vs. proof of work. Other proof of work blockchains (e.g. Litecoin and Dogecoin) are very similar to Bitcoin. Proof of stake makes a lot of sense for these organizations if they want to run their own blockchain.
    - tromp 11y ago
      It's definitely proof of work (ethash), although the plan is to transition to proof of stake in the future. Their most recent blog entry on this: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/01/introducing-casper-friendly-ghost/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/01/introducing-casper-frie...
Animats 11y ago
From the article: “I think that these technologies will probably be post-trade,” he said. “I think savings are in the settlement side, in post-trade, in issuance, but not in exchange trading or OTC trading any time in the near future.” He added that R3 will soon announce a few more banks joining the project." That makes sense. This replaces the need for a single trusted clearinghouse with a redundant, shared ledger. Confirmation occurs when a majority of the banks have put a new transaction into a block. Because the parties are not anonymous and new ones can only be added by mutual agreement, it's like a "proof of stake" system. There's no need for "mining". Bitcoin has done a good job of validating a blockchain system as being secure against attack. No one has broken it yet. None of this, of course, does anything for Bitcoin as a currency/investment.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  I don't think a large government has tried yet; this would create an interesting incentive for one to do so. See Operation Bernhard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard with "on the internet" appended to it.

by dmihal 11y ago

toomim 11y ago

The article DOES specify that they don't know: > Rutter said the initial focus would be to agree on an underlying architecture, but it had not yet been decided whether that would be underpinned by bitcoin’s blockchain or another one, such as one being built by Ethereum, which offers more features than the original bitcoin technology. If you're curious, look at Ethereum. It's a blockchain without the Bitcoin network backing it.

giancarlostoro 11y ago
Wouldn't the other bitcoin forks be examples? I wouldn't imagine they're part of the exact same network?
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago
  Ethereum is a good example because it's proof of stake vs. proof of work. Other proof of work blockchains (e.g. Litecoin and Dogecoin) are very similar to Bitcoin. Proof of stake makes a lot of sense for these organizations if they want to run their own blockchain.
  - tromp 11y ago
    It's definitely proof of work (ethash), although the plan is to transition to proof of stake in the future. Their most recent blog entry on this: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/01/introducing-casper-friendly-ghost/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/01/introducing-casper-frie...

Animats 11y ago

From the article: “I think that these technologies will probably be post-trade,” he said. “I think savings are in the settlement side, in post-trade, in issuance, but not in exchange trading or OTC trading any time in the near future.” He added that R3 will soon announce a few more banks joining the project." That makes sense. This replaces the need for a single trusted clearinghouse with a redundant, shared ledger. Confirmation occurs when a majority of the banks have put a new transaction into a block. Because the parties are not anonymous and new ones can only be added by mutual agreement, it's like a "proof of stake" system. There's no need for "mining". Bitcoin has done a good job of validating a blockchain system as being secure against attack. No one has broken it yet. None of this, of course, does anything for Bitcoin as a currency/investment.

mdpopescu 11y ago
I don't think a large government has tried yet; this would create an interesting incentive for one to do so. See Operation Bernhard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard with "on the internet" appended to it.