4 ms·
That seems to leave them with the same problem where a single bank can lie and cause problems.
by lappa 11y ago
That seems to leave them with the same problem where a single bank can lie and cause problems.
- roymurdock 11y agoOver 50% of the nodes have to be compromised in order to double spend, or change the history of the shared ledger. So assuming all of the banks have the same number of nodes/the same computing power, it would take >50% collusion to cheat the system.
- lappa 11y agoWell if each block has to be signed with 50% of the banks that reduces trust by some degree, however this still can be done more efficiently with a relational database.
- roymurdock 11y agoThat's what they have now. A third party clearing house (presumably using a relational database) that is the central authority on all intermediary transactions. Creating a blockchain is about removing that third party and instead breaking the trust up between the participating banks.