4 ms·
OK, so, it actually says: "Basel-based BIS's Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructure (CPMI), made up of central bankers from across the world, said it
by HiLo 11y ago
OK, so, it actually says:
"Basel-based BIS's Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructure (CPMI), made up of central bankers from across the world, said it could challenge banks' role - but if the technology became widespread it was unclear who would then provide credit and savings facilities."
Emphasis: "but if the technology became widespread it was unclear who would then provide credit and savings facilities."
Having worked at a bank, they're interested because it could reduce the large role of simply making sure everybody's shit lines up at the end of the day between counterparties. This isn't the disruption you're dreaming of... It's not changing how capital and resources are directed and allocated throughout the economy... it's changing how those decisions get confirmed across systems.
It then goes on to say it could theoretically challenge the need for a central bank, as it's decentralized... this makes a huge, implicit assumption that a rule-based interest rate decision is desirable, which, I don't know, until we can have an actual way of knowing the natural interest rate and hand off analyzing the economy to algorithms, it may be best to leaving that to people who spend their lives devoted to that.
- eternalban 11y ago> ... as it's decentralized ... Is it? Compute resources are not free and that protocol has an inherent bias towards centralizing.
- HiLo 11y agoI mean I actually agree with you, that was just what the article was suggesting.
- eternalban 11y agoWell, the article is from Reuters and they are in the entertainment business, not the facts business.
- dogma1138 11y ago+1 Yep a closed blockchain could provide almost instant clearinghouse functionality while ensuring that the funds are both available and were delivered. Strip that on top of existing banking infrastructure like swiftnet and you get a very lucrative system for banks which reduces quite a bit of risk on pretty much every domain involved in most transactions.
- brighton36 11y agoThere are absolutely no efficiencies to private blockchains. Are you proposing that banks will run miners merely for the purpose of passing signed messages to one another?
- jhallenworld 11y agoThere is no need to run miners. They can use the "Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance" consensus algorithm. http://forum.hyperledger.com/t/hyperledger-vs-bitcoin/20 http://forum.hyperledger.com/t/hyperledger-vs-bitcoin/20
- brighton36 11y agoSee my note to the other commenter. Hyperledger does not sell blockchains, they sell decades old replicated databases
- eadz 11y agoThere is so much blockchain hype at the moment, and this is my thought too. There only rational I can come up with is Bitcoin was the kick in the pants banks needed to realise they can go from 30 year old technology to 10 year old technology. What Bitcoin solved was decentralized trust. I don't see any banks replacing their existing 'trust' network with code, they'll want to reverse transactions and mistakes, and will also want a veto over any distributed ledger.
- natrius 11y agoBitcoin solved decentralized trust, but at the same time, it solved distributed trust. What preexisting database product allowed multiple organizations to confidently write to a single shared database? Distributed ledgers are perfectly capable of reversing transactions.
- brighton36 11y ago