3 ms·

The current system implies that international banks and other financial institutions trust each other (or a designated neutral party), and it becomes increasing

The current system implies that international banks and other financial institutions trust each other (or a designated neutral party), and it becomes increasingly hard to maintain that trust. (E.g. in light of recent attack of North Korea on Bangladesh central bank). Blockchain, in essence, is just a voter protocol that can deliver trusted consensus in adversarial (Byzantine) environment. This is its main value proposal for international finance. I'd also like to see a blockchain-based public voting and election protocol. But there seems to be not enough governmental interest in that ;)

ProblemFactory 10y ago
In the Bangladesh central bank case, hackers broken into their internal networks, got access to payment credentials, and issued $950 million worth of transactions. $850 million was blocked before they went through, and about $40 million of the remaining has since been recovered. How would a blockchain have helped in preventing or recovering from this attack? If the hackers got access to their blockchain credentials, they would have been able to issue similar transactions. It would just have been much harder to block the transactions or reverse and recover them after the fact. It seems to me that running this on a blockchain would have made things worse, not better.