5 ms·
The exciting thing about all these crypto currencies to me, is that banks could roll their own private "exchange" currency to do near real time transfers to any
by tomschlick 9y ago
The exciting thing about all these crypto currencies to me, is that banks could roll their own private "exchange" currency to do near real time transfers to any other bank / account.
- hatsunearu 9y agoI dont understand why people hype up cryptocurrency for this purpose. The whole reason for existence of cryptocurrency is a way to achieve consensus without having a real central authority. What's wrong with having the bank as a central authority in their own banking system?
- tomschlick 9y agoI was referring to transfers between banks. I believe currently they go through the Federal Reserve in batches. A more distributed system could allow banks to transfer directly to/from each other in near real time.
- zodiac 9y agoA centralised system would also "allow banks to transfer directly to/from each other in near real time"
- mhluongo 9y agoThat wouldn't be "direct", it would be through a trusted third party... Who has banking hours, could censor the transaction, etc.
- tscs37 9y agoThat shouldn't be an issue if all parties trust the Third party. It is only an issue if there is sufficient lack of trust that the involved fear such a thing would happen. Otherwise a block chain is overkill.
- hatsunearu 9y agoFiat currency REQUIRES the trust of the central bank, so that's not an issue.
- dangero 9y agoRipple serves this exact purpose.
- Lazare 9y ago> banks could roll their own private "exchange" currency to do near real time transfers to any other bank If only US banks already had access to some sort of shared currency they could use for such transfers! Snark aside, this just seems like a horrible use for a crypto currency. Block chains are an interesting tool to solve a lack of trust when you're willing to give up some speed and convenience. Banks have full trust in themselves, the central banks, and the clearing houses that make the financial system work; they just need to update their systems to be faster. When your problem is that you have trust and need speed, a solution which sacrifices speed to work in situations where you don't have trust is probably not a good option.
- fragsworth 9y agoNo bank has full trust of any other entity. It's not black and white. They use ratings (either Standard and Poor's or others) to determine the risk involved in a liability. Even the U.S. Government has a certain amount of risk.
- emodendroket 9y agoWe're talking about whether transactions are legitimate and not the creditworthiness of the institutions.
- acchow 9y agoDon't banks hold deposits at each others institutions?
- Lazare 9y ago> No bank has full trust of any other entity. It's not black and white. For interbank transfers, it is. That's simply how the financial system works. > They use ratings (either Standard and Poor's or others) to determine the risk involved in a liability. No. The reason why your $50 ACH transfer to your cousin takes so long to clear isn't that recipient bank is checking Standard and Poor's to see if Wachovia is good for it.
- patmcc 9y ago
- donatj 9y agoBut why use banks at all then? If I don't have to worry about the physical cash, there's no real reason for me to use a bank. They're a hanger on of a bygone era.
- colejohnson66 9y agoBecause if you forget your bank password, you can reset it. If you forget your password to your private key, you’re SOL.