3 ms·
Since only the trustworthy bodies can join the party, they can do the job more efficiently by not using any of the trendy blockchain which may technically preve
by ezoe 9y ago
Since only the trustworthy bodies can join the party, they can do the job more efficiently by not using any of the trendy blockchain which may technically prevent the fraud but otherwise inefficient.
And since there are only banks can join the network, I doubt it can technically prevent the fraud among banks because unlike public cryptocurrencies, it does not give incentives to the banks to spend a lot of computational power to the network. So any banks allowed to join can put enough computation power than other banks combined and succeed the attack.
- bottled_poe 9y agoThis seems easy to solve though. Couldn’t they just modify the transaction acceptance logic to require 100% agreement across the network?
- girvo 9y agoAt risk of breaking NDAs, this is exactly what is being done in deployments I’ve worked on. Regulators also have nodes.
- Animats 9y agoA blockchain system will still work if a minority of the players are down or disconnected. When they come back, they resync to the majority view. That's a useful robustness feature.
- tree_of_item 9y agoI think you misunderstand how private blockchains work: > "they can do the job more efficiently" They ARE doing the job more efficiently by not using proof of work, and instead most likely going with a quorum approach based on public keys. > it does not give incentives to the banks to spend a lot of computational power to the network Right, because it doesn't use proof of work, it uses a quorum vote. The banks would still need to form a cartel in order to get a (super)majority of the vote.