4 ms·

This probably has to do with payments the banks are making to each other, not between banks and clients. If banks are paying each other, there's going to be a n

This probably has to do with payments the banks are making to each other, not between banks and clients. If banks are paying each other, there's going to be a nonzero cost associated with the accounting for those transactions, and this system would remove that cost. What I didn't understand from the article was the point about membership. If the contributing banks are the only ones using it, why is it giving information about what _I_ could do with one of these USCs - apparently nothing because I won't be able to join the chain

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> If banks are paying each other, there's going to be a nonzero cost associated with the accounting for those transactions, and this system would remove that cost Wouldn’t it just amplify it? Right now, central banks just set up swap facilities between each other. It’s akin to opening a bank account with one another. Crediting, debuting and undoing anything nefarious is cheap and easy.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  You are confusing transaction clearing with actual account settlements. Banks want to use Blockchain as a more reliable alternative to SWIFT it won’t be doing actual account settlements which in your case you mentioned corresponding banking. That said many of the more progressive institutions stopped calling it Blockchain a while ago they all are talking about distributed ledgers, hyper ledger and the likes are being either used or piloted by many institutions. The ones that do use Blockchain often mean today actual crypto currency or a settlemen token a good example of a “real world” implementation would be Royal Mint Gold which is a crypto token offered by the Royal Mint which is pegged to gold. http://rmg.royalmint.com http://rmg.royalmint.com
  - LrnByTeach 9y ago
    This captures what is Banks interest in blockchain in a nutshell > Banks want to use Blockchain as a more reliable alternative to SWIFT it won’t be doing actual account settlements which in your case you mentioned corresponding banking. > That said many of the more progressive institutions stopped calling it Blockchain a while ago they all are talking about distributed ledgers, hyper ledger and the likes are being either used or piloted by many institutions.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> If banks are paying each other, there's going to be a nonzero cost associated with the accounting for those transactions, and this system would remove that cost Wouldn’t it just amplify it? Right now, central banks just set up swap facilities between each other. It’s akin to opening a bank account with one another. Crediting, debuting and undoing anything nefarious is cheap and easy.

dogma1138 9y ago
You are confusing transaction clearing with actual account settlements. Banks want to use Blockchain as a more reliable alternative to SWIFT it won’t be doing actual account settlements which in your case you mentioned corresponding banking. That said many of the more progressive institutions stopped calling it Blockchain a while ago they all are talking about distributed ledgers, hyper ledger and the likes are being either used or piloted by many institutions. The ones that do use Blockchain often mean today actual crypto currency or a settlemen token a good example of a “real world” implementation would be Royal Mint Gold which is a crypto token offered by the Royal Mint which is pegged to gold. http://rmg.royalmint.com http://rmg.royalmint.com
- LrnByTeach 9y ago
  This captures what is Banks interest in blockchain in a nutshell > Banks want to use Blockchain as a more reliable alternative to SWIFT it won’t be doing actual account settlements which in your case you mentioned corresponding banking. > That said many of the more progressive institutions stopped calling it Blockchain a while ago they all are talking about distributed ledgers, hyper ledger and the likes are being either used or piloted by many institutions.