4 ms·

I am not saying SWIFT is perfect, but please enumerate these flaws and the ways in which blockchain legitimately solves these flaws without introducing an equal

I am not saying SWIFT is perfect, but please enumerate these flaws and the ways in which blockchain legitimately solves these flaws without introducing an equal number of equally problematic flaws.

treis 8y ago
SWIFT transactions can be slow depending on the banks involved. If a bank's SWIFT credentials are compromised the attackers can transfer all the funds a bank controls. With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins. There are no "customers", this is a private blockchain where only banks participate.
  - treis 8y ago
    Obviously the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > If a bank's SWIFT credentials are compromised the attackers can transfer all the funds a bank controls. With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins. Replace "SWIFT credentials" with "private key" and you have exactly the same scenario.
      - treis 8y ago
        You know if you're going to be wrong you should be less vociferous about it. Compromising SWIFT credentials allows you to send money from any account. Compromising a customer's private key would only allow you to send money that's in that one account.
        root_axis 8y ago
        > You know if you're going to be wrong you should be less vociferous about it Needless petty snark. > Compromising SWIFT credentials allows you to send money from any account. Compromising a customer's private key would only allow you to send money that's in that one account. If the "customers" are "banks" as you stated, then there is a 1:1 relationship between SWIFT credentials and private keys which allow one to sign transactions on behalf of the "customer" (bank).
        treis 8y ago
        >If the "customers" are "banks" as you stated, I clearly didn't say that: >Obviously the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank. >Needless petty snark. It's unfortunate you took it as snark and not advice
        root_axis 8y ago
        > the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank. Once again, this is a blockchain controlled by BANKS. Customer's of the bank do not participate in this. What are you not understanding? > It's unfortunate you took it as snark and not advice More needless petty snark. I'm done with this conversation.
- creeble 8y ago
  How is compromising SWIFT credentials different than compromising a private key?

I am not saying SWIFT is perfect, but please enumerate these flaws and the ways in which blockchain legitimately solves these flaws without introducing an equal number of equally problematic flaws.

treis 8y ago

SWIFT transactions can be slow depending on the banks involved. If a bank's SWIFT credentials are compromised the attackers can transfer all the funds a bank controls. With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins.

root_axis 8y ago
> With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins. There are no "customers", this is a private blockchain where only banks participate.
- treis 8y ago
  Obviously the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > If a bank's SWIFT credentials are compromised the attackers can transfer all the funds a bank controls. With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins. Replace "SWIFT credentials" with "private key" and you have exactly the same scenario.
    - treis 8y ago
      You know if you're going to be wrong you should be less vociferous about it. Compromising SWIFT credentials allows you to send money from any account. Compromising a customer's private key would only allow you to send money that's in that one account.
      - root_axis 8y ago
        > You know if you're going to be wrong you should be less vociferous about it Needless petty snark. > Compromising SWIFT credentials allows you to send money from any account. Compromising a customer's private key would only allow you to send money that's in that one account. If the "customers" are "banks" as you stated, then there is a 1:1 relationship between SWIFT credentials and private keys which allow one to sign transactions on behalf of the "customer" (bank).
        treis 8y ago
        >If the "customers" are "banks" as you stated, I clearly didn't say that: >Obviously the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank. >Needless petty snark. It's unfortunate you took it as snark and not advice
        root_axis 8y ago
        > the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank. Once again, this is a blockchain controlled by BANKS. Customer's of the bank do not participate in this. What are you not understanding? > It's unfortunate you took it as snark and not advice More needless petty snark. I'm done with this conversation.
creeble 8y ago
How is compromising SWIFT credentials different than compromising a private key?