3 ms·
> 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 ke
by 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 agoYou 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.