Bitcoin Forum

Latest from Coin Desk, http://www.coindesk.com/santander-drops-out-r3-blockchain-consortium/

The idea of "private blockchains" and without the use of Proof of Work was not so smart to begin with. How could their private blockchain make things more efficient for them? Is it not that their current system is good enough for what they are trying to do? Why don't the banks use a shared database? That would be much easier for them. I believe there are groups of individuals who are scamming to make the banks ride the blockchain band wagon.

A blockchain for banks is nothing but hype.

Why would a private ledger based on the Blockchain technology be more efficient and cost effective than Bitcoin? Bitcoin is more secure and it has a established global user base. The main focus of these private ledgers are to decrease the cost of transfers between banks. < not paying Swift > and to decentralize their security.

Bitcoin can already do both of these, and it has a proven track record. You did not need to dump Billions of dollars into research and development, because Bitcoin already had all the boxes ticked.

The only thing they did not have with Bitcoin was full control. This is the main reason why they developed their own technology. ^hmmmm^

i see that R3 joined hyperledger. there is no need for banks to be under the R3 group while also being part of hyperledger, when they can instead freely invest direct to hyperledger and not have the middleman(R3).. especially if R3 is making financial demands just to stay under the R3 banner.

as for why the banks are investing in the hyperledger, firstly it costs them nothing. their millions of dollars are a tax right off, while then being able to on the side still use the funds even after having it wrote off as a loss.

as for why banks are inventing the hyperledger. because unlike traditional DBMS(database management systems) and RDBMS(relational database management systems) blockchain adds extra layers, in essense an extra programmable layer to RDBMS to give them more freedoms of what they can do with their data that the old RDBMS could not.

as for why not use bitcoin.
banks want more control and choice to how their system works. afterall they are regulated to handle legal tender, so bitcoin has issues with that.

as for why we should not be asking banks to use bitcoin.
we dont wont/need banks to make bitcoin into fiat 2.0. bitcoin should remain independent and open. and not turned into the fiat controlled system that doesnt empower people openly without judgement.

Doesn't seem too long ago when I read about Santander adopting blockchain. Seems hasty to have jumped on and then off so quickly.

I also believe there are some individuals capitalising on blockchain hype and the relative ignorance/naivety of traditional financial institutions to pitch private blockchain to banks.

ICO dump scams here, private ledgers for the big boys.

Well when R3 joined hyperledger and several banks area also part of hyperledger, there is no need to be with R3 anymore I guess.
And banks still like the idea of blockchain or distributed ledgers because they may improve their inner processes and operations with it.I'm speaking of increase of speed, cutting costs and circumvent other middle man.
This is nothing the average bank customer may have any advantage from of course.For them I think Bitcoin and other open decentralized Blockchains secured and supported by many nodes and miners around the world will still be the main choice.

There are too few in the banking system that understood blockchain at all and even fewer the ones that have idea how to use it.
And they are usually not the decision makers.

Some bankers heard that if they use blockchain (anyway, any blockchain) will give them an edge and they'll attract the young people (ha-ha!) so they made / joined their blockchain project.
Bankers don't really have IT knowledge, they will need 3rd party to do this for them. Until they realize that and go for a sustainable project, there are only tests (and hype).

yes it would be funny if all my fears of blockstream were actually just blockstream baiting the banks with scammy ICO's.
and then sometime see blockstream shout "thanks for all the fish, goodbye", and crumble hyperledger to the ground, to mess with banks.

but im still hazarding that blockstream are going to hedge WITH the banks and make hyperledger into something and cripple bitcoin.
but id love to see the opposite happen, where the banks lose out

However i think they will resist ever using bitcoin, or at least not until one of them makes the jump first to get 1st mover advantage, then i think you will see more jump to and those that refuse to will die.  ;D

banks wont jump to bitcoin.
we dont want or need banks to jump to bitcoin.

bitcoin should remain open and uninhibited from regulation and banker controls.
the only people wanting banker controls are those with dollar signs glued to their eyes that only wanna get rich quick, sitting in a basement.. rather then seeing bitcoin for what it should be.. an opposition to the banking cartel.

We can only work without banks, if we can release ourselves from the Fiat bindings. This will not happen soon, because Fiat currencies are

still the preferred currency globally. So how do we address that problem? Imo we need to aggressively develop a "Bitcoin Only" killer APP to

force people to adopt Bitcoin.  Banks will always have the unfair advantage, because Fiat is accepted globally and Bitcoin is not there yet.

Bitcoin will succeed once people use it without 3rd parties and as a pure P2P payment option.  ;)

Oh no! Blockchain is dead! Here we go.

Was it ever alive? I think even DogeCoin is ahead of R3 when it comes to rollout (not to mention market cap :D)

When there are industry standards with regards to the design of blockchain is when it will take off.

Couldn't agree more. DogeCoin also has the better brand... :D

It seems to me that a new funding round waked up some senior officials at Goldman Sachs and Santander to actually think about what the R3 project is actually creating. Maybe these banking guys are starting to realize that creating another private blockchain is a giant waste of money. Private centralized blockchains make no sense at all, they are just a highly inefficient way to solve the same tasks databases were invented for decades ago. Besides that, Bitcoin will provide all the functionality for value transfer and even for blockchain magic to everyone almost for free.

The years 2015 and 2016 have been the years of "B-L-O-C-K-C-H-A-I-N, not Bitcoin"-fad. By wasting money, bankers are now slowly learning that the real killer app is Bitcoin, the decentralized currency. 2017 will see the "rediscovery" of Bitcoin by bankers and dumb journalists. Unfortunately, this realization won't be pretty for bankers...

ya.ya.yo!

Do they sell blockchains on Amazon yet?

Good. Something like this was never supposed to, and I guess by proxy, never was going to work anyways. It's a bad idea pushed forwards by people thinking they can make a lot of money by just making a ledger for banks to use to make it even easier for them to see where everyone's money goes.

It could never work without the addition of energy from the outside, and I'm glad to see it's all falling apart.

I am glad that you are seeing it the same way as me. I cannot believe there were a lot of people who were cheering for R3 as a step forward for cryptocurrencies. They thought that R3 would complement their favorite altcoin making them go "to the moon".

R3 has no real plan on how to take "blockchain technology", yes that is a buzz word someone created, in use for banks. First they pitched Ethereum to the banks, then the next pitch was Ripple then Hyperledger. Does anyone know what is really going on with R3? I believe they are lost.


The realization will be how brilliant the Satoshi definition of a blockchain really is, and this will always include Proof of Work. We may have missed the point by trying to exclude PoW from blockchains because it wastes energy. But it may be the only concept that makes censorship resistant blockchains a possibility.

Here is the latest pullout http://www.coindesk.com/morgan-stanley-r3cev-blockchain-consortium/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CoinDesk+%28CoinDesk+-+The+Voice+of+Digital+Currency%29

Now it is reported that Morgan Stanley is pulling out of the R3 banking consortium. They must be smelling that there is a scam in all of this. It will not be surprising to most Bitcoiners who has seen through the scam to know that the "technology" they have is nothing but garbage. I believe that they have given the code of their blockchain called Corda to the Hyperledger project. Many developers say that the Linux Foundation is the garbage bin of open source projects. 

Well, it could be that they entered the R3 consortium because they did not want to be left out of the new Blockchain hype that was pitched to them, and when they realized that they could do this on their own, they then just pulled their support or they are planning to partner up with someone else.

They could also have realized that there are many other options on the table, and that private permissioned ledgers are not the way of the future. ^smile^

Fixed.

This is an important point ("POW wastes energy") going forward IMO, Bitcoin is bound to get attacked by the climate change nuts at some point.

Can you see, from what you're saying above, that Bitcoin's POW literally isn't a waste of energy? Every bit of so-called "excess" hashing is in fact raising the bar for a malicious hashing attack trying to re-roll the Bitcoin blockchain?

a majority of organisations using 'the linux foundation'. cared more about 'foundation' than 'linux'

foundations are used as tax havens.
EG
have $100k an need to pay 20% tax($20k)
dont pay $20k to taxman. put $20k into a foundation.
get the $20k wrote off meaning no tax to pay...

and then be on the foundation board to then claim back $20k for expenses/costs of your service to the foundation. and get to privately play around with your whole $100k for anything you please

so when you see banks 'investing' $90mill.. its not costing them $90m. its costing them far far less because instead of $90m going to taxman. its siphoned through a foundation.

check out the clinton foundation or any other rich guy that publicly talks about 'donating' to a foundation.. and then see where the funds went to.. basically a majority ends up back in their own pocket eventually.

and thats why the inux foundations many projects are garbage. because the ones that fail are suppose to fail. just to get a tax break.
however if a project can lead to getting them more back then they put in. then they will fund it and make it happen (small percentage do this)

Damn it seems like R3's fantastic idea of private blockchain is going to hell, recently Goldman Sachs and a lot of other companies are leaving too. R3 was a fucking failure, Mike Hearn is a clown and justice has been made. Bitcoin will win, there's no stopping. Segwit will be activated soon and then we will take over the world with lighting network. It's set is stone.

no.
R3 was a consortium that demanded a members fee. and not quite a tax rightoff..

but now the banks are in hyperledger (a tax right off foundation) there is no need of the membered consortium
the banks are still doing their private blockchains. but now being more direct in their approach while also now getting all the tax breaks.

the banks have not given up "blockchain" idea's they are just re-organising themselves into a foundation instead of a consortium.

know your enemy. the banks are still in the battle, they are just reinforcing/reorganising their troops

20th-22nd october.. R3 joins hyperledger
http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/10/20/r3-blockchain-consortium-open-source-corda-platform-make-available-linux-hyperledger/
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/10/22/r3-corda-hyperledger-open-source/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3134014/bankers-plan-to-give-corda-blockchain-code-to-hyperledger-project.html

in spring 2016
R3 got banks to pay a members fee into a consortium pot and then some of that went into the hyperledger foundation.
in autumn 2016
now the banks are getting rid of the consortium and paying direct into the hyperledger foundation

research if you dont want to be spoon fed:
santander invested in R3 and DAH.. DAH is part of hyperledger. santander dropped R3 but still part of DAH
goldman sachs invested in R3 and DAH.. DAH is part of hyperledger. goldman sachs dropped R3 but still part of DAH

if you prefer to be spoonfed
http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/goldman-sachs-r3-blockchain-consortium/
then look at
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members
https://i.imgur.com/OdqiZ4T.png
hopefully this should now have everyone uptodate with why, what, who and where the bankers stand

oh... and this should wake everyone up too..
https://i.imgur.com/5nrY7xy.png

hopefully this should now have everyone uptodate with why, what, who and where the devs like
Greg maxwell (Gmaxwell, nullc), Pieter wuille(sipa), matt corrallo(bluematt), christian decker (cdecker) and a dozen others stand

I don't know if that means it is going to crumble though. Blockchain will stay strong my man

My first impression would be to think "yes". But thinking beyond that and on to Bitcoin's need for energy to create a censorship resistant blockchain and as a means of real value transfer, then I would say no. The concept is so new and foreign that we tend to see that PoW is wasteful.