How would banks take advantage from the blockchain technology?

[GODLIKE]

I refer to this news just as an example:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114954/bnp-paribas-to-add-bitcoin-to-currency-fund-within-weeks

I would like to know how exactly a bank can take advantage in a distributed ledger based on the blockchain.

Let's hypothesize that a bank makes its own blockchain.
The bank itself will have to set up nodes for its blockchain?
Because why I, a private citizen, would want to set up a node for the bank?
For money? But if I work for the bank, I can tamper the ledger at their command, or let somebody do it.
So it's legitimate to think that their ledger will be private: only bank computers will be able to access it.
But for what?
I can't understand this.
Banks ALREADY have their infrastructure to transmit money.
They ALREADY have their IT infrastructure to keep track of how much money a person/company holds by them.
If they build a blockchain, this doesn't mean anybody will value their "coin" in any way.
They will still have to change the currency from country to country.
They will still charge the user for operations (they want to earn money), which is more expensive than Bitcoin, that charges nearly nothing.

The only thing they will have will be a PRIVATE registry, and because it's private, they could change it any time they want, so it won't have any OFFICIAL value at all.
I won't trust that ledger, because it can be reversed and tampered because the bank owns ALL the nodes.

Even when there would be some volunteers to hold a node for bank XXX, they would be suspect.
They could be corruptible, they could take money to tamper the ledger.
It's the fact itself that private banks want to make private ledgers that makes no sense to me.

And as for PUBLIC LEDGERS... we don't need a bank to do that for us: if a thing is useful, people will hold up nodes for it.

So, please, somebody tell me a GOOD SERVICE that a bank can have from a blockchain that will not be supported by the public at all, because I can't find anything of use for them.

[GODLIKE]

Nobody has any idea???

[Amph]

banks can do it in a way that when you register an account with them you need to leave your pc 24/7 which will work as a full node,  this mean that anyone can be his own ledger

every movements of his money would be seen in his account and in this way the ledger would be fully transparent

cost would be less for them especially for fees, they can remove all those useless fee for withdrawal deposit, maintanace ecc..and the same for transaction time

as i see it would be like having your own circuit and removing the need to use visa and mastercard or whatever....

[GODLIKE]

banks can do it in a way that when you register an account with them you need to leave your pc 24/7 which will work as a full node,  this mean that anyone can be his own ledger

every movements of his money would be seen in his account and in this way the ledger would be fully transparent

cost would be less for them especially for fees, they can remove all those useless fee for withdrawal deposit, maintanace ecc..and the same for transaction time

as i see it would be like having your own circuit and removing the need to use visa and mastercard or whatever....

Thank you for your time, dude.
Your reasoning makes sense.
Only, I think it would be ok for companies to keep a pc going 24/7, but I, as a private, would never do that.

But why would they want to have transparent ledger?
People go to bank for privacy also.

[Amph]

banks can do it in a way that when you register an account with them you need to leave your pc 24/7 which will work as a full node,  this mean that anyone can be his own ledger

every movements of his money would be seen in his account and in this way the ledger would be fully transparent

cost would be less for them especially for fees, they can remove all those useless fee for withdrawal deposit, maintanace ecc..and the same for transaction time

as i see it would be like having your own circuit and removing the need to use visa and mastercard or whatever....

Thank you for your time, dude.
Your reasoning makes sense.
Only, I think it would be ok for companies to keep a pc going 24/7, but I, as a private, would never do that.

But why would they want to have transparent ledger?
People go to bank for privacy also.

yeah i was thinking of that too about the 24/7, but i can't find a better alternative for now.. maybe with their blockchain you can have something like pos coin, were you mint(just an example they will not mint anything) without the need to have your device online 24/7

transparent ledger could help for example, new comers for that bank to decide if that bank is good or not, by seeing how many transaction that same bank can perform per day

[jonald_fyookball]

I think banks cannot take advantage of blockchain technology.

The purpose of blockchains is to create distributed consensus.
Banks don't need that.  They have their trusted relationships
with the central banks, other banks, and customers.

Anything the bank wants to do, it can do it more simply
by acting as its own central authority.

So if there is a valid use case for banks to use blockchains,
I haven't seen it yet.

[dukeneptun]

Blockchain technology is just a public ledger. Banks will never adopt it. Because they don't serve a transparent service.
They want their books closed to everyone.

So blockchain tech is not gonna help or going to be used by banks.

[Holliday]

The purpose of blockchains is to create distributed consensus.
Banks don't need that.

/thread

[franky1]

I refer to this news just as an example:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114954/bnp-paribas-to-add-bitcoin-to-currency-fund-within-weeks

I would like to know how exactly a bank can take advantage in a distributed ledger based on the blockchain.

Let's hypothesize that a bank makes its own blockchain.
The bank itself will have to set up nodes for its blockchain?
Because why I, a private citizen, would want to set up a node for the bank?
banks will have a closed system for mining and have a webwallet app for purely customer access to make tx's(but not mine)
For money? But if I work for the bank, I can tamper the ledger at their command, or let somebody do it.
banks wont need petahashes.. they will however have a dozen select machines dispursed around the world that cannot be manipulated from an one location
So it's legitimate to think that their ledger will be private: only bank computers will be able to access it.
banks ledger wont be private.. public viewing like blockchain.info can exist.. but the mining side of it will definetly be private.
But for what?
I can't understand this.
Banks ALREADY have their infrastructure to transmit money.
imagine banks today.. bank branches in every town. ATM's in every 10th retail store. thousands of employee's maintaining all the computer network.. now imagine just 12 mining rigs and a single blockchain.info style web server... thats 1million + computers shortened down to just 15 servers... let alone the man power and building leases that are no longer needed in every town, due to the fact everyone can access their funds from phones and not bank branches
They ALREADY have their IT infrastructure to keep track of how much money a person/company holds by them.
If they build a blockchain, this doesn't mean anybody will value their "coin" in any way.
They will still have to change the currency from country to country.
They will still charge the user for operations (they want to earn money), which is more expensive than Bitcoin, that charges nearly nothing.

The only thing they will have will be a PRIVATE registry, and because it's private, they could change it any time they want, so it won't have any OFFICIAL value at all.
I won't trust that ledger, because it can be reversed and tampered because the bank owns ALL the nodes.

Even when there would be some volunteers to hold a node for bank XXX, they would be suspect.
They could be corruptible, they could take money to tamper the ledger.
It's the fact itself that private banks want to make private ledgers that makes no sense to me.

And as for PUBLIC LEDGERS... we don't need a bank to do that for us: if a thing is useful, people will hold up nodes for it.

So, please, somebody tell me a GOOD SERVICE that a bank can have from a blockchain that will not be supported by the public at all, because I can't find anything of use for them.

[GODLIKE]

I think banks cannot take advantage of blockchain technology.

The purpose of blockchains is to create distributed consensus.
Banks don't need that.  They have their trusted relationships
with the central banks, other banks, and customers.

Anything the bank wants to do, it can do it more simply
by acting as its own central authority.

So if there is a valid use case for banks to use blockchains,
I haven't seen it yet.

That's what I was thinking, but I didn't want to sound too presumptuous...

The public ledger is a system that allows PUBLIC to agree on a single database.
The cryptography added to it allows to preserve anonymity.

But, as you wrote, banks don't really need the blockchain: they have their databases systems already, their protection against hackers, etc.
Even though I think the distributed database with thousands of signatures is probably much more resilient to hacking than a centralized system.

But, yes, I think exactly the same: banks don't need the blockchain and the more I think about it, the less I can find something useful for them to come up with.
But seeing that many bankers and economists took 3/5 years to simply understand HOW bitcoin works, it's very much possible they are so stupid that they will try to come up with their own ShitCoin altogether...

[Kazimir]

By offering Bitcoin-oriented services. Protected wallets, Bitcoin savings accounts with interest, etc. Banks could really benefit from their established position.

Obviously, Bitcoin / blockchain is going to make their monopoly on money creation and traffic obsolete, but they could still make a truckload of money from services and consultancy.

But they gotta realize: adapt or die.

[Elwar]

Probably the same way the phone companies took advantage of mobile phone technology. Adapt and survive.

Start offering Bitcoin services.

[GODLIKE]

By offering Bitcoin-oriented services. Protected wallets, Bitcoin savings accounts with interest, etc. Banks could really benefit from their established position.

Obviously, Bitcoin / blockchain is going to make their monopoly on money creation and traffic obsolete, but they could still make a truckload of money from services and consultancy.

But they gotta realize: adapt or die.

I don't know to which extent they can make money out of this.
The only thing they can do is CONVERT fiat currency into crypto.
And that will be the LAST action they will do before their death.

We don't need protected wallets, there's plenty already.

Interests? Yes, they can, but for each bank that will "fall" into Bitcoin, a hit will be taken by the largest banks, those that produce fiat money.
Essentially, Bitcoin has a Troy Horse built-in it.
And once Bitcoin will be well spread they will just die, because nobody will need their services anymore.

And all you mentioned is not anything related to produce a proprietary blockchain.
It's Bitcoin services: and there's plenty already.
Surely if people begin to go to the bank and ask "what the hell is Bitcoin?" and they don't know how to answer, or they can't help in any way, they lost that client, at least regarding Bitcoin.
But I don't really need a bank to store my Bitcoins.
I can have my unspendable address wallet key protected in a email account with a good password.

[GODLIKE]

imagine banks today.. bank branches in every town. ATM's in every 10th retail store. thousands of employee's maintaining all the computer network.. now imagine just 12 mining rigs and a single blockchain.info style web server... thats 1million + computers shortened down to just 15 servers... let alone the man power and building leases that are no longer needed in every town, due to the fact everyone can access their funds from phones and not bank branches

Not going to work, imho.
For a simple reason: banks are there to MAKE MONEY.
So, this bank crypto will cost more than Bitcoin, no matter what.
And once people will try the bank's cryptocurrency, and find that it's working, why should they keep onto that, when Bitcoin is right at the side and costs less?
Not to mention: each bank will shoot up its crappy cryptocurrency, and this will definitely kill them for the same reason: they will want fees to convert from bankX crypto to bankY crypto, while Bitcoin won't ask anything.
There MAY be a period of "confusion", with some crypto popping up here and there, some also booming for a little time, but then it will all crumble.
All the infrastructure they will HELP build, will be first paired up to accept Bitcoin, then services will just wipe out from their system the banks' more expensive and cumbersome cryptocurrencies.

[neoneros]

Banks can take advantage of the 'public' ledger, they do not have to base their transactions and business on trust with other banks, it will speed up transactions, especially international transactions with banks they do not have active connections and not a mutual trust. How they would go about the mining is every bank will have their own mining server with which they will mine their own coins, how nice is that! Banks would still make their own money, which they can then lend out to startups and companies, governments, so the old ways can still be maintained. In that they still have the power and leverage to force the government to ban or legislate the cryptocurrencies which will undermine the banks position.

Bit of a doom scenario, sure hope it will never come to that, that Bitcoin will prevail and make any attempt of the banking companies to copy and force the use of their corporate coins a lost cause. Bitcoin is the decentralisation money, not a tool to use to go back where we started from. let us not forget why BTC was created. We should never accept a coin that does not benifit the common good, never accept that banks will dictate our income, never accept that banks have the influence to bankrupt a country merely to make profit of a hedge fund like they did with Greece.

Banks will try to take advantage, but we must make sure they will not get it, we allready have one advantage over the banks, we have allready begun and got a nice head start!

[GODLIKE]

Banks can take advantage of the 'public' ledger, they do not have to base their transactions and business on trust with other banks, it will speed up transactions, especially international transactions with banks they do not have active connections and not a mutual trust.

Why would they use a private blockchain?
Use Bitcoin, then.
Or will you push another bank to use YOUR ledger?
Then how many ledgers will pop up?
It's like falling back to the many cryptocurrencies around the globe, or even worse: each bank its own currency!
That makes no sense to me.
That's where everything falls down.
They could use Bitcoin to cut down everything on transactions, but that of course costs money, they should buy Bitcoins.
So let's imagine they don't like this approach.
They build their own blockchain. Each bank its own ledger. They are back up to the first point: translate payments from one bank to another.
They could agree to make a single blockchain in common with all banks though... that could work maybe.
But there are obstacles as well: each nation's currency has its own value... there's no way to overcome that.
That's why Bitcoin is going to fuck them all.

How they would go about the mining is every bank will have their own mining server with which they will mine their own coins, how nice is that! Banks would still make their own money, which they can then lend out to startups and companies, governments, so the old ways can still be maintained. In that they still have the power and leverage to force the government to ban or legislate the cryptocurrencies which will undermine the banks position.

There's a problem with this: as BANKS can make their own currency, NATIONS can!
So why in hell should people use BANKS' cryptocurrencies and not NATIONS' generated ones? Or even better use Bitcoin?
Why WOULD I use bankX cryptocurrency instead than Bitcoin?
This is what I can't understand.
I can't find a REASON for it, and if there's no reason, I won't pay a dime more than Bitcoin just to have money to buy stuff.
Bitcoin will fuck all this banks shit off for the simple reason that it makes banks NEARLY USELESS.
Banks will regress to simple "goods safeguards", maybe.
Maybe they will become consultants for stock options.
But Bitcoin was designed to destroy fiat currency, and it's going to do that.

Bit of a doom scenario, sure hope it will never come to that, that Bitcoin will prevail and make any attempt of the banking companies to copy and force the use of their corporate coins a lost cause. Bitcoin is the decentralisation money, not a tool to use to go back where we started from. let us not forget why BTC was created. We should never accept a coin that does not benifit the common good, never accept that banks will dictate our income, never accept that banks have the influence to bankrupt a country merely to make profit of a hedge fund like they did with Greece.

Banks will try to take advantage, but we must make sure they will not get it, we allready have one advantage over the banks, we have allready begun and got a nice head start!

[neoneros]

The banks idea is to use a private ledger only banks can use, so one ledger for all the banks arround the world. The trick with the currency is you convert from fiat to crypto on the bank side, so the banks communicate with their own crypto to eachother but convert to fiat when they communicate with their customers, so it will not be you who can choose to use the banks crypto, heaven forbids the customers will benefit from it. That is prohibited to the banks.

[GODLIKE]

The banks idea is to use a private ledger only banks can use, so one ledger for all the banks arround the world. The trick with the currency is you convert from fiat to crypto on the bank side, so the banks communicate with their own crypto to eachother but convert to fiat when they communicate with their customers, so it will not be you who can choose to use the banks crypto, heaven forbids the customers will benefit from it. That is prohibited to the banks.

But... why do you think they would have any advantage by communicating through a common blockchain?
First of all there's an ENORMOUS work to set up for ALL banks to switch from the old system to the new one.
That means money to spend. May not be a big deal for the top banks, but smaller banks won't be very happy to do it.

Also, credit cards companies will probably move as well to avoid being cut off the traffic by banks. And this means they will move onto Bitcoin probably.
The best way to cut off banks from the currency conversion fees.

Second, the problem of converting from one currency to another remains.
The only one that cut it off is a public ledger like Bitcoin

[Lagartijo]

The technological challenge is obviously not big, when anyone can make a coin. Besides, banks have the greatest monetary network, needed to make any blockchain valuable as a database at all: http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/

[Kakmakr]

The bigger corporations are actually different banks operating under a group of banks. They can do corporate audits from their head office, if all banks use the same network or blockchain type technology. They can also distribute smart contracts and verify it's authenticity within their own network.

I doubt if they are going to use the blockchain we are using for Bitcoin, it's more secure and transactions will be more anonymous, if they develop this technology within their own group.

We will not benefit from this new technology, but it will save them millions of dollars and that would go straight to the pockets of the shareholders. We will pay for the development of this technology, but we will not see a return on that investment or lower fee's. ^Hmf^