Blockchain Consortium in Japan

[Wind_FURY]

...

however hyperledgers blockchain is using sha, but the lock is more so POA (proof of authority) where each hash is signed by a keypair.rather than POW.
so no, no random people will be mining it. but the banking cartell will be signing hashes to secure the chain. and distributing it on many systems internally as a way to offset tampering by their own employees by having it in separate locations instead of one single copy.

so yes its not going to be as strong as bitcoin. but then it will only be used on a closed system on hardware designed to only be run by those with authority.

...

Wouldnt it be more efficient and cheaper for those banks to use SQL or an Oracle database instead of riding the blockchain craze? Because it really feels like they are just trying to get in the trend of the times without really understanding what the whole point of Bitcoin really is, which is where they derived the blockchain from. Because for me a blockchain is the Bitcoin blockchain and if they cannot create it in the same manner then it might not even be a "blockchain" but a database with blocks that is "linked up together in a chain".

[franky1]

however hyperledgers blockchain is using sha, but the lock is more so POA (proof of authority) where each hash is signed by a keypair.rather than POW.
so no, no random people will be mining it. but the banking cartell will be signing hashes to secure the chain. and distributing it on many systems internally as a way to offset tampering by their own employees by having it in separate locations instead of one single copy.

so yes its not going to be as strong as bitcoin. but then it will only be used on a closed system on hardware designed to only be run by those with authority.

Wouldnt it be more efficient and cheaper for those banks to use SQL or an Oracle database instead of riding the blockchain craze? Because it really feels like they are just trying to get in the trend of the times without really understanding what the whole point of Bitcoin really is, which is where they derived the blockchain from. Because for me a blockchain is the Bitcoin blockchain and if they cannot create it in the same manner then it might not even be a "blockchain" but a database with blocks that is "linked up together in a chain".

banks version will not be as strong as bitcoin, but instead of a single SQL database, by having duplicate 'databases' that can corroborate each other by simple showing each other a hash value of any piece of data. they know that none of their own staff have tweaked the data without the bank authorized permission.

savings can be made by sacking internal auditors and HR investigators, internal affairs officers, etc, etc. which saves them millions of dollars a year.

i agree the banks wont be using all 10 of bitcoins security features but.. by having lets say 94,000 bank branches in america alone. banks distribution within its closed network can actually be more distributed just in america more so then bitcoins ~5000 nodes.
so although they know its a closed network that is not going to have the POW difficulty of bitcoin, knowing each bank branch employee cannot maliciously create themselves a billions dollars to a secret account and then resign to the Bahamas. is a good thing to them.

so its swings and round abouts.. less secure than bitcoin but more secure than their old SQL system.
last thing to note. even bitcoin stores the data in a database. (using LevelDB)
its more about how the database is secured and how it avoids corruption that matters

[LoyceV]

I was thinking here how they can introduce fiat currency in blockchain, if one day someone can do that will be great however I doubt it will happen.

That would be very easy to do. All you need is a Trusted Party. It creates a blockchain for Dollarcoins, and has 1 Trillion Dollarcoins in stock. They're not in circulation, until someone buys them. So they start selling them! 1 USD for 1 Dollarcoin, they will always have exactly that value. You can sell them for USD at any moment, or use them to pay for goods.
No need for high hash rates, no need to consume a lot of energy. Anybody could copy the blockchain and verify it, but only the Trusted Party earns a mining fee (say 1 cent per transaction). There is no block reward.
The Trusted Party could be a bank or a government, as far as people still trust them. This would be very practical for online shopping, it has endless applications for very cheap online transactions, but you can't use it to speculate. And I think Bitcoin (and any altcoin) mainly gained momentum because people hope to get rich from it.
I'd also love to see the same from a Trusted Party for buying stocks. It could be anonymous, untracable who owns what, and hidden away from taxes. For exactly these reasons governments would probably not allow this.

[franky1]

I was thinking here how they can introduce fiat currency in blockchain, if one day someone can do that will be great however I doubt it will happen.

That would be very easy to do. All you need is a Trusted Party. It creates a blockchain for Dollarcoins, and has 1 Trillion Dollarcoins in stock. They're not in circulation, until someone buys them. So they start selling them! 1 USD for 1 Dollarcoin, they will always have exactly that value. You can sell them for USD at any moment, or use them to pay for goods.
No need for high hash rates, no need to consume a lot of energy. Anybody could copy the blockchain and verify it, but only the Trusted Party earns a mining fee (say 1 cent per transaction). There is no block reward.
The Trusted Party could be a bank or a government, as far as people still trust them. This would be very practical for online shopping, it has endless applications for very cheap online transactions, but you can't use it to speculate. And I think Bitcoin (and any altcoin) mainly gained momentum because people hope to get rich from it.
I'd also love to see the same from a Trusted Party for buying stocks. It could be anonymous, untracable who owns what, and hidden away from taxes. For exactly these reasons governments would probably not allow this.

bitcoin isnt illegal or locked to fiat regulations because bitcoin is not pegged to fiat, however trying to make an altcoin that is pegged 1:1 with the us dollar will require alot of legal hurdles and alot of litigation..
in short it wont last.

you cannot beat the dollar by copying the dollar. you have to do something completely different that is nothing like the dollar that makes people holding the dollar not want the dollar anymore.
copying the dollar 1:1 is just gonna get you beat down with subpoenas and court orders, having your websites and services receive take down orders and threats of fines or prison.

sorry but 1:1 peg to the dollar wont work

[Wind_FURY]

however hyperledgers blockchain is using sha, but the lock is more so POA (proof of authority) where each hash is signed by a keypair.rather than POW.
so no, no random people will be mining it. but the banking cartell will be signing hashes to secure the chain. and distributing it on many systems internally as a way to offset tampering by their own employees by having it in separate locations instead of one single copy.

so yes its not going to be as strong as bitcoin. but then it will only be used on a closed system on hardware designed to only be run by those with authority.

Wouldnt it be more efficient and cheaper for those banks to use SQL or an Oracle database instead of riding the blockchain craze? Because it really feels like they are just trying to get in the trend of the times without really understanding what the whole point of Bitcoin really is, which is where they derived the blockchain from. Because for me a blockchain is the Bitcoin blockchain and if they cannot create it in the same manner then it might not even be a "blockchain" but a database with blocks that is "linked up together in a chain".

banks version will not be as strong as bitcoin, but instead of a single SQL database, by having duplicate 'databases' that can corroborate each other by simple showing each other a hash value of any piece of data. they know that none of their own staff have tweaked the data without the bank authorized permission.

savings can be made by sacking internal auditors and HR investigators, internal affairs officers, etc, etc. which saves them millions of dollars a year.

i agree the banks wont be using all 10 of bitcoins security features but.. by having lets say 94,000 bank branches in america alone. banks distribution within its closed network can actually be more distributed just in america more so then bitcoins ~5000 nodes.
so although they know its a closed network that is not going to have the POW difficulty of bitcoin, knowing each bank branch employee cannot maliciously create themselves a billions dollars to a secret account and then resign to the Bahamas. is a good thing to them.

so its swings and round abouts.. less secure than bitcoin but more secure than their old SQL system.
last thing to note. even bitcoin stores the data in a database. (using LevelDB)
its more about how the database is secured and how it avoids corruption that matters

Yes exactly. But what we all love about Bitcoin is it is designed to be trustless. We all know that all the transactions that transpired and happened in the network is nothing but the truth. In Hyperledger, do the banks need to trust each other with their data? Will it not be possible for some corrupt banks to collude together to manipulate the ledger to their advantage and interests? How will they prevent this?