Bitcoin woke up the Giants

[btcdevil]

Bitcoin has not just brought us a decentralized P2P payment system or a alternative for the banks. It woke the Giants in the Fintech world. Before Bitcoin, clients at banks were treated as the scum of the earth, even more so, when you are middle class or poor.

Bitcoin came in and they threatened to disrupt the Banking and Remittance services. What happen? These financial services realized that they will lose money, and they suddenly dumped Billions of dollars into Blockchain based technologies and also user-friendly banking services with 24 hour access via Social media platforms like Facebook Messenger and WeChat and some of their own in-house apps.  

We have not seen this level of attention given to clients for many years. Why, because the Giants were comfortable with their foot on our neck. They had the monopoly, backed by governments.

We should support Bitcoin to keep these Giants on their toes. If Bitcoin fails, these Giants will go back to sleep and we will be stuck with high fees and poor service.

what you said is true now the banks are seriously thinking of implementing bitcoin technology in their banking system, it will take time but we will see that fiat currency and bitcoin are used in bank simultaneously

[sportis]

every big bank in the world announced their blockchain based projects
I'm sure you will be able to find it on the web with ease,literally all of them introduced the so called "ransom stash"
where they keep a certain amount of coins to satisfy a hacker's demand after he had breached their security or found vulnerabilities
the giants are giants for a reason - they monitor the market constantly and they react to the changes,thats why they have special divisions besides marketing and god knows what
blockchain based currencies by the banks are in direct confrontation with bitcoins and my fear is and has always been that one of the giants
would be able to produce a better,more resilient to attacks,easier to use digital currency than bitcoin is
this would result in further monopolisation and centralisation of the money system of the world

   According to Business Insider  http://uk.businessinsider.com/swedish-central-bank-considers-digital-national-currency-ekrona-2016-11 'Sweden could become the first major country to issue a national digital currency' author says that central bank of Sweden aims to decide whether to issue a digital currency called 'ekrona'  two years from now. Deputy Governor of Sweden said FT, that blockchain technogy is one of several technologies they look at in relation with their digital coin.

[Victorycoin]

Banks may soon release blockchain based payment system but as they will be centralized people will just get lured thinking it secure just like bitcoin but those private blockchain network could easily be manipulated by banks and governments.

Banks don't love bitcoin they want to take advantage of blockchain tech to furnish their existing banking system which are prone to hack and DDOS attacks.

The guilty are simply afraid and would they ever stop throwing tantrums at bitcoin? All their sugar-coated words about their own version of blockchain is nothing but smoke screens to recolonize us, but it is a pity they arrived late, we know better now. The banks are agents of the government and their whimpering  is understandable, no one should take them serious though, it has been their selfish interest all the while.

[requester]

Bitcoin will definitely ignite fire of modern lifestyle with modern technology. Because bitcoin is  first of its kind to introduce such technology and innovation with money transfer system. And many huge companies had already started to adopt bitcoin and some are doing research of blockchain technology for developing something better than that.

[Kprawn]

Banks may soon release blockchain based payment system but as they will be centralized people will just get lured thinking it secure just like bitcoin but those private blockchain network could easily be manipulated by banks and governments.

Banks don't love bitcoin they want to take advantage of blockchain tech to furnish their existing banking system which are prone to hack and DDOS attacks.

The guilty are simply afraid and would they ever stop throwing tantrums at bitcoin? All their sugar-coated words about their own version of blockchain is nothing but smoke screens to recolonize us, but it is a pity they arrived late, we know better now. The banks are agents of the government and their whimpering  is understandable, no one should take them serious though, it has been their selfish interest all the while.

It is not a pity that they arrived late, but rather a blessing. Could you imagine what would have happened if Bitcoin and these Blockchain based

technologies {Hyperledger} started at the same time? Bitcoin would not have been around, if that was the case. Remember the banks first

ignored us, and now they are taking us serious and fighting back. We will however always have the edge over them... our technology are

backed by the people... People who wants to be FREE.

[sugarfly]

I see many bank giants adapt (what they call) "block chain technology".
But they don't even understand the decentralised part of all this.
They think that a block chain is just a modern distributed database.
They throw the buzzword "block chain" around but it does not have the same meaning as it has for us.

-sf-

[deisik]

Banks are implementing the Blockchain technology only for their personal gains and to be on a safer side to not lose their existing customers to Bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies (which I believe they aren't losing any customers yet). Also, I'm sure that majority of the banks would never integrate Bitcoins cause of the decentralized nature and they never like to lose centralized power over their customers. They always have the upper hand in regulating interest rates for loans, restricting withdrawals and freezing peoples accounts (unauthorized monitoring of peoples transactions and freezing their accounts if they find something odd or shady)

I've heard it a few times already across the forum that banks are allegedly implementing their variety of the blockchain technology, but no one could even remotely describe coherently what benefit or advantage this technology could offer them in practice. I'm not even asking about actual implementations, just a viable concept, I mean, something real, not someone's fantasy or forced idea. Personally, I can't come up with anything that couldn't be done more efficiently without the use of blockchain altogether...

Or has blockchain really become a new buzzword of sorts?

I see many bank giants adapt (what they call) "block chain technology"

What bank giants do you refer to exactly?

[erik m.]

[...]
We should support Bitcoin to keep these Giants on their toes. If Bitcoin fails, these Giants will go back to sleep and we will be stuck with high fees and poor service.

You got the point, we're at a stage where Bitcoin is expanding at a rate not seen before, but for Bitcoin to continue to make progress and attract more users, we must do our part, promoting it.

[Aamir1]

haha, never thought of or noticed these things as i have never been to banking system personally as how would i have anything to do with banks without any jobs or incomes? But if bitcoin really did this thing then bitcoin is really a great support for the people using banking systems and even not involved with bitcoin, they would love the change probably.

[franky1]

I've heard it a few times already across the forum that banks are allegedly implementing their variety of the blockchain technology, but no one could even remotely describe coherently what benefit or advantage this technology could offer them in practice. I'm not even asking about actual implementations, just a viable concept, I mean, something real, not someone's fantasy or forced idea. Personally, I can't come up with anything that couldn't be done more efficiently without the use of blockchain altogether...

Or has blockchain really become a new buzzword of sorts?

I see many bank giants adapt (what they call) "block chain technology"

What bank giants do you refer to exactly?

research hyperledger.

as to why banks are using it.
here are some reasons

1. instead of one centralised database needing security guards and vetting staff just to be in the building.. the data secures itself and is spread out so no single location can be attacked.
EG bank employee at smalltown branch cant hack the data compared to, if the old style database was distributed.
EG IT guy at centralised HQ where single copy database(not distributed) also cannot hack it.

thus. HR employees that vet staff can be sacked. security guards, IT guys, and many more staff sacked.

2. along with security no longer needing 'labour'. it also no longer needs much maintenance. you just buy a pc load a ISO disk of the operating system that includes the node. and your done. meaning more labour can become redundant

3. due to being distributed it reduces bandwidth compared to 95,000 banks connecting to a centralized server. where each bank branch has 10 employees blasting requests to that central server.. now 10 bank branch employees blast their requests to the bank branch node which then only communicates to another node. which due to relay effect the doesnt require terrabyte fibre connections to a central point
so now servers, internet, electric costs are now reduced, while significantly improving security.

4. auditing becomes easier. so meeting regulation and financial obligation becomes manageable with less labour/equipment.

5. banks actually have "homeland security" staff monitoring threats that can cause issues to the banking system (yea they were useless with 9-11 and the 2008 internal bank terrorism against customers) but now they can be sacked too

6. in short banks can remove their sky scraper HQ buildings and run more efficiently and more securely with just bank branches relaying to each other

there are probably loads of other reasons, i just listed the obvious ones anyone can think of, im sure the banks internal thinktank can think of more. maybe best to ask Gmaxwell what his contract conditions are and if he is open to talk about his employers(the banks) reasons for wanting hyperledger

[deisik]

there are probably loads of other reasons, i just listed the obvious ones anyone can think of, im sure the banks internal thinktank can think of more. maybe best to ask Gmaxwell what his contract conditions are and if he is open to talk about his employers(the banks) reasons for wanting hyperledger

All your reasons can be refuted by the simple fact that banks don't need the blockchain technology to do what you just enumerated. Everything from your list can be easily done with a distributed database or fail-safe filesystem (like what Google uses on their servers). But since they don't employ these tools (at least, en masse), it seems there is no particular reason or advantage to implement them. That is, their choice is toward further centralization. As I see it, blockchain is essentially about working in a trustless environment...

But the banking system itself is the opposite of that, since the Central bank is the ultimate arbiter and a source of trust by definition

[franky1]

there are probably loads of other reasons, i just listed the obvious ones anyone can think of, im sure the banks internal thinktank can think of more. maybe best to ask Gmaxwell what his contract conditions are and if he is open to talk about his employers(the banks) reasons for wanting hyperledger

All your reasons can be refuted by the simple fact that banks don't need the blockchain technology to do what you just enumerated. Everything from your list can be easily done with a distributed database or fail-safe filesystem (like what Google uses on their servers). But since they don't employ these tools (at least, en masse), it seems there is no particular reason or advantage to implement them. That is, their choice is toward further centralization. As I see it, blockchain is essentially about working in a trustless environment...

But the banking system itself is the opposite of that, since the Central bank is the ultimate arbiter and a source of trust by definition

when you realise that "blockchain" is just something like 5% of the security model of what bitcoin is.. you and i can both laugh at what purpose the banks are overselling the "database" 2.0 they are harping on about..

but what data they put within the database. and how they monetise it and how that data has its own utility.. is something only the banks will know.
eg health records, ID, births deaths and marriages, financial, produce and manufacturing tracking data.. the list can be endless. and monetised in endless ways. but that data is nothing to do with blockchain.. blockchain is just a small option for how that data is stored more efficiently then the old way databases worked

blockchain itself is meaningless.. its the data and what that data can and will do that has meaning.. and that data can be anything and unrelated to "blockchain"

[deisik]

there are probably loads of other reasons, i just listed the obvious ones anyone can think of, im sure the banks internal thinktank can think of more. maybe best to ask Gmaxwell what his contract conditions are and if he is open to talk about his employers(the banks) reasons for wanting hyperledger

All your reasons can be refuted by the simple fact that banks don't need the blockchain technology to do what you just enumerated. Everything from your list can be easily done with a distributed database or fail-safe filesystem (like what Google uses on their servers). But since they don't employ these tools (at least, en masse), it seems there is no particular reason or advantage to implement them. That is, their choice is toward further centralization. As I see it, blockchain is essentially about working in a trustless environment...

But the banking system itself is the opposite of that, since the Central bank is the ultimate arbiter and a source of trust by definition

when you realise that "blockchain" is just something like 5% of the security model of what bitcoin is.. you and i can both laugh at what purpose the banks are overselling the "database" 2.0 they are harping on about..

but what data they put within the database. and how they monetise it and how that data has its own utility.. is something only the banks will know.
eg health records, ID, births deaths and marriages, financial, produce and manufacturing tracking data.. the list can be endless. and monetised in endless ways. but that data is nothing to do with blockchain.. blockchain is just a small option for how that data is stored more efficiently then the old way databases worked

But I was asking specifically about the blockchain technology and its possible use by the banking sector, right?

Besides, I don't see how blockchain makes it more efficient to store, organize and process data. In every of these aspects, blockchain simply sucks, to be honest. If you need redundancy, there are special tools for doing just that. I can't possibly comprehend why you would try to use nodes for distributing your data (in search of redundancy or efficiency) which are in no way affiliated with you and don't have to keep your data in the first place. To organize your data, you use databases which specifically aim at fast retrieval of data entries in arbitrarily order (binary trees and that sort of things). The blockchain data format (JSON if I'm not mistaken) is simply unusable for these purposes. Processing data has nothing to do with blockchain altogether

[franky1]

But I was asking specifically about the blockchain technology and its possible use by the banking sector, right?

Besides, I don't see how blockchain makes it more efficient to store, organize and process data. In every of these aspects, blockchain simply sucks, to be honest. If you need redundancy, there are special tools for doing just that. I can't possibly comprehend why you would try to use nodes for distributing your data (in search of redundancy or efficiency) which are in no way affiliated with you and don't have to keep your data in the first place. To organize your data, you use databases which specifically aim at fast retrieval of data entries in arbitrarily order (binary trees and that sort of things). The blockchain data format (JSON if I'm not mistaken) is simply unusable for these purposes. Processing data has nothing to do with blockchain altogether

firstly you have not grasped what blockchain is.

its like your trying to skip some steps. grab an idea and then run backwards blindfolded.

bitcoins blockchain is fixed data. due to many SEPARATE mechanisms, one of which is called proof of work that locks the data via hashes.
blockchains in general do not need to be locked in as a permanent unchangeable dataset.
blockchains dont have to uses hashes, PoW. blockchains dont even need to be distributed.

forget all you know of the dozen or so security features of bitcoin.. and peel it all away and think about one aspect. blockchain
forget json, forget SHA, forget PoW, forget transactions, forget distribution with anonymous parties.

blockchain is just a block of data linked to another block of data. like a chain of blocks.

put it another way

if i had some data.. it could be a list of transactions, a chapter of a book or some medical data
i and someone else can sign it so it becomes a block of data.

but we also add a piece of data from another block so that they are linked together.
now you have a blockchain.

if you think a blockchain has to be virtical and has to grow forever it doesnt. a chain can wrap around its self or replace a link in the chain
data can be edited in a blockchain as long as it meets the rules of what linked it together.

bitcoin is a whole different concept. of multiple security features ONTOP of blockchain.. that has many many many more layers to make it near impossible to edit and technically immutable data in regards to the limits of circumventing all of bitcoins other security measures.

again once you realise how small of a security measure blockchains are. you realise it does have some utility.. but is no where near what bitcoin is.

[deisik]

put it another way

if i had some data.. it could be a list of transactions, a chapter of a book or some medical data
i and someone else can sign it so it becomes a block of data.

but we also add a piece of data from another block so that they are linked together.
now you have a blockchain.

And how could all this help store data more efficiently in the blockchain as you said in your previous post? I think any decent database will do that by far more efficiently. On the other hand, If a client of a bank wanted to sign a message or an order (say, to transfer money of make a payment), he would just use his digital signature that the bank provided him with and with which the bank can authenticate this user. This client already trusts the bank (since he holds his funds there), so there is no use for blockchain, right? Note that I'm not talking about Bitcoin here...

I just want to see if the blockchain technology is really useful for banks in any meaningful way

[franky1]

put it another way

if i had some data.. it could be a list of transactions, a chapter of a book or some medical data
i and someone else can sign it so it becomes a block of data.

but we also add a piece of data from another block so that they are linked together.
now you have a blockchain.

And how could all this help store data more efficiently in the blockchain as you said in your previous post? I think any decent database will do that by far more efficiently. On the other hand, If a client of a bank wanted to sign a message or an order (say, to transfer money of make a payment), he would just use his digital signature that the bank provided him with and with which the bank can authenticate this user. This client already trusts the bank (since he holds his funds there), so there is no use for blockchain, right? Note that I'm not talking about Bitcoin here...

I just want to see if the blockchain technology is really useful for banks in any meaningful way

blockchain does have many advantages over standard databases of the olden days. but fundamentally it is just a database. and its what the data will be and how that data is secured that changes things.
think of "blockchain" as simply "relationship database", but much more programmable and layer-able then standard

it all depends on what layers and uses they have

users EG local bank branch and a customer can use multisigs. for the accounts
think of it like each bank branch is a block of data. holding many multisig transactions.
then outside the block(bank branch) the head office signs the entire block and has other bank branches double audit that particular bank branch(block of data)

thus that block is then linked to a chain held by head office.
the bank branch or customer cannot simply edit the block. they need the head office and syndicate of other branches to sign off on the block to then update it. (more of PoA/PoS concept).

meaning the customer alone cant change anything.. the bank branch manager cannot edit anything alone. where it could require between 4-xx of entities to edit an entry.

because blockchain is soo loose in its actual definition. it can be utilised in many ways.. however, the only way of knowing how banks are actually going to use it requires you looking at hyperledger or getting gmaxwell to discuss what he and his employers are upto.

[Yakamoto]

Well, considering that there are no people to arrest and no centralized distribution point people can attack to bring down the network, I would especially believe that something like this is possible, now that anyone has the potential to get themselves out of the banking system and into something that frees them up. Banks only have the advantage of moderate security and insurance now.

[twodrive01]

We will see what happens re the IRS and taxes soon. They will be asking us to put down how much and what type of cryptocurrency we own. At any rate the higher atm fees, inconveneice and other friction with bitcoin will be offset by tax savings for those that take advantage of it.

[Doamader]

This were the same companies that since the begining were trying to kill bitcoin, since they had fail doing those they now are trying to follow bitcoin, sure they are scared, some people opened their eyes already, and the huge fees we paid before sounds a big wast that we had done since we use banks and others services.

[MingLee]

This were the same companies that since the begining were trying to kill bitcoin, since they had fail doing those they now are trying to follow bitcoin, sure they are scared, some people opened their eyes already, and the huge fees we paid before sounds a big wast that we had done since we use banks and others services.

That's the best thing that happen to be completely honest about it. The more that the big conglomerates are forced to bend to the people's will and not the other way around, the better. Having alternatives that can't be bought or sold are even better ways to make sure something like this happens.

The internet, the dissemination of information, and alternatives to the forced mainstream retailers and vendors are a benefit to the people, and not the globalist interests.