Why would banks use a blockchain?

[thirdprize]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.   

They have perfectly good ways of storing and processing transactions already.  With Btc addresses and transactions are publicly visible.  I don't want my bank account and details visible to the world.  Unless you had unique, one shot payment addresses, it would be simple to create a wiki mapping addresses onto organisations and eventually people.  Then there is processing.  Btc only works as it pays miners to verify transactions.  There is no way a bank would give over its processing to a third party that wasn't 100% legit.  Would it run all its miners/verification in house?  How do you explain the 51% threat to a bank?

The openness of block chains isn't really relevant to huge organisations. 

[1713997227]

1713997227

[1713997227]

1713997227

[1713997227]

1713997227

[1713997227]

1713997227

[1713997227]

1713997227

[Rockie1234]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.   

They have perfectly good ways of storing and processing transactions already.  With Btc addresses and transactions are publicly visible.  I don't want my bank account and details visible to the world.  Unless you had unique, one shot payment addresses, it would be simple to create a wiki mapping addresses onto organisations and eventually people.  Then there is processing.  Btc only works as it pays miners to verify transactions.  There is no way a bank would give over its processing to a third party that wasn't 100% legit.  Would it run all its miners/verification in house?  How do you explain the 51% threat to a bank?

The openness of block chains isn't really relevant to huge organisations. 

[/b]

I have to disagree. Banks are interested because of the openness of blockchains. Instead of having complex and long-winded digital records, they can have all this information easily accessible. I think it also greatly reduces the problems resulting from money transfers between different banks.

[BrewMaster]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.   

They have perfectly good ways of storing and processing transactions already.  With Btc addresses and transactions are publicly visible.  I don't want my bank account and details visible to the world.  Unless you had unique, one shot payment addresses, it would be simple to create a wiki mapping addresses onto organisations and eventually people.  Then there is processing.  Btc only works as it pays miners to verify transactions.  There is no way a bank would give over its processing to a third party that wasn't 100% legit.  Would it run all its miners/verification in house?  How do you explain the 51% threat to a bank?

The openness of block chains isn't really relevant to huge organisations. 

who said anything about bitcoin, anything about being public, or showing the source code?

this is my speculation based on what i have read:
it is the technology they are going to use. which means a blockchain that they will use "internally" hidden from eyes of anyone outside. they will have their own internal miners and everything will be centralized and closed source. so there is no blockchain for you and me to see, there is no miner that we can attack 51%
by doing this they can have super fast, and extremely secure way of transactions with zero possibility of any kind of attack in the middle.

and also there are anonymous transactions that can be used even if the blockchain is public. so it can solve the problem of privacy.

[thirdprize]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.   

They have perfectly good ways of storing and processing transactions already.  With Btc addresses and transactions are publicly visible.  I don't want my bank account and details visible to the world.  Unless you had unique, one shot payment addresses, it would be simple to create a wiki mapping addresses onto organisations and eventually people.  Then there is processing.  Btc only works as it pays miners to verify transactions.  There is no way a bank would give over its processing to a third party that wasn't 100% legit.  Would it run all its miners/verification in house?  How do you explain the 51% threat to a bank?

The openness of block chains isn't really relevant to huge organisations. 

who said anything about bitcoin, anything about being public, or showing the source code?

this is my speculation based on what i have read:
it is the technology they are going to use. which means a blockchain that they will use "internally" hidden from eyes of anyone outside. they will have their own internal miners and everything will be centralized and closed source. so there is no blockchain for you and me to see, there is no miner that we can attack 51%
by doing this they can have super fast, and extremely secure way of transactions with zero possibility of any kind of attack in the middle.

and also there are anonymous transactions that can be used even if the blockchain is public. so it can solve the problem of privacy.

Would they even have miners if all transactions come from inside the bank?  Maybe one to keep an eye on things.  No miners means the block chain is just a data structure.  Then it all boils down to how efficient is it at storing data compared to their current db? 

[Kprawn]

The banks will use "Private" Blockchains that would only be accessible to them. Bitcoin is PUBLIC. One of the main reasons banks would be

interested in "Private" Blockchains, would be for security. A decentralized network, cannot easily be taken down, like a centralized ledger. They can

also bypass services like SWIFT, if they want to transfer money between different banks.  {Making it cheaper, and more profit for them} 

[MicroGuy]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.   

They have perfectly good ways of storing and processing transactions already.  With Btc addresses and transactions are publicly visible.  I don't want my bank account and details visible to the world.  Unless you had unique, one shot payment addresses, it would be simple to create a wiki mapping addresses onto organisations and eventually people.  Then there is processing.  Btc only works as it pays miners to verify transactions.  There is no way a bank would give over its processing to a third party that wasn't 100% legit.  Would it run all its miners/verification in house?  How do you explain the 51% threat to a bank?

The openness of block chains isn't really relevant to huge organisations. 

A private blockchain is like a local area network, the access is controlled locally. It is not open like Bitcoin.

There would be no 51% threat to the chain and the network could be maintained using minimal CPU power.

[Jet Cash]

Why do banks use blockchains? Because most people don't understand what it means, and it's great PR to show they are moving with the times. It also gives them a chance to dump the toxic debt that is associated with the current virtual fiat currencies.

[thirdprize]

The banks will use "Private" Blockchains that would only be accessible to them. Bitcoin is PUBLIC. One of the main reasons banks would be

interested in "Private" Blockchains, would be for security. A decentralized network, cannot easily be taken down, like a centralized ledger. They can

also bypass services like SWIFT, if they want to transfer money between different banks.  {Making it cheaper, and more profit for them} 

Like all the banks would use the same sort of compatible blockchain.    I'm sure they already have their data replicated around the world for security reasons, but you could have a node in each country. 

[TheWallStreetCrew]

The banks will use "Private" Blockchains that would only be accessible to them. Bitcoin is PUBLIC. One of the main reasons banks would be

interested in "Private" Blockchains, would be for security. A decentralized network, cannot easily be taken down, like a centralized ledger. They can

also bypass services like SWIFT, if they want to transfer money between different banks.  {Making it cheaper, and more profit for them} 

Like all the banks would use the same sort of compatible blockchain.    I'm sure they already have their data replicated around the world for security reasons, but you could have a node in each country. 

sometime soon they will have a standard blockchain for every bank. then they can all work together.

[Anarchist]

The banks will use "Private" Blockchains that would only be accessible to them. Bitcoin is PUBLIC. One of the main reasons banks would be

interested in "Private" Blockchains, would be for security. A decentralized network, cannot easily be taken down, like a centralized ledger. They can

also bypass services like SWIFT, if they want to transfer money between different banks.  {Making it cheaper, and more profit for them} 

Like all the banks would use the same sort of compatible blockchain.    I'm sure they already have their data replicated around the world for security reasons, but you could have a node in each country. 

sometime soon they will have a standard blockchain for every bank. then they can all work together.

Don't forget as well that the blockchain technology also offers potential use cases for insurers that include innovating insurance products and services

[QuestionAuthority]

Bitcoin's best feature is the database. A banks business is mainly a huge database that keeps track of customer records. The ach/eft system is an enormous database that keeps records of customer transfers between banks and businesses. As banks continue to accumulate massive amounts of data, with no end in sight, the industry must find new ways to store it.

The key requirements of big data storage are that it can handle very large amounts of data and keep scaling to keep up with growth, and that it can provide the IOPS necessary to deliver data to analytics tools. The analytics tools lookup account records, determine balances, screen for fraud, track deposits/withdrawals/automatic payments, rout direct deposits and a multitude of other functions. Bitcoin is sorely insufficient for the needs of a major bank with a constantly accessed major data set. It's too slow and too clumsy to be useful. However, banks have one other database that Bitcoin might be useful for and that's data warehousing.

A data warehouse is housed typically on an enterprise mainframe server or in the cloud. Data from various online transaction processing applications and other sources is selectively and only periodically, extracted for use by analytical applications and user queries (like asking your bank for a copy of last years transactions for an IRS audit). These warehouses have no need to be super fast or stored locally. Something as clumsy and slow as Bitcoin would be well suited to data warehousing. The problem is the volume of data that only one bank stores makes the Bitcoin full node blockchain look like a Nikon camera SD card. Banks would only be interested in using the blockchain streamlining and data redundancy features to link all of their warehouse mainframes worldwide.

This use is meaningless to Bitcoin or it's adoption rate.

[geopolisch]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.   

How you are saying that banks are not in need of the benefits of using blockchain.

Banks need to maintain huge volume of data whereas blackchain efficiently manages huge volume of data in distributed mode. One simple advantage of this would be reversing or faking will be prohibited with the case of using blockchain technology, for example.

In my understanding banks need blockchain in technology to ease their current operations but definitely do not need any private altcoins.

[andrei56]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.  

They have perfectly good ways of storing and processing transactions already.  With Btc addresses and transactions are publicly visible.  I don't want my bank account and details visible to the world.  Unless you had unique, one shot payment addresses, it would be simple to create a wiki mapping addresses onto organisations and eventually people.  Then there is processing.  Btc only works as it pays miners to verify transactions.  There is no way a bank would give over its processing to a third party that wasn't 100% legit.  Would it run all its miners/verification in house?  How do you explain the 51% threat to a bank?

The openness of block chains isn't really relevant to huge organisations.  

They are not going to use bitcoin blockchain, they are interested in creating their own private blockchain that will not be accessible to the general public.

[-ck]

Banks need to maintain huge volume of data whereas blackchain efficiently manages huge volume of data in distributed mode. One simple advantage of this would be reversing or faking will be prohibited with the case of using blockchain technology, for example.

Reversing or faking is prevented in bitcoin through the use of mining which is how one can maintain a current "truth" in the blockchain in a trustless system. Blockchain technology by banks have no need for working with a trustless system with their own data in house. Blockchain provides a way to have a current state across many nodes, but for in house data there is no need for such protection against reversing or faking, and there is no mechanism to do so either.

[Gromozeka!]

Blockchains don't really offer anything a bank would need.   

They have perfectly good ways of storing and processing transactions already.  With Btc addresses and transactions are publicly visible.  I don't want my bank account and details visible to the world.  Unless you had unique, one shot payment addresses, it would be simple to create a wiki mapping addresses onto organisations and eventually people.  Then there is processing.  Btc only works as it pays miners to verify transactions.  There is no way a bank would give over its processing to a third party that wasn't 100% legit.  Would it run all its miners/verification in house?  How do you explain the 51% threat to a bank?

The openness of block chains isn't really relevant to huge organisations. 

[/b]

I have to disagree. Banks are interested because of the openness of blockchains. Instead of having complex and long-winded digital records, they can have all this information easily accessible. I think it also greatly reduces the problems resulting from money transfers between different banks.

Quite true, but it should be a single interbank blockchains, not every bank's own. For customers it is good that the cancellation fee amount will be much lower than it is now.

[samthephysicsguy]

This may not be what you are looking for, as it is not purely from a monetary/transaction standpoint. Banks could use the blockchain to securely and proofably hold data. The company Tierion does this with health and other business data. https://tierion.com/

To expand on this. Do transactions off-chain and simply store the hashed data containing the transactions on chain.

[QuestionAuthority]

This may not be what you are looking for, as it is not purely from a monetary/transaction standpoint. Banks could use the blockchain to securely and proofably hold data. The company Tierion does this with health and other business data. https://tierion.com/

I think that's what they're trying to sell. It's cute that they show 2,700 records stored. According to ach/eft, the average consumer storage is roughly 63,000 individual records per year. That's all deposit, withdraw, pos terminal, check, auto pay, lookup, direct deposit, credit inquiry, consumer unknown credit pull and more. For a single country that's about 18,900,000,000,000 records per year. I think Tierion may be a little overwhelmed. LOL

[dhampir-D]

Banks would probably not adopt a technology that considerably limits the control they have. It is possible that someday some banks will adopt Blockchain Technologies for real-world applications, but certainly the first thing they will try is to use some kind of centralized blockchain.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

Why do banks use blockchains? Because most people don't understand what it means, and it's great PR to show they are moving with the times. It also gives them a chance to dump the toxic debt that is associated with the current virtual fiat currencies.

It is entirely different from what you think it is,blockchain and virtual currencies are entirely different and banks are not using blockchain to build a currency of their own ,instead they will be having their transaction records in the blockchain and it will be a closed one without any doubt.

[thirdprize]

Why do banks use blockchains? Because most people don't understand what it means, and it's great PR to show they are moving with the times. It also gives them a chance to dump the toxic debt that is associated with the current virtual fiat currencies.

It is entirely different from what you think it is,blockchain and virtual currencies are entirely different and banks are not using blockchain to build a currency of their own ,instead they will be having their transaction records in the blockchain and it will be a closed one without any doubt.

Why would you need a block chain in a closed system?  What advantage does it give you over your current system?  The fact it is de-centralised means nothing if you are using it in-house.