[ANN][NOTE]DNotes - Celebrating DNotes 3rd Birthday - Forum Now Open

[kanus1113]

http://dcebrief.com/is-digital-currency-a-risk-to-the-banking-industry/

Good job Thomas, though I believe the banks will benefit from digital currency and they should be looking at how they can be involved. It may be disruptive to existing models, and I understand they don't want to change... People will still need services whether they use digital currency or not. Smart banks will be looking at new profit models, new ways to meet customer needs, and new services they can provide, while reducing their costs and better serving the customers.

[1715037864]

1715037864

[1715037864]

1715037864

[DNotes]

http://dcebrief.com/is-digital-currency-a-risk-to-the-banking-industry/

Good job Thomas, though I believe the banks will benefit from digital currency and they should be looking at how they can be involved. It may be disruptive to existing models, and I understand they don't want to change... People will still need services whether they use digital currency or not. Smart banks will be looking at new profit models, new ways to meet customer needs, and new services they can provide, while reducing their costs and better serving the customers.

It was a great article, and I agree kanus. Though I tend to believe FinTech will be taking on a larger role in providing banking services in the future.

[Chase]

Great title on this article, but it came up short on the proof. It sounds like they are saying the reduced fees of using Bitcoin in cross border transfers will result in greater profits for banks. These outrageous fees are how the banks have remained profitable for so long, so I can't imagine they are in any hurry to get rid of them. In order to stay competitive, they would have to eventually pass any savings on to customers (or the consumer will turn to Bitcoin themselves).

It would have been interesting to have some sound arguments and / or better explanation of how banks could profit.


Cashing in on Bitcoin: How banks can turn a profit on the cryptocurrency

http://www.cbronline.com/news/verticals/finance/cashing-in-on-bitcoin-how-banks-can-turn-a-profit-on-the-cryptocurrency-4831672?

[DNotes]

Great title on this article, but it came up short on the proof. It sounds like they are saying the reduced fees of using Bitcoin in cross border transfers will result in greater profits for banks. These outrageous fees are how the banks have remained profitable for so long, so I can't imagine they are in any hurry to get rid of them. In order to stay competitive, they would have to eventually pass any savings on to customers (or the consumer will turn to Bitcoin themselves).

It would have been interesting to have some sound arguments and / or better explanation of how banks could profit.


Cashing in on Bitcoin: How banks can turn a profit on the cryptocurrency

http://www.cbronline.com/news/verticals/finance/cashing-in-on-bitcoin-how-banks-can-turn-a-profit-on-the-cryptocurrency-4831672?

Yep, let's talk about it. I struggle with it because I can only assume what costs banks actually have and where their income comes from. I assume most people will want an entity like a bank, even if we are majorly on digital currency, for insurance and potentially ease of use among other services a bank provides. I mean, even here, how many people would run there own wallet over using coinbase? DNotesVault is another good example, I'm sure the majority prefer to store their coins at DNotesVault. Banking won't really go away.

I think we start by reducing cost as part of the profit model.
Banks have a cost to pay in order process transactions. There are servers, storage, databases, security, software, maintenance, compliance, & employees to keep it all running. Most of these functions are not necessary when transacting in digital currency because it is built in. On top of this, they can batch transaction to reduce blockchain fees.
Banks also have to cover things like fraud and security breaches, that they pay hefty premiums for in insurance. If done correctly, there could be much less fraud and security risks when using digital currency. Especially where each transaction doesn't require personal information.

So even if fees were lower for the consumer, I assume the banks will make more money than previously (on fees).

What banks won't be able to do with digital currency is lend out and only keep 20% in reserves, or whatever that ratio is, and then charge the consumer interest on borrowed money (rinse and repeat the same money). Seems to me this is where all the money is made and where the problem for banks comes into play. In order to survive they will have to become much much leaner.

[IMZ]

Post 567 here: http://cryptomoms.com/forum/index.php?topic=537.msg6375#msg6375

and I am gleefully puddling along, providing a little volume on Cryptopia.

Mark

[Dyna]

Post 567 here: http://cryptomoms.com/forum/index.php?topic=537.msg6375#msg6375

and I am gleefully puddling along, providing a little volume on Cryptopia.

Mark

Thank you for doing your best to support DNotes at Cryptopia. Hopefully, I will find a little time to check in one day.

[Dyna]

Great title on this article, but it came up short on the proof. It sounds like they are saying the reduced fees of using Bitcoin in cross border transfers will result in greater profits for banks. These outrageous fees are how the banks have remained profitable for so long, so I can't imagine they are in any hurry to get rid of them. In order to stay competitive, they would have to eventually pass any savings on to customers (or the consumer will turn to Bitcoin themselves).

It would have been interesting to have some sound arguments and / or better explanation of how banks could profit.


Cashing in on Bitcoin: How banks can turn a profit on the cryptocurrency

http://www.cbronline.com/news/verticals/finance/cashing-in-on-bitcoin-how-banks-can-turn-a-profit-on-the-cryptocurrency-4831672?

Yep, let's talk about it. I struggle with it because I can only assume what costs banks actually have and where their income comes from. I assume most people will want an entity like a bank, even if we are majorly on digital currency, for insurance and potentially ease of use among other services a bank provides. I mean, even here, how many people would run there own wallet over using coinbase? DNotesVault is another good example, I'm sure the majority prefer to store their coins at DNotesVault. Banking won't really go away.

I think we start by reducing cost as part of the profit model.
Banks have a cost to pay in order process transactions. There are servers, storage, databases, security, software, maintenance, compliance, & employees to keep it all running. Most of these functions are not necessary when transacting in digital currency because it is built in. On top of this, they can batch transaction to reduce blockchain fees.
Banks also have to cover things like fraud and security breaches, that they pay hefty premiums for in insurance. If done correctly, there could be much less fraud and security risks when using digital currency. Especially where each transaction doesn't require personal information.

So even if fees were lower for the consumer, I assume the banks will make more money than previously (on fees).

What banks won't be able to do with digital currency is lend out and only keep 20% in reserves, or whatever that ratio is, and then charge the consumer interest on borrowed money (rinse and repeat the same money). Seems to me this is where all the money is made and where the problem for banks comes into play. In order to survive they will have to become much much leaner.

There are plenty of opportunities for innovative banks to participate in digital currency but it will take years for them to be comfortable and regulatory requirements to be more accommodating.

[DNotes]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

[RJF19]

http://dcebrief.com/is-digital-currency-a-risk-to-the-banking-industry/

Good job Thomas, though I believe the banks will benefit from digital currency and they should be looking at how they can be involved. It may be disruptive to existing models, and I understand they don't want to change... People will still need services whether they use digital currency or not. Smart banks will be looking at new profit models, new ways to meet customer needs, and new services they can provide, while reducing their costs and better serving the customers.

It was a great article, and I agree kanus. Though I tend to believe FinTech will be taking on a larger role in providing banking services in the future.

Sorry but, the biggest risk to the banking industry is the banking industry...

[RJF19]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

Actually, not so much the leaving of Hearn but the infighting and inability to come to a consensus since he stepped away. The industry is doing everything to prove him right while saying he was wrong. This needs to stop. We need a strong leader to step forward and put all this crap to bed before people get desensitized and move on to new things. You only have the public's attention for so long and it needs to be good attention in order to grow and thrive.

[Dyna]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

Actually, not so much the leaving of Hearn but the infighting and inability to come to a consensus since he stepped away. The industry is doing everything to prove him right while saying he was wrong. This needs to stop. We need a strong leader to step forward and put all this crap to bed before people get desensitized and move on to new things. You only have the public's attention for so long and it needs to be good attention in order to grow and thrive.

"The industry is doing everything to prove him (Hearn) right while saying he was wrong." That, unfortunately is a very good point. However, we can always be hopeful, but no one seem to have sufficient motivation to step in as a strong leader to clearly represent the industry than their own self interest.

[DNotes]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

Actually, not so much the leaving of Hearn but the infighting and inability to come to a consensus since he stepped away. The industry is doing everything to prove him right while saying he was wrong. This needs to stop. We need a strong leader to step forward and put all this crap to bed before people get desensitized and move on to new things. You only have the public's attention for so long and it needs to be good attention in order to grow and thrive.

"The industry is doing everything to prove him (Hearn) right while saying he was wrong." That, unfortunately is a very good point. However, we can always be hopeful, but no one seem to have sufficient motivation to step in as a strong leader to clearly represent the industry than their own self interest.

That is indeed a tough nut to crack, we need Bitcoin to continue being successful and continue to solve industry problems for the time being.

[CryptoBroker79]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

Actually, not so much the leaving of Hearn but the infighting and inability to come to a consensus since he stepped away. The industry is doing everything to prove him right while saying he was wrong. This needs to stop. We need a strong leader to step forward and put all this crap to bed before people get desensitized and move on to new things. You only have the public's attention for so long and it needs to be good attention in order to grow and thrive.

"The industry is doing everything to prove him (Hearn) right while saying he was wrong." That, unfortunately is a very good point. However, we can always be hopeful, but no one seem to have sufficient motivation to step in as a strong leader to clearly represent the industry than their own self interest.

That is indeed a tough nut to crack, we need Bitcoin to continue being successful and continue to solve industry problems for the time being.

Maybe it's time the voting capabilities of blockchain were put to the test to start electing representatives and establishing a chain of command/leadership hierarchy. It's become quite clear that innovation and engineering will not solve all of the industry's problems unless people can be on the same page.

My suggestion would be "weighted voting" based on the amount of hashing power you have, because a large mining operation has an arguably greater vested interest in the industry's future as opposed to bagholders who can sell their stake at any time to recover most of their capital investment. In the future when basic governance is established, switching to a system where every user gets a say would be more possible.


Edit: I also think it's incredibly important to have a plethora of power checks in place, to ensure leadership can't abuse their power.

[DNotes]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

Actually, not so much the leaving of Hearn but the infighting and inability to come to a consensus since he stepped away. The industry is doing everything to prove him right while saying he was wrong. This needs to stop. We need a strong leader to step forward and put all this crap to bed before people get desensitized and move on to new things. You only have the public's attention for so long and it needs to be good attention in order to grow and thrive.

"The industry is doing everything to prove him (Hearn) right while saying he was wrong." That, unfortunately is a very good point. However, we can always be hopeful, but no one seem to have sufficient motivation to step in as a strong leader to clearly represent the industry than their own self interest.

That is indeed a tough nut to crack, we need Bitcoin to continue being successful and continue to solve industry problems for the time being.

Maybe it's time the voting capabilities of blockchain were put to the test to start electing representatives and establishing a chain of command/leadership hierarchy. It's become quite clear that innovation and engineering will not solve all of the industry's problems unless people can be on the same page.

My suggestion would be "weighted voting" based on the amount of hashing power you have, because a large mining operation has an arguably greater vested interest in the industry's future as opposed to bagholders who can sell their stake at any time to recover most of their capital investment. In the future when basic governance is established, switching to a system where every user gets a say would be more possible.


Edit: I also think it's incredibly important to have a plethora of power checks in place, to ensure leadership can't abuse their power.

It is an interesting proposal. One thing is clear, if people don't act quickly, the network will continue to grow and the problems we are seeing today will be compounded very quickly. The arguments for and against specific changes become irrelevant if the benefits of using bitcoin start to fade away. Once people begin to bail out, it will be very difficult to convince them to come back. Like merchants who can't process reliable transactions in a reasonable time frame. Will bitcoin have to go to the brink of destruction before everyone realizes it's all on the line? Will everyone be able to work together for what is good for bitcoin as a whole?

[CryptoBroker79]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

Actually, not so much the leaving of Hearn but the infighting and inability to come to a consensus since he stepped away. The industry is doing everything to prove him right while saying he was wrong. This needs to stop. We need a strong leader to step forward and put all this crap to bed before people get desensitized and move on to new things. You only have the public's attention for so long and it needs to be good attention in order to grow and thrive.

"The industry is doing everything to prove him (Hearn) right while saying he was wrong." That, unfortunately is a very good point. However, we can always be hopeful, but no one seem to have sufficient motivation to step in as a strong leader to clearly represent the industry than their own self interest.

That is indeed a tough nut to crack, we need Bitcoin to continue being successful and continue to solve industry problems for the time being.

Maybe it's time the voting capabilities of blockchain were put to the test to start electing representatives and establishing a chain of command/leadership hierarchy. It's become quite clear that innovation and engineering will not solve all of the industry's problems unless people can be on the same page.

My suggestion would be "weighted voting" based on the amount of hashing power you have, because a large mining operation has an arguably greater vested interest in the industry's future as opposed to bagholders who can sell their stake at any time to recover most of their capital investment. In the future when basic governance is established, switching to a system where every user gets a say would be more possible.


Edit: I also think it's incredibly important to have a plethora of power checks in place, to ensure leadership can't abuse their power.

It is an interesting proposal. One thing is clear, if people don't act quickly, the network will continue to grow and the problems we are seeing today will be compounded very quickly. The arguments for and against specific changes become irrelevant if the benefits of using bitcoin start to fade away. Once people begin to bail out, it will be very difficult to convince them to come back. Like merchants who can't process reliable transactions in a reasonable time frame. Will bitcoin have to go to the brink of destruction before everyone realizes it's all on the line? Will everyone be able to work together for what is good for bitcoin as a whole?

What do you think is the most important thing average Bitcoin users can contribute to our industry? Sitting around idly waiting for the price to go up and for others to put in the work is a recipe for disaster. There must be some way even the inexperienced can contribute to success, and be left with a sense of accomplishment.

[DNotes]

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-bitcoin-survives-its-latest-storm-hurricane-hearn/

Actually, not so much the leaving of Hearn but the infighting and inability to come to a consensus since he stepped away. The industry is doing everything to prove him right while saying he was wrong. This needs to stop. We need a strong leader to step forward and put all this crap to bed before people get desensitized and move on to new things. You only have the public's attention for so long and it needs to be good attention in order to grow and thrive.

"The industry is doing everything to prove him (Hearn) right while saying he was wrong." That, unfortunately is a very good point. However, we can always be hopeful, but no one seem to have sufficient motivation to step in as a strong leader to clearly represent the industry than their own self interest.

That is indeed a tough nut to crack, we need Bitcoin to continue being successful and continue to solve industry problems for the time being.

Maybe it's time the voting capabilities of blockchain were put to the test to start electing representatives and establishing a chain of command/leadership hierarchy. It's become quite clear that innovation and engineering will not solve all of the industry's problems unless people can be on the same page.

My suggestion would be "weighted voting" based on the amount of hashing power you have, because a large mining operation has an arguably greater vested interest in the industry's future as opposed to bagholders who can sell their stake at any time to recover most of their capital investment. In the future when basic governance is established, switching to a system where every user gets a say would be more possible.


Edit: I also think it's incredibly important to have a plethora of power checks in place, to ensure leadership can't abuse their power.

It is an interesting proposal. One thing is clear, if people don't act quickly, the network will continue to grow and the problems we are seeing today will be compounded very quickly. The arguments for and against specific changes become irrelevant if the benefits of using bitcoin start to fade away. Once people begin to bail out, it will be very difficult to convince them to come back. Like merchants who can't process reliable transactions in a reasonable time frame. Will bitcoin have to go to the brink of destruction before everyone realizes it's all on the line? Will everyone be able to work together for what is good for bitcoin as a whole?

What do you think is the most important thing average Bitcoin users can contribute to our industry? Sitting around idly waiting for the price to go up and for others to put in the work is a recipe for disaster. There must be some way even the inexperienced can contribute to success, and be left with a sense of accomplishment.

Very good question and great discussion topic. I think we can pull from the DNotes philosophy to answer that question. Make sure you are fully informed on the issue is a great place to start. Help promote positive and constructive discussion. Help people to realize that taking action in the best interest of everyone as a whole will ultimately benefit everyone.

[Chase]

I came across this article on public and private blockchains and found something within it that made me a bit nervous. Is it true that transactions within a private blockchain can be altered?? The "feature is not permitted in public blockchains" because of the security risk. Are we supposed to believe there is no security risk with organizations that are racing for the private blockchains?


Beyond Bitcoin: The blockchain revolution in financial services

PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE BLOCKCHAINS

To understand the difference between public and private blockchains, consider the difference between the Internet, which is public and available to everyone, and intranets, which are created by specific entities and only available to certain individuals with permission.

Public blockchains are decentralized and accessible to anyone, regardless of their affiliation. Transactions are publicly verified and remain in the public domain. To ensure the integrity of the system and to validate transactions, financial-incentive and consensus mechanisms are built into the system. Crowdsourcing is an advantage of public blockchains, which are outside the control of any private or governmental entity. Because a public blockchain is available to anyone, improvements are made by consensus of the participants. Open access encourages greater participation and makes it more likely for public blockchain networks to be employed in a wider variety of applications. Importantly, public blockchains offer the potential for reducing transaction fees. In the Bitcoin network, for example, the average processing fee for a Bitcoin transaction is .04 cents, compared to more than .35 cents for a typical credit card transaction.

Private blockchains are set up and maintained by a private entity. Security protocols control and limit access to authorized parties. Transactions are verified within the private blockchain and can potentially be altered within that private network, which enables operators to correct errors. This feature is not permitted in public blockchains, in part because it can create security risks. There are two types of private blockchains: consortiums, which include preselected participants from a variety of organizations; and fully private blockchains, which are limited to participants from one organization. Private blockchains can authenticate transactions more quickly— generally within seconds—because they operate on networks that are more centralized and are made of up fewer computers. In contrast, it can take as long as two hours to authenticate a Bitcoin transaction, which happens on a globally distributed, public blockchain involving thousands of unaffiliated computers.

http://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/beyond-bitcoin-blockchain-revolution-financial-services

[Chase]

This is impressive! I took a quick look at the locations and this makes it possible to buy bitcoin in some pretty small towns across Canada. There are a few locations that are close so I'm going to give it a try tomorrow.


You can now purchase Bitcoin at 6,000 retail locations in Canada with BitAccess

https://ihb.io/2016-03-09/news/you-can-now-purchase-bitcoin-at-6000-retail-locations-in-canada-with-bitaccess-28037

[DNotes]

This is impressive! I took a quick look at the locations and this makes it possible to buy bitcoin in some pretty small towns across Canada. There are a few locations that are close so I'm going to give it a try tomorrow.


You can now purchase Bitcoin at 6,000 retail locations in Canada with BitAccess

https://ihb.io/2016-03-09/news/you-can-now-purchase-bitcoin-at-6000-retail-locations-in-canada-with-bitaccess-28037

Very cool. That would be nice if we had this option locally too. Let us know how it goes!

[Dyna]

I came across this article on public and private blockchains and found something within it that made me a bit nervous. Is it true that transactions within a private blockchain can be altered?? The "feature is not permitted in public blockchains" because of the security risk. Are we supposed to believe there is no security risk with organizations that are racing for the private blockchains?


Beyond Bitcoin: The blockchain revolution in financial services

PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE BLOCKCHAINS

To understand the difference between public and private blockchains, consider the difference between the Internet, which is public and available to everyone, and intranets, which are created by specific entities and only available to certain individuals with permission.

Public blockchains are decentralized and accessible to anyone, regardless of their affiliation. Transactions are publicly verified and remain in the public domain. To ensure the integrity of the system and to validate transactions, financial-incentive and consensus mechanisms are built into the system. Crowdsourcing is an advantage of public blockchains, which are outside the control of any private or governmental entity. Because a public blockchain is available to anyone, improvements are made by consensus of the participants. Open access encourages greater participation and makes it more likely for public blockchain networks to be employed in a wider variety of applications. Importantly, public blockchains offer the potential for reducing transaction fees. In the Bitcoin network, for example, the average processing fee for a Bitcoin transaction is .04 cents, compared to more than .35 cents for a typical credit card transaction.

Private blockchains are set up and maintained by a private entity. Security protocols control and limit access to authorized parties. Transactions are verified within the private blockchain and can potentially be altered within that private network, which enables operators to correct errors. This feature is not permitted in public blockchains, in part because it can create security risks. There are two types of private blockchains: consortiums, which include preselected participants from a variety of organizations; and fully private blockchains, which are limited to participants from one organization. Private blockchains can authenticate transactions more quickly— generally within seconds—because they operate on networks that are more centralized and are made of up fewer computers. In contrast, it can take as long as two hours to authenticate a Bitcoin transaction, which happens on a globally distributed, public blockchain involving thousands of unaffiliated computers.

http://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/beyond-bitcoin-blockchain-revolution-financial-services

Chase, the article is factually correct. Private or permissioned blockchain is just a glorified version of database. It is controlled by a central authority or centralized, hence authorized parties can reverse the record and make changes.

As mentioned, “there are two types of private blockchains: consortiums, which include preselected participants from a variety of organizations; and fully private blockchains, which are limited to participants from one organization.”

A proof-of-work decentralized Bitcoin or DNotes blockchain record is not reversible and cannot be changed once confirmed by the 51% of the peer-to-peer decentralized consensus network.

What sold me about Bitcoin in the first place is Satoshi’s ingenious consensus technology to deliver immutable transaction time-stamped records verifiable by anyone anytime anywhere. Without this feature, there is not that much one should get excited about. The so called trusted intermediaries continue to rule.