• upto60percentoff@kbin.run
    1·
    4 months ago

    A distributed pseudonymous ledger for use by a centralised authority that will hold sensitive, personal information.

    I think the paper was right.

  • alekwithak@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    The Blockchain is amazingly useful, that’s why the establishment did their best to make sure people associate with incels and little monkey pictures to ruin its credibility. A banking system running on Blockchain is one where the Pentagon can’t lose trillions of dollars annually.

    • miridius@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      A banking system running on Blockchain

      Is an astronomically terrible idea. It:

      • would use as much electricity as an entire country
      • payments/transfers would be both much slower AND much more expensive than via a bank
      • would have no protection against fraud. You got scammed? Your money’s gone. You paid for something online and it never arrived? Too bad
      • would have no way to stop money laundering
      • would have no way to help people who forgot their password, they’d just lose their life savings permanently
      • would tie up a bunch of capital, preventing reinvestment and growth. There would be no way to get a bank loan to buy a house for example
      • the list goes on
      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        01·
        4 months ago

        payments/transfers would be both much slower AND much more expensive than via a bank

        Not necessarily. You could have a federated system, where only big players like banks participate in larger blockchain, like banks already do with forex and wire transfers and pay ridiculous fees to clearing agencies, and clear out local transfers locally, possibly inside their own smaller and much faster blockchain.