pull down to refresh
This is exactly how I think about it. I don't understand how a blockchain could allow them to gain anything here. if they don't fully trust each other, couldn't they just run some sort of append-only database?
I wonder if there is a situation where they are actually too lazy to figure out how to coordinate and so they are willing to take on all the redundancy of a blockchain because it's easier in some way? But I can't see that working. so then I come back to this is all marketing.
Can a pleb run a node at home on an old thinkpad with a newish SSD? Can a pleb mine with a bitaxe, with a few SATs a day as a reward?
Is the blockchain hard to censor? Is it extremely difficult/virtually impossible to confiscate the UTXOs remotely cryptographically?
And finally is the monetary policy very hard to change and hard to influence by a centralized group?
Because something like tether meets none of these criteria. Like none of them
Is a bank blockchain going to provide censorship resistance and literal mining, inviting the return of commodity-money? They don't want that now... So why would they want that through a 'blockchain'?
To me their comments make no sense
For it to be a valuable 'blockchain' it needs to be reasonably decentralised, proof of work, provably scarce, censorship resistant, and hard to change monetarily.
Do the bank 'blockchains' meet these criteria? If so well great.
If they don't then... What is the point?