Jump to content

Trust and the public blockchain


Pranavan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I was hoping to generate some discussion regarding the mind of banks.  I am a huge believer in XRP/Ripple.  Recent discussions with a high level banker provided me some insight into the way they think.  His words to me were that Banks will never go with a public blockchain due to the issue of trust.  He felt Ripplenet will be utilised however the XRP token will not.  I quoted to him that SBI holdings were already trialling such payments however, he felt mass adoption by banks would be unlikely.  I would be interested in the thoughts of the experts on this blog.  

Edited by Pranavan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do they feel its unlikely? How high up is your banker? 

xrp is the cherry on the sundae for banks. This has been discussed. 

I'd be interested to hear why they think it won't be used. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not quite giving us enough to go on here. What issue of trust are you talking about? Do they not trust distributed ledger technology to not malfunction? Do they not trust having transactions view able by anyone? Could you be more specific on what the high level banker told you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A public blockchain means transactions are not veiled and are visible to all.  For example an XRP transaction between me and you would be visible.  As would a billion dollar trnasation from Bank A to B.  Therefore enterprise, are generally reluctant to use public blockchains

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pranavan said:

A public blockchain means transactions are not veiled and are visible to all.  For example an XRP transaction between me and you would be visible.  As would a billion dollar trnasation from Bank A to B.  Therefore enterprise, are generally reluctant to use public blockchains

 

Hm, actually a good point.

Does ripple have any plans to solve this "problem"? Is it possible that ripple veils the transactions for their customers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pranavan said:

A public blockchain means transactions are not veiled and are visible to all.  For example an XRP transaction between me and you would be visible.  As would a billion dollar trnasation from Bank A to B.  Therefore enterprise, are generally reluctant to use public blockchains

 

This is actually a good point I never evaluated when thinking about XRP adoption by banks.. hummm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banks all ready use the public Internet and do not care...

Of course they also deploy their own parallel internets... The banker guy does not know what he is talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, just trying to generate discussion and not FUD.  I would love some thoughts.  Neo has employed a layer of trust (Ontology) to deal with enterprise, so it is clearly an issue for organisations.  Just wondering if Ripple has a strategy for this.  I am well read on XRP and was an early adopter.  I follow @Hodor articles religiously (he is brilliant).  This was something that stuck in my mind and thought it may make a good topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Max Entropy so you're saying that bank to bank transactions are currently visible to the general public just because the use the internet? Clearly not.

The question is how can transactions over a public ledger be sufficiently anonymised for banks to be happy using them.

Maybe only using XRP Ledger to cross borders, then moving to another private intermediary that sends the funds on to their final destination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I did not say that... I said the banks use the public internet.

i am technical.

Further, I expect the banks are using ordinary encryption for their banking mobile apps. If one looks at say the Apple submission rules, you need special permission to submit apps that use strong encryption. Encryption rules are subject nation states, and I am guessing only the encryption that can be de-encrypted is allowed... else there would not be a striction on strong encryption.

So basically encryption using mobile devices is a farce. Steve Jobs failed miserably in this regard.

--

I have an ongoing argument with Ripple and the RippeD (open source) component. They could easily have two (2) version of this. One with private strong encryption TCP/IP pipes and one for the rest of us. Ripple contends that those good folks at banks want only the vanilla RippleD software, which I do not believe for a minute.

Hence, in my view Ripple is definitely not open source.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.