Cryptocurrency

[europetractor]

A government-backed cyber currency would be the same as bitcoin, except that there would be a fixed number of coins in circulation, with mining only possible by government computer scientists (who would hold a highly encrypted private key that would be necessary to mine new coins). As it would be impossible (due to mathematics) to create new coins, these coins would be able to be used alongside existing paper money (which also cannot be created) and bank of England base money (electronic accounts with the Bank of England) by the banks and large financial institutions.



A different type of cyber. Just an electronic record, not one managed by a blockchain.

Do be aware of the difference between base money and broad money. Base money is in the form of physical cash and bank of England deposits (as described above), whereas broad money is simply a contract between a private individual or company, and a regular bank (where this contract can be one of debt, where the person owes the bank money, or credit, where the person can see money available to spend, in "their" account at the bank).

How blind do you have to be to want few private companies to print coins. Only uneducated people would back that.

[GJABS]

How blind do you have to be to want few private companies to print coins. Only uneducated people would back that.

I didn't say that that was what I want, I stated what I believed will happen. IMHO.

[VectraMan]

A government-backed cyber currency would be the same as bitcoin, except that there would be a fixed number of coins in circulation, with mining only possible by government computer scientists (who would hold a highly encrypted private key that would be necessary to mine new coins). As it would be impossible (due to mathematics) to create new coins, these coins would be able to be used alongside existing paper money (which also cannot be created) and bank of England base money (electronic accounts with the Bank of England) by the banks and large financial institutions.

Interesting, but I'm not sure what the practical benefit of any of it is. It almost sounds like another "E-cash" solution that will surely fail like all the others. I can pay for most things with a bonk of my debit card so why bother with some other cyber currency?

[scooterscot]

Interesting, but I'm not sure what the practical benefit of any of it is. It almost sounds like another "E-cash" solution that will surely fail like all the others. I can pay for most things with a bonk of my debit card so why bother with some other cyber currency?

You have to educate yourself. It's not always about money. Yes there are many investors, speculators, entrepreneurs involved yes. Smart contracts are very interesting. Do read up.

The most obvious difference between previous e-cash's developments and blockchain is that they were centralised. Paypal is controlled. Decentralisation is a necessary step to cutting out the middleman. Although e-cash systems like paypal claim to do this, they are by definition a 'middleman' because they are centralised platform. Furthermore they do not keep a public ledger like blockchain. That means there is opportunity for wrong doing.

Why do you pay a booking fee on your card when booking a cinema ticket? Is it because you're a charitable person?

One of the bottom lines is efficiency. Maintaining a public ledger is way cheaper than what the banks do. That's part of the reason why they're bricking it. Mark me words, banks dependent of SWIFT / CHAPS for transfer abroad because they can't foresee upgrading old infrastructure will become a cropper unless they adopt blockchain, as many others are doing.

Japan bank consortium plan to use blockchain technology from Google-backed Ripple to make payments

[vadhert]

Just to be clear, storing your private keys in an online wallet or an exchange is no different to giving someone access to your debit card and pin number.

You allow yourself to be shafted that way.

Blockchain is the future.

Go cold or go home.

[VectraMan]

The most obvious difference between previous e-cash's developments and blockchain is that they were centralised.

E-cash generally involved putting money onto a card, so it isn't centralised because it's on a card. GJABS was talking about a government backed crypto-currency as an alternative to cash, which I guess means you get out your phone to pay for something (does that mean your phone has the whole block chain on it?) and some kind of exchange of data happens.

If I pay for something by debit card maybe that goes all the way back to Barclays' central computer, but do I care? No, not really. Whether Barclays operates a distributed block chain ledger, or is centralised makes no difference to me the consumer. That was the point I was making.

[scooterscot]

Every e-cash system that's every existed had a bank behind it. Paypal makes its money by charging vendors a small percentage for the connivence. Customers rarely see this.

Don't get me wrong, I want to flaw blockchain too. Keep it coming. I'm struggling to fail it.

[europetractor]

I didn't say that that was what I want, I stated what I believed will happen. IMHO.

[saptastic]

Massive investment from tech companies and financial services in Blockchain at the moment for so many different applications - i think it could get very interesting in the next few years.

[scooterscot]

Indeed. Those of thee in here looking for the next skill base to charge big bucks should educate themselves. Now's the moment.