Re:Bank of America trying to load up on patents for the tech...
by lordnacho on Sunday January 03, 2016 @05:21AM
(#10830146)
> That's entirely insufficient, as it doesn't prove that the chain you have been given is genuine. It just proves that each transaction is signed by someone holding the right signature. Nothing in your scheme prevents multiple diverging chains. The entire point of the confirmations etc. used by blockchains is that not only each individual transaction can be verified as coming from a specific source, but that the chain as a whole can be verified to meet certain criteria - specifically in the case of e.g. Bitcoin, the criteria that it represents the view of the majority of the mining power of the network.
No, this is wrong. I can sign a chain of transactions (Merkle tree is used in BTC as well), and you will know it came from me. If I'm a central authority, I can keep signing it in all of perpetuity, and it will be verifiably from me. As long as you trust the signer, it's very simple.
The reason Bitcoin is different is because you want to be able to have different signers doing each block. The way bitcoin does it is through clever incentives: miners only believe that other miners care about the longest chain, and they want to sign that last block because then the other miners will recognise their mined coins.
That's entirely insufficient, as it doesn't prove that the chain you have been given is genuine. It just proves that each transaction is signed by someone holding the right signature. Nothing in your scheme prevents multiple diverging chains. The entire point of the confirmations etc. used by blockchains is that not only each individual transaction can be verified as coming from a specific source, but that the chain as a whole can be verified to meet certain criteria - specifically in the case of e.g. Bitcoin, the criteria that it represents the view of the majority of the mining power of the network.
> Yes, because there is such a thing as money laundering laws.
That's just a small part of it. Providing sufficient information to satisfy that part is the easy part in my experience. I'm sure that would be different in some countries. If it was just about money laundering laws, it wouldn't generally be a problem.
But in my experience the much larger issue is that many banks and payment processors have a lot of policies about what kind of (legal) businesses they want to be involved with, because being an intermediary means they take on risks - whether monery or PR related - and that makes them hard to deal with if you're a small company without tons of cash, and they're not going to tell you quickly in most cases, because they are perfectly happy to bend all kinds of rules and principles if you can convince them there's enough money in it.
In the cases I've dealt with, KYC has never been the issue that has caused delays. The legal hurdles have been cleared in no-time. The issues have been over perceived business risk. And that's fair enough - these companies are businesses too and need to safeguard their own business.
> If there were no restrictions (who can have an account, and what do they have to disclose), there wouldn't be much of a point in bitcoin.
Everyone can have an account. Finding someplace to get an account is trivial if you have nefarious purposes in mind. Heck, with enough money (around $500k last I checked, probably higher now) you can get a fully legally registered bank in a suitably off-shory location, complete with nominee directors and the ability to do your own wire-settlement.
The issue is the hassle involved with getting business banking accounts and associated merchant accounts and a payment processor to service it in a developed country, without lots of waiting or paying truly extortionate rates.