> With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins.

There are no "customers", this is a private blockchain where only banks participate.

Obviously the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank.

> If a bank's SWIFT credentials are compromised the attackers can transfer all the funds a bank controls. With a blockchain coin it would require the private key of the customer to send the coins.

Replace "SWIFT credentials" with "private key" and you have exactly the same scenario.

> You know if you're going to be wrong you should be less vociferous about it

Needless petty snark.

> Compromising SWIFT credentials allows you to send money from any account. Compromising a customer's private key would only allow you to send money that's in that one account.

If the "customers" are "banks" as you stated, then there is a 1:1 relationship between SWIFT credentials and private keys which allow one to sign transactions on behalf of the "customer" (bank).

> the customers are the businesses with money deposited at the bank.

Once again, this is a blockchain controlled by BANKS. Customer's of the bank do not participate in this. What are you not understanding?

> It's unfortunate you took it as snark and not advice

More needless petty snark. I'm done with this conversation.

How is compromising SWIFT credentials different than compromising a private key?