Came here to see what consulting firm was behind this tomfoolery.

Unfortunately the mass of confused language around blockchainism has made its own miniature political weather system, and consequently there is a growing niche for such Potemkin Decentralization models.

I would even buy the argument that all decentralization models turn out to be mere smokescreens that misdirect the focus of critical attention on to one aspect of a complex system, only to obfuscate de facto centralization accumulating in a different part of that same system.

By the time this concentration of leverage has become too dominant to hide, the new Potemkin Decentralization system has made serious inroads into the incumbent it seeks to displace.

But if it is distributed like real crypto currency, you have to be able to attack and take down hundreds or thousands of severs geographically spread.

But here there's only a single entity that decides the rules. So if you shut down riksbanken's servers, the servers that are deciding which transactions are valid, you essentially shut down the network.

Sure you can have thousands of servers around the globe sharing the last seen state or new but not yet verified transactions, but that's not a very useful network. They would instantly be discarded once riksbanken's servers come online to sort out the mess.

You can have this problem in Bitcoin too, if you isolate a majority of the miners from the rest of the network, essentially splitting it in too. But that's much harder to do.

Edit: Here I refer to deciding double spends, which the critical problem any digital currency needs to solve. Without it anyone can print money out of thin air.

Part of the appeal of Bitcoin was it's decentralized authority, giving people more confidence in a currency that was digital.

In a "blockchain" with a centralized validator set, there's no constraint forcing transactions to be public. The network will keep running even if the validators decide to stop publishing transactions. It's very much still a social contract.

Tampering (adding false transactions) is the only thing that could be hampered thanks to the requirement of client signatures: transaction/partial information censoring will still be possible. But in reality such a system will have the design constraint that funds must be seizable by the government, which in turn negates the only remaining technical advantage of a "centralized blockchain".

All that's left is the now empty word "blockchain". It's going to fit perfectly next to "democracy".

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Redacted...

with citizens unable to discern between abusive and reasonable interventions.

But what we cannot do is see all transactions details, such as the transaction amount.

These are two different things.

- if it's a Proof of Authority is like a way to deal with who has access to write to the db

- the distributed consensus part is well researched (Raft, Paxos etc)

The only advantage that I can think of is interoperability: you will be able to communicate with the public blockchain for point in time "backups". Also, building your internal smart contracts you can use an existing language like Solidity.

This is indeed much more inefficient compared to a centralized solution and it's very difficult to create a decentralized network that can handle the amount of transactions that VISA processes for example.

Disclaimer: I dont know

That’s why a solution where the commercial banks drive the chain, and keeps the KYC, allocating “anonymous” blockchain addresses, or accounts at the riksbank, has been proposed. The customers bank know the customer, the Riksbank does not. But the Riksbank, can still issue interest directly on the currency directly to the customer.

There are several ways that the nodes, or commercial banks, or whoever it might be, can make the whole think pseudo-anonymous for the customer. Would also let commercial banks offer services around it, making it easier to get the banks on board.

There are still a few benefits of crypto here:

- the “service” can stay up even when gov’t servers go down

- you can even make some transactions without network access at all

- transparency about money supply