Cryptocurrency Mining Consumes More Power Than 17M Population Country

[notb]

Example: someone steals your checkbook, writes a check to him/herself, and deposits it. A day later, you realize the checkbook is missing and notify your bank. The bank closes the account and gives you a new one. If ACH was instant, that money would be gone forever. Because ACH is not instant, you and your bank have time to prevent any damage from being done. The same applies to debit card transactions.

So this is once again an issue with cheques. :-D
Debit card has multiple security measures: PIN, SMS password, transaction limit.
In EU your liability for use of stolen card (or another electronic payment device) is limited to 150 EUR (50 EUR for contactless operations). Of course this is for the period before you report you lost the card.
You can also get insurance that will cover these 150 EUR. This is an awful bad idea, but banks usually force you to buy it anyway. It costs around 0.5 EUR/month in Poland.

Which are the same numbers the bank requires to access your account. Even if the account number is hidden behind a separate ID, that ID can be used to find all transactions someone made and figure out who they are. A public ledger is not an option. There can't be more transparency than the existing system.

But this will only be possible to check from inside your bank and by a limited group of employees. It's exactly the same today.

It has to have null value.

Null value? :-/
You're still looking at this from perspective of mining bitcoin. This is a totally different thing. This will be an inter-bank transaction unit. No mining, no speculation, no variability in value.

The link speaks loudly enough...

Goldman Sachs was one of the first to join the consortium and one of the biggest banks in the USA. Pretty indicative it isn't a platform they're going to use.

http://www.coindesk.com/goldman-sachs-leaves-r3cev/
"According to The Wall Street Journal, the bank has left the group, but notably intends to continue developing blockchain projects on its own. (Goldman Sachs is an investor in blockchain technology startups Circle and Digital Asset Holdings)."

I think you really don't get the concept. And you clearly have a huge fondness for cheques and ACH. Let's end this here - the dialog is getting boring by now.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So this is once again an issue with cheques. :-D

I just used that as example. Most transactions are processed by an ACH.

But this will only be possible to check from inside your bank and by a limited group of employees. It's exactly the same today.

Indeed and enforced because there's only one database and it is secure. The whole point of blockchains is to eliminate the need for mainframes. Financial transactions, for regulatory, accountability, safety, privacy, and security reasons, can't be distributed.

http://www.coindesk.com/goldman-sachs-leaves-r3cev/
"According to The Wall Street Journal, the bank has left the group, but notably intends to continue developing blockchain projects on its own. (Goldman Sachs is an investor in blockchain technology startups Circle and Digital Asset Holdings)."

Doesn't mean they'll come up with anything viable. As I said long ago, there's prototyping going on. Doesn't mean it will ever be broadly implemented.

Blockchains make more sense for public projects like wikis. Those that want the project to continue to be available can donate hardware/electricity to keeping it running.