[saemil]

I agree with your sentiment. I do not see a scenario where financial institutions would agree to put their transactions into a distributed ledger with copies of the data (even encrypted) held by their competitors. If the financial institutions limit the ledger to computers within their control, what would be the benefit over a clustered database environment (I am assuming that most large financial institutions already have these).

[cashmonkey85]

The problem is without blockchain you don't have a meaningless buzzword to sell bullsh*t to banks. Blockchain is a vital technology for this.

Cryptocurrency is the future but I've never talked to more snake oil sales people than when talking to "blockchain" companies. I marvel at people's ability to sell nothingness

[ng12]

I worked in a consulting-type company for a bit and the most valuable lesson was that, generally speaking, nobody knows anything about anything. The most valuable institutions in the world have completely clueless people managing their tech and the ignorance only gets worse as you go up the chain.

It all boils down to "nobody got fired for buying IBM". Your blockchain initiative is only to get you noticed enough to get promoted or hired to a better position somewhere else. By the time anybody realizes how worthless it was you're long gone.

[cmollis]

"nobody knows anything about anything". Actually, somebody knows, but they work for someone else.

[J-dawg]

I don't know much about blockchain, but the salespeople of big consultancy firms like Accenture are master snake oil merchants.

When you combine the two it must be like a perfect storm of bullshit.

[chejazi]

> what would be the benefit over a clustered database

With a blockchain, the database and the revision history would be part of the same artifact. Not sure how advantageous this is, however.