[al452]

You miss the point about trust. The trust issue that blockchain addresses for big banks is not "I'm worried you're a scam that will disappear with all my money". It's "I'm worried that you've not got every single number exactly right and there will diaagreements". Hence it takes 2-3 days in the US to settle a simple financial trade, to allow for multiple batch reconciliations to verify that the information that each party holds about the trade matches up. Using a shared, distributed database to store all this information, instead of every party keeping their own copy, has the potential for colossal efficiency gains. That's why big institutions are interested in blockchain.

[lern_too_spel]

Or both parties could update a shared non-distributed database.

[al452]

They could, though then there would be more trust issues about who hosts and controls the database. A database of which every participant keeps a copy, and with strong guarantees about consistency between the copies, has pretty obvious attractions.

I am definitely not saying blockchain is the only or even the best way to achieve that! Just that this helps explain its appeal

[speedplane]

Exactly. Big banks have already dealt with these trust issues through their teams of lawyers, longstanding partnerships, and reputation in the market.

I'm not saying big banks have nothing to gain, they do, but proportionally less than a smaller company that no one knows about. It allows "Bank of Mom & Pop USA" to confidentially do deals with "Little-Town Bank" Shanghai" without going through the mega-banks.