|
|
|
|
|
by UkrainianJew
1453 days ago
|
|
>For example, who wouldn't want a system that forces banks to track customer balances in a secure, private, and auditable data structure? Crypto doesn't force banks to do that. Also, if it was a real problem, there would be legislation for it since RSA became a thing. And if it was, having a 3rd-party timestamping server and regular cryptographic signatures would be enough to solve it. No bank in their right mind would burn terawatts of power to prevent an error that has a 0.00001% chance of happening and costs virtually nothing to fix. |
|
RSA alone isn't enough. How do you use RSA to build this? You can do auditable sums (prove that private balances sum to a public total), but I can't think of a way to do things like proving that a particular debit happened.
> costs virtually nothing to fix.
There is very high system-wide cost to the status quo. Part of the reason that bank errors are so inexpensive to fix is because transfers take 2-5 days.