Slashdot Mirror


Bank of England Looks Into 'Centralized' Bitcoin Alternative, RSCoin (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Bank of England is working with researchers at University College London to design a Bitcoin clone of its own that can be centrally controlled. It was recently found that the UK's central bank had reached out to university researchers to help it create a cryptographically secure digital currency. The resulting system has now been revealed, and is named RSCoin. The system employs cryptography to obviate counterfeiting and tampering. Unlike other mechanisms, the digital ledger used by the new cryptocurrency is handled exclusively by a central body and will only be made accessible to users in possession of a specific encryption key. Its developers explained that an RSCoin ledger could be published publicly by a central bank, and added that the system's design would also allow a central bank to make transactions entirely, or partially, anonymous.

8 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Centralized currency? Don't we already have that? by BoberFett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll take Missing The Point for 800 Alex!

    And the question is "This digital currency is centrally controlled and allows the authorities to monitor every purchase you make."

    'What is centralized bitcoin?

    You are correct.

  2. Who's going to use it? by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The main reason to even bother with bitcoin is the attraction to its lack of central control and regulation. The other, closely related one, is that it works anywhere and for any purpose.

    There's really no other reason to use it than the above. It has technical and practical limitations that normal electronic transfers don't have. Mistakes are forever, scams are rampant, technical understanding of what you're doing is vital if you like keeping your money.

    There's no reason to bother with it over something like paypal or bank transfers if you're not into it for the lack of control or philosophical reasons, and a system controlled by a bank would do away with that.

  3. Will it be pleasant to use, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The biggest problem with Bitcoin is that it's fucking awful to actually use it. If you want to run it on your own computer, you need to download a fucking massive amount of historic blockchain data. We're talking GB and GB of data, nearly all of which is absolutely useless for nearly all users. Yeah, you can use some other third party service, but that totally defeats the decentralization of Bitcoin. The reference client is quite shit. Even the network is shitty, since it takes so fucking long to process a transaction, making it unsuitable for most business uses. Then you have its development team which is fighting and bickering all of the time, even now as transactions get slower and slower. Then there are the occasional developer fuckups where the chain ends up at risk of forking and all hell breaks loose. All in all, it's an absolutely awful experience for most users.

    It's a lot like desktop Linux or Rust. They sound all sweet and awesome, then you try them and find out that they aren't so useful after all. That's why they see almost no adoption. A small number of loud geeks get all hot and bothered by them, but regular developers and users try them and are very unimpressed. They end up being worse than whatever established alternative is already being used.

    1. Re:Will it be pleasant to use, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your lack of blind ideology is disturbing. Bitcoin is one of the most popular atheistic religions for nerds and you will be down-modded for your rational, pragmatic heresy.

      tl;dr LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING

    2. Re:Will it be pleasant to use, though? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't need to download the full blockchain to buy and spend bitcoin.

      If you want to mine bitcoin you do. If you want to have a wallet which references the entire blockchain you do. But there are plenty of light wallets out there which do not download the entire blockchain.

      If that was so people couldn't have 60+GB blockchains on theri 16GB phones now could they? And yet there are plenty of mobile wallets out there.

      And no using a light-wallet does not defeat the decentralization of bitcoin. You can have both. AND not everyone needs to have both for the blockchain to have value as a distributed resource.

      Re forking. Forks happen every day and yet ... bitcoin is still around. Now hard forks are not something that should happen often - but they will.

      Re lack of adoption. Umm. I guess you've been missing the news about how many major firms have been putting serious funds into developing blockchain technology.

      Re difficulty of use. Yup. You have something there. Until it's as easy to use as a debit card it's too complicated. But it will get simpler in time or will never get mass appeal.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  4. Re:Centralized currency? Don't we already have tha by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll take Missing The Point for 800 Alex!

    800 bitcoin?

    [*ducks*]

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  5. Re:We already have digital currency like this. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, a credit card may facilitate transactions in various currencies, but it is not itself a currency.

    When you buy something using a credit card, you get a bill at the end of the month. Which you must pay ... using currency.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  6. BRITcoin surely by McWeenie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a long time lurker but had to sign up to point out the Royal Bank has missed the very obvious name: BRITcoin