Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Partners With Bank of America On Blockchain Trade Finance (securityweek.com)
wiredmikey quotes a report from SecurityWeek: Microsoft and Bank of America Merrill Lynch said they are working together to make financial transactions more efficient with blockchain technology -- the foundation of bitcoin digital currency. Blockchains are considered tamper-proof registers in which entries are time-stamped and linked to previous "blocks" in a data chain. As expected, the technology that drives the shadowy bitcoin cryptocurrency is drawing interest from the established banking industry, which sees a potential to revolutionize the sector. The companies said they will build and test frameworks for blockchain-powered exchanges between businesses and their customers and banks. Microsoft plans to use its Azure cloud service platform to enable blockchain transactions between a major corporate treasury and a financial institution. "Blockchains serve as public ledgers considered easy to audit and verify. They are also automated, speeding up transactions and limiting potential for error or revision," the report adds. The companies said that by using blockchain technology, they can digitalize and automate trade finance processes, which are traditionally highly manual, time-consuming and costly.
Because speed and automation didn't have any part in the previous fiscal downturn.
We seem to be approaching a time when it would at least be possible to have an app on your phone that would allow you to transfer money (in the form of bitcoins or other blockchain-based currency) directly to your phone. There it would serve as a wallet, allowing you to make direct purchases. I wonder if such a plan is being considered?
It was going to be called e-coin. Should be released early May.
Banks: Thanks *yoink*
Microsoft: I'm in ur bank, stealin' ur moneyz!!
Trusting Microsoft with banking is like hiring John Wayne Gacy as your babysitter.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
http://www.thereligionofpeace....
Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses promoting violence?
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.
Quran
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this v
Evil partners with Super Evil....
The anti-christ has been born.
Microsoft trying to move in on another open source technology and trying to package, bundle and sell it off as their own... How refreshing. I am personally sick of Microsoft and Bank of America and think digital currency is better off without either of them. I know JP Morgan at one point was trying to move in on this territory as well but they couldn't figure out how to build a new digital currency without basically re-creating bit coin. What this really boils down to is control and inevitably will become mainstream when the government figures out how to regulate it and big banks figure out how to control it in order to issue new debt. Personally I would like to see more private exchanges from small startups and perhaps peer to peer loans leveraging bit coin. Not quite sure how to enforce people pay bit-coin loans back being anonymous, but I'm sure somebody will figure it out. Regardless, anything is better than the corrupt system we have in place so long as large corporations don't muck it up.
This post isn't really a reply to CaptSlaq. Sorry to reply to you randomly, but I wanted to out this above the idiot Koran spammer.
A common misconception is that this use of a blockchain is a new crypto-currency. Readers should note this is a DIFFERENT use of a blockchain, it is not a new currency, nor is it Bitcoin. It's simply a ledger.
The auditors will have none of it. Easy to audit means less billable hours for them. They will insist that these blockchains need to be 'editable' under rules and governance to be audited by them. Anything in the financial services industry that is 'easy' lasts about 6 months until some joker comes up with an excel sheet that needs to be filled in for audit and compliance.
Bitcoin allows people to transmit financial resources directly from peer to peer without any centralized intermediary.
Banks have stolen tens of millions of dollars a year from people who are already broke every year in the form of overdraft fees. They have taken millions of homes from people after pocketing trillions of dollars in interest.
And you call Bitcoin "shadowy..."
Accenture Patents a Blockchain-Editing Tool
I'm still working on who is who.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Have gnu, will travel.
They are two of the most evil corporations in America. What could go wrong?
afterwards, then these insitutions wouldn't be interested.
Bank of America is a miserable company there are many, many detailed accounts of atrocious behavior to their customers, of their workers and now they partner with MSFT? I thought MSFT was trying to improve their reputation, not sink it.
And, after this, I sure as hell won't be opening one any time soon.
Of course Micro$oft will partner with BoA - ESPECIALLY since the whole concept of 'block chain' security has already been broken. https://news.slashdot.org/stor... The ONLY secure method of financial transfer is CASH - paper dollars (an imaginary government promissory system) from your hand to the seller's hand.
redneck geek
Trade finance relates to the process of financing certain activities related to commerce and international trade. Trade finance includes such activities as lending, issuing letters of credit, factoring, export credit and insurance. Companies involved with trade finance include importers and exporters, banks and financiers, insurers and export credit agencies, and other service providers.
Read more: Trade Finance Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tradefinance.asp#ixzz4LWdH55QE
It is used to finance supply chains typically for manufacturing industries.. Banks issues letters of credit to facilitate the supply chain such that parts are funded on basis final products will be sold. Effectively allowing transfer of credit facilities of ultimate supplier along the supply chain. The process requires some proof of that letter of Credit and some need to know what is taken by whom along the chain of suppliers.
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450303841/Barclays-uses-blockchain-for-trade-finance-transactions/
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
"As expected, the technology that drives the shadowy bitcoin cryptocurrency is drawing interest from the established banking industry, which sees a potential to revolutionize the sector"
"Shadowy bitcoin cryptocurrency" - Makes Bitcoin seem dirty and illegitimate.
as opposed to the "established banking industry", which is of course completely legitimate and clean and light.
The nice "established banking industry" now "sees a potential to revolutionize the sector". Except Bitcoin already did it. All they are doing is reacting to established technology that was developed to mitigate some of their failures.
Sorry, I'll keep with bitcoin than-you-very-much.
They need to put a corporation between you and the other party. No money must change hands directly!
I am really looking forward to seeing this cutting-edge technology when they complete it in 2025.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The whole point of using a blockchain would be to get rid of the methods these big banks have used in the past to screw over people.
When the problem is a complete lack of integrity by these organizations, you just have to know that they'll find a way to put in loopholes and turn the system upside down when it suits them.