Slashdot Mirror


Bank of America Wins Patent For Crypto Exchange System (coindesk.com)

New submitter psnyder shares a report from CoinDesk: [The patent] outlined a potential cryptocurrency exchange system that would convert one digital currency into another. Further, this system would be automated, establishing the exchange rate between the two currencies based on external data feeds. The patent describes a potential three-part system, where the first part would be a customer's account and the other two would be accounts owned by the business running the system. The user would store their chosen cryptocurrency through the customer account. The second account, referred to as a "float account," would act as a holding area for the cryptocurrency the customer is selling, while the third account, also a float account, would contain the equivalent amount of the cryptocurrency the customer is converting their funds to. That third account would then deposit the converted funds back into the original customer account for withdrawal. The proposed system would collect data from external information sources on cryptocurrency exchange rates, and use this data to establish its own optimal rate. The patent notes this service would be for enterprise-level customers, meaning that if the bank pursues this project, it would be offered to businesses.

52 comments

  1. Huh? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did they just patent "Escrow, but on a computer"?

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    1. Re:Huh? by campuscodi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the description, pretty much.... but it's crypto-escrow, not regular escrow. Ya' know!?!

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because someone else already patented it.

    3. Re:Huh? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Not even just escrow... "paper currency exchange, but with a computer for DIGITAL currency!"

      WTF... is there any other reasonable way to do currency exchange, other than having a float of each currency you trade?

    4. Re: Huh? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      "Crypto exchange system" sounds closer to PGP to me.

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries. They left out AUDIT functionality. When some hacker uses Intel's Management interface to rob exchanges blind, punters will loose the lot. When the IRS demands reporting. Chicago Futures exchange has a better proven model, complete with clearing house audits.

    6. Re:Huh? by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      How is this 2015 patent different from shapshifto.io, an operating business doing this since 2014? It is just because they don't mention blockchains or smart contracts anywhere?

      I guess not using a blockchain is innovative financial technology now?

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
  2. Also news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Banks patent new method to scam customers.

  3. F'n business 'process patents' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly 'new & unique' in terms of technology did they create or patent here? They set up a 'workflow', it could be done in SharePoint for crying out loud,

  4. I don't need cryptocurrency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will use bitcoin when it comes in paper form and not attached to an account.

    1. Re:I don't need cryptocurrency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Paper wallets have been around for years. Try to keep up.

    2. Re:I don't need cryptocurrency by Lordpidey · · Score: 1

      They are tied to a private key, not to an account, massive difference. A private key can't be shut down by anyone.

      --
      Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
  5. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How the fuck is this not prior art? Literally Mt. Gox, Coinbase, etc

    1. Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it's been done so long the patent should have been expired yet there never was one. Now that banks can scam everyone.

    2. Re:Prior Art by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      First to file. Patent reform. Prior art no longer key. Thanks to the previous administration. Really messed me up, I have to patent my own work now to keep someone else from doing it, just so I can give it away for free. If I didn't someone else could, and charge for what I did - even admit I did it, but still own my stuff. As usual, the new law favors the rich. And there you were thinking that was partisan. I go back to Eisenhower, and the trend is all help the powerful become more so. No exceptions.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    3. Re:Prior Art by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      Considering I've had a patent filed after March 16 2013 and have had the patent examiner reply back with prior art they claimed invalidated my patent, you're simply full of shit. Prior art still matters.

      In my case I rebutted their claims and clarified the novel aspect of my patent. Have not heard back for several months now so I am assuming no news = good news.

    4. Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as prior art anymore. The US switched to "first to file" from "first to invent" a couple of years ago. Now it doesn't matter who invents something. It only matters who files the patent first.

      These "Any Two" exchange systems are already in place at a number of places, but now those operators can be sued by Bank of America. I expect the first suits to be filed in the next few days.

    5. Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and it's reasons like this that I no longer recognize patents or copyrights. Just like the KC Chiefs.

      Politicians and corporate goons play their games and we play ours.

      I'll buy a CD or movie, but I will ignore all restrictions on making a copy and giving it away.

      Corporations steal our inventions and get away with it so I will do the same to them.

    6. Re:Prior Art by malachid69 · · Score: 1

      If someone like ShapeShift wanted to challenge it, they could show that they had prior art in effect at the time of filing. They would most likely have to outspend BofA on lawyers, which is unlikely. In addition, BofA only has to have 3 points of differentiation from a company like ShapeShift - even if they already had a patent - for it to be a valid new patent. That could be something as small as whether or not to display a QR code on the screen.

      The whole system is broken and favors large corporations over the individual inventors.

      --
      http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
  6. This from the bank that charges $0.30 to count.. by greenwow · · Score: 2

    a single $100 bill for a cash deposit over $5k. Bank of America's fees are killing us. Tellers don't get paid that much, and I know since I used to work as one at BoA, so 30 cents for each bill when you were expected to count about 100 bills per minute is great profit for them.

  7. Prior Art by zlives · · Score: 2

    3 card monte

  8. Re:This from the bank that charges $0.30 to count. by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll patent a machine that can count bills - or maybe even weigh them

    --
    Nullius in verba
  9. the ride is over, folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time to sell, Sell, SELL!!!!!!

  10. Competing cryto currencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because everyone loved getting tokens that could only be used at that one shitty arcade that charged 3 tokens to play one game of street fighter back in the day and refused to give "refunds".

  11. bank patents by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 4, Funny

    bank patents:

    1998 - Banking on the internet
    2006 - Banking on a phone
    2017 - Banking on a blockchain
    2025 - Banking on a quantum computer
    2040 - Banking in your brain
    2100 - Banking on non-electronic pieces of paper. using non-electronic ink writing devices

    1. Re:bank patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2453 Banking with an interest interest

    2. Re: bank patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3141 Banking on time travel.

    3. Re: bank patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3140 Preventing banking on time travel

  12. Re:This from the bank that charges $0.30 to count. by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    There is absolutely no way I would do business with a bank that charged a fee like that. That's ridiculous. That's what they're there for.

  13. Re:This from the bank that charges $0.30 to count. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? Last time I had to deposit a large amount (daily cafe takings, 3 years ago, Australia) the teller would just dump the notes in one machine, the coins in another, and press the start button. The cost: zero, presumably because they didn't want customers taking their accounts and moving to another bank.

  14. Missing the point... people need to hold onto it.. by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    The whole point of any currency is that you at least hold onto it for the short term of say a week to a month. The more people do that the more intrinsic value the currency has.

    Official Bitcoin itself is flawed. Transactions take 15 minutes which unless your dealing with thousands of dollars is too long for your everyday POS transaction for coffee.

    What they are describing is an escrow exchange stream. An automated stream system of currency conversions(in time). Nothing new or non obvious there.

    It's basically tracks and predicts the value of a currency according to the unit of time(lag) it can faithfully get rid of it. For high end businesses will automatically treat e-coins as junk bonds. You can price your goods in your trusted currency and the system will suggest to you an exchange rate. When a customer buys with e-coin it will convert the e-coin to your preferred currency as quickly as possible.

  15. If a small company did this... by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    If a small company did this the patent would either: 1) Never happen 2) get nullified very quickly.

    Can we fix (destroy) the US's broken patent system?

  16. Why not keep using shapeshift.io? by Distan · · Score: 1

    It seems like BoA is trying to solve a problem that is already solved.

    1. Re:Why not keep using shapeshift.io? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they just want to have patents so they can sue folks, or stop threats.
      Once lightning network is online, they might try to stop it.

  17. Re:Missing the point... people need to hold onto i by Mr307 · · Score: 1

    The point of currency is for trade, not to hold. So called intrinsic value by holding is nonsense, if no one is trading it for things they want.

    This is one of the many reasons that bitcoin will fail, as the perceived value increases more people will hold it and not trade it, till the bubble bursts and everyone 'loses something'.

  18. Re:This from the bank that charges $0.30 to count. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sad thing is that counting by hand is still more accurate than by machine. We still pay the large fee for cash deposits at BoA since it helps us confirm our deposit slips.

    You can't count by weight since, for example, a lot of black women pay us with sweaty and oily bills that they remove from their bras. I'm sure those bills weight several times what a clean bill does.

  19. Re:Missing the point... people need to hold onto i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys are saying the same thing. The point is trade. To do that you need to be able to hold it for short terms - the time between when you have something someone wants and when someone has something you want. If you just turn currency around immediately, you don't get the benefit of not having to carry and store stuff all the time. It's basically just bartering but with extra steps.

    You also need to be able to perform the transaction quickly and preferably inexpensively, but people will pay a high price for convenience, as evidenced by the credit card merchant fees. 15 minute transaction times mean that it can't be used for small purchases. Who is going to wait 15 minutes and a ten dollar transaction fee in payment for a sandwich?

  20. I'm conflicted by Trogre · · Score: 0

    Should I be happy because they'll almost certainly go after people burning energy on useless crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, or angry because patents on software methods should never be granted in the first place?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re: I'm conflicted by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Both!

  21. Re:HA HA HA by JcMorin · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty happy actually. What about you? Oh wait you probably don't own any Bitcoin.

  22. That is not "crypto" by gweihir · · Score: 1

    "Crypto" is a well-established short form for "cryptography". It has nothing to do with "crypto currency", except that the latter uses the former, nicely demonstrating what was first. Stop abusing the language for desperate attempts to sound cool.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:That is not "crypto" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, but viewing recent history I am not optimistic. We will likely lose this word to the unwashed masses, like 'hacker' vs 'cracker'.

      https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/12/crypto_is_being.html

    2. Re:That is not "crypto" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Crypto" is a well-established short form for "cryptography". It has nothing to do with "crypto currency", except that the latter uses the former, nicely demonstrating what was first. Stop abusing the language for desperate attempts to sound cool.

      Just embrace it. (TM)

    3. Re:That is not "crypto" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      "Crypto" is a well-established short form for "cryptography". It has nothing to do with "crypto currency", except that the latter uses the former, nicely demonstrating what was first. Stop abusing the language for desperate attempts to sound cool.

      It has a second meaning now. Words have done that for all of recorded history. Deal.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:That is not "crypto" by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      "Crypto" is simply a prefix meaning "hidden", so there's no reason why it should stand for cryptography any more than cryptozoology. OTOH, there are well-established cases where the prefix takes over in this sense. For example, "automobile" became just "auto" in many languages. So instead of driving "mobile", the thing that moves, people drive "self", which is probably fitting in this "culture".

      In this particular case, "cryptocurrency" is actually shorthand for currency based on cryptography; it's not necessarily "hidden money", but the ownership and transfer thereof is guaranteed by cryptography. In a way, the meaning of "crypto" as cryptography is assumed, but then you have another level of such shortening into the prefix.

      Still, it doesn't make it any more correct. I guess cryptographic currencies are "crypto" as in shady or criminal, but there's nothing shady about using HTTPS for regular banking.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:That is not "crypto" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Using "crypto" for cryptography and cryptographic currency both is about as stupid as it gets. But I guess some people prefer to sound fake-cool over being understood.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  23. No, they didn't by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Did they just patent "Escrow, but on a computer"?

    No.

    The patent is a bit hard to read, even as patents go. Best I can tell, they patented a particular system of using customers' public and private keys in two different cryptosystems to key the "vault" accounts used for an exchange, where the customer's balance on the block chain may have transactions awaiting confirmation. But it is a particularly difficult patent to read, especially if you don't know the technical details of crypto-currency.

    1. Re:No, they didn't by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The patent is a bit hard to read, even as patents go. Best I can tell, they patented a particular system of using customers' public and private keys in two different cryptosystems to key the "vault" accounts used for an exchange, where the customer's balance on the block chain may have transactions awaiting confirmation. But it is a particularly difficult patent to read, especially if you don't know the technical details of crypto-currency.

      So it's a bluff patent designed to say "We want to do this, but are not exactly how, but whatever way you can think of, it's covered somehow in this patent and fat chance you or your lawyer can understand what's going on".

  24. History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just found the guys that Jesus chased out of the Temple...

  25. Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like they patented DRM for crypto currencies....

    And you all hated DRM. Now you'll gonna love it...

  26. Forget Bitcoins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want mine your own cryptocurrency, you need a motherboard with 19 PCIe 1X slots to plug in 19 GPUs and a couple of 1200W PSUs.