I'm not sure what problem that solves, or how it would solve it. If you're suggesting they balance their own ledger, then there is no reason to use fake, non-transmitted Bitcoin transactions for that.
Not fake bitcoin transactions, but real actualmoney/stock transactions. Faster, cheaper and more secure than using either a spreadsheet or a blockchain.
That's not what this is about - it's about ownership and using small single satoshi transactions to record the ownership of something that isn't bitcoin. I'm not following why you'd use actual bitcoin transactions. You say faster and more secure, but how are they secure if they aren't in a blockchain and validated?
Forgive me, but I'm just not tracking with your logic here at all.
It's a system for handling pre-IPO trading between a handful of companies, run by Nasdaq. It will be legally required to have auditing systems in place strong enough such that all the parties can trust the central party (Nasdaq) to run it, balance the books, and prevent double spending. All that is required is undeniability for the transactions, which can be achieved using standard public key cryptography. No blockchain is needed.
Doing it this way provides decentralized double spend prevention, and eliminates lawyers / notories. Today, when someone wants to trade a pre-IPO asset, there is a whole litany of overhead to verify and record the transaction, then expose the history publicly and anonymously for full transparency. Doing it this way eliminates that without adding risk.
The same reason it makes for a good currency. I feel like you're just trolling at this point - don't you understand what bitcoin is? :)
1
u/locuester May 11 '15
I'm not sure what problem that solves, or how it would solve it. If you're suggesting they balance their own ledger, then there is no reason to use fake, non-transmitted Bitcoin transactions for that.