My point is that blockchain is just a technology - nothing about the technology itself makes the concept of transferring money cheaper. I agree that it is another competitive avenue for transactions, but if it became a threat to payment processors, my theory is that they could lower their costs more than blockchains potentially can. This is because the software and infrastructure needed to build something that assigns numbers to accounts and allows transfers is obviously going to be cheaper off the blockchain.
If trust is an issue, the bank can provide cryptographically signed receipts that show they've confirmed the entire lineage of your account, in the same way a blockchain does, but they would be the only verifier. The question becomes about how the cost of the additional trust from the blockchain relates to the incentive of doing honest business. I imagine that trust cost is pretty high.
> can you have a blockchain with lower fees than payment processors currently have? And the answer appears to be yes
The transaction fee is not the only thing being paid. They are also getting mining rewards. If a blockchain has mining rewards, maybe in the form of Bitcoin Cash, then that will dilute the entire pool of Bitcoin Cash.
If trust is an issue, the bank can provide cryptographically signed receipts that show they've confirmed the entire lineage of your account, in the same way a blockchain does, but they would be the only verifier. The question becomes about how the cost of the additional trust from the blockchain relates to the incentive of doing honest business. I imagine that trust cost is pretty high.
> can you have a blockchain with lower fees than payment processors currently have? And the answer appears to be yes
The transaction fee is not the only thing being paid. They are also getting mining rewards. If a blockchain has mining rewards, maybe in the form of Bitcoin Cash, then that will dilute the entire pool of Bitcoin Cash.