Blockchain with an immutable database, a perfect receipt chain of transactions
can be created, and by using a distributed consensus to write to the chain, makes sure that the transactions are valid, so in theory yes.
In reality, the answer is much more complex, and blockchain is a never ending adding of database so it is time based and will there for have the security that was included when it was written, and new hacks are being developed on an ongoing basis, both by nefarious players and by bored teenagers. So historical datasets are seldom safe on the Internet.
You could build a completely private blockchain with private nodes and no PoW or PoS but then you lose the consensus so might as well be centralized.
Building higher security in Mobile Banking need a bigger change than throwing blockchain on it and hope it sticks. With Quantum Computer Enhanced Hacking coming, security of all data is at risk.
Here is a blurb i wrote for guys at Ethereum Security about Quantum Security
Blockchain hacking can be done at 4 major areas
3. Historical chain
4. Extract Private key Seed from Public Key
There is a huge difference between Gen One Blockchains and Gen Two,
Gen One [BitCoin, LightCoin, BitCoin Cash, BitCoin Gold
Gen Two [Ethereum, Waves, NEO, Tezos.
when it comes to security.
On mining both Gen 1 and Gen 2 have similar problems, that finding the noun is a lot easier for a Quantum Computer then it is for a Binary Computer
There would be a need to implement a Quantum Safe Hash like the XMSS (
I believe that for Gen 1 Chains a hard fork would be necessary, but for
most Gen 2 a soft fork should be possible.
Transactions we have “the first node that you send the transaction to can
replace the change address with whatever they want, recover the private key
from your public key, and forge your signature.” https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-is-not-quantum-safe-and-how-we-can-fix-1375242150/
Most Gen Two Chains can change to a one-time key function without a need to
move everything into a new chain, however for the Gen One chains it is not
that simple and the chains will need to be hard forked.
The historical chain should be safe as it has been spread to enough nodes
to be secure. 51% attack should not make a difference with a Quantum Computer or not.
The ability of quantum computers to extract private keys from public keys
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-computing-blockchain-killer-samuel-falkon is a huge problem, this is also mainly a Gen 1 problem while for example,
Ethereum have already a solution to this by using a replaceable child-key
solution .Gen 2 Is border case Hard / Soft fork. I have not looked in the private chains like hyperledger but my guess is that they have not resolved this issues.
—Mattias Bergstrom –
45% of financial intermediaries suffer from fraud and cybercrime every year.
Initially invented for the cryptocurrency, Blockchain technology can be beneficial to prevent cybercrime in mobile banking. It could reduce banks infrastructure costs by 15-20 billion U.S. dollars by 2022 providing no ‘hackable’ entrance or a central point of failure and, thereby, providing more security when compared with various present database-driven transactional structures.
Most of the banking systems around the globe are built on a centralized database. It makes them more vulnerable to cyber attack because once hackers breach the database, they have full access.
On the other hand, blockchain is a distributed ledger where each block contains a timestamp and holds batches of individual transactions with a link to a previous block. This technology would eliminate some of the current crimes being perpetuated online today against our financial institutions.
Mobile banking and banking, in general, could benefit from distributed ledgers for fraud prevention in that such systems have a record of all transactions to refer to and verify. At the same time confidentiality would be maintained through encryption.
They would abolish the issues related to different risk management systems (as seen in individual strategies employed by banks).
Yet at the same time blockchain and distributed ledgers are not a panacea
for all kinds of cybercrime in mobile banking.
— Julie haidey—
Blockchain can assuredly provide mobile banking security provided it’s implemented broadly enough.
Commercially viable block-chain security technologies are only starting to emerge, and
there’s little standardization as yet. What there is however, is incredible interest – especially as it applies trusted transactions between two or more parties.
For example, much of our current banking infrastructure is an electronic analogue to a paper process. For this reason, we cannot have instantly reconciled financial transactions using blockchain they need to be interwoven into what is already there – ACH or Automated Clearing House.
The fundamental promise of a incorruptible activity ledger and near instant
(comparatively speaking) reconciliation is very exciting, and will enable commerce and economic growth, but most blockchain products require business logic integration and development time which impedes adoption.
The technologies which most closely align with current regulations AND current
technologies will be the ones to watch, and what will most likely end up on your phone.
—Michael Kellner —
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY