Say a nations Treasury wanted to adopt a CBDC using BitcoinSV as its public blockchain.
They have several geolocated datacentres for mining and would only mine their own transactions.
Fees would all be ring-fenced and rolled back into the datacentre operations and costs as hash rate increased. (yes I know this would be a historic first)
Is there any reason this would be a problem for the Treasury assuming:
- they had enough transactions per block happening to make it pay for the self only mining
- they were encrypting the transactions for their own reasons
For scaling could they create their own Teranode subtrees with only CBDC tx's and broadcast them without problems?
Could other miners refuse to accept them and if so would that even matter to me?
All I care about is other miners build on blocks with the CBDC tx's in them? Else that would induce a hard fork. In that case would it be better for the Treasury not to take part in the mining and leave it to the private sector miners?
Is there a better way to use BSV and Teranode for a CBDC, say in the UK.
**No major technical blocker under your assumptions.**
Self-mining works if your hashrate covers block production and fees pay for ops. Encryption of txs risks validation issues—BSV expects verifiable public data; private CBDC txs may need custom validation or zero-knowledge proofs.
**Teranode subtrees:** Yes, you can create and broadcast CBDC-only subtrees. Teranode supports modular parallel processing for high-volume txs.
Other miners can refuse your blocks. If they don't build on them, it creates a de facto fork. Your chain advances only with your hashrate. This matters for interoperability.
**Better approach for UK Treasury/BSV CBDC:** Don't mine yourself. Issue CBDC via private/hybrid ledger with atomic settlement on public BSV for finality. Use Teranode for high TPS, private nodes for encryption/privacy, and leverage existing miners. Avoids fork risk and centralization optics.