3 ms·

If a public blockchain can belong to a single entity than it really isn't satisfying the moat sacred responsibility of a blockchain: to be trustless. The fact

• Bluestrike2 8y ago
  If the article seems messy, it's because it's about political rumblings rather than blockchain technology itself. Leaders are looking at it as a sort of "mechanism of the future" that they need to get in on. Per a quote from Gilbert Verdian, head of the British delegation at the ISO: > To get behind it and back it now is going to put people at an advantage, either politically or economically. That's pretty much politician catnip. "Yes, please. We'd like some of that." And that's how the people being discussed in the article are looking at "blockchain" (I'm using quotes intentionally here) rather than a technical-oriented perspective. The article isn't about a blockchain implementation. Think of the people in the article as similar to a stereotype of investors talking about the latest buzz-worth startup. They're excited about X, have some ideas on what X could mean, but don't necessarily have a deep understanding of X itself or how it's implemented. That's how some nation states are looking at future blockchain possibilities. The quoted Russians are basically saying "America won the internet, but we'll win the future (i.e., "the blockchain").