I (author) have read this paper, and think it is only partly correct. However, the article describes a lot of examples that are clearly not blockchains, but cr

I (author) have read this paper, and think it is only partly correct. However, the article describes a lot of examples that are clearly not blockchains, but cryptographic interesting solutions like a ledger that gets distributed amongst all observers. It even often concludes that "this is not a blockchain". But then goes on to call it "blockchain solutions like this". If the paper would stop abusing the word "blockchain" for "anything with cryptography", and instead use more precise terms, it would be a very good paper. And it would underwrite what I am trying to say: There's loads of interesting data-structures to solve many interesting problems that industries have. Lets' call them what they are instead: DHTs, DAGs, Merkle Trees, Pub/Sub buses, etc.