No. The security issues is an arbitrary example. The actual problem is that when a disagreement between the legal system and the database, whether or not its bl

No. The security issues is an arbitrary example. The actual problem is that when a disagreement between the legal system and the database, whether or not its blockchain. Courts are the source of truth concerning ownership. The legal system needs the ability to overrule or edit the db, otherwise the blockchain is inaccurate. You can think of "security problem" as an armed robber forcing you to reveal your password. With Bitcoin, they now have the coins and there's no going back. It doesn't matter that a court doesn't consider the robber to be the owner. Bitcoin doesn't represent anything outside of the blockchain. With a painting, stock or deed, something outside of blockchain needs to honour your blockchain claim. If the blockchain is unreliable, they won't, and it no longer reflects true ownership. If your blockchain isn't the fundamental source of truth, there's really no point. Instead of a centralised db, you have centralised control over a distributed DB.