> purists don't consider a "real blockchain" Sure. At that point its semantics, but fair. I certainly wouldn't recommend a proof of work blockchain with hundre

> purists don't consider a "real blockchain" Sure. At that point its semantics, but fair. I certainly wouldn't recommend a proof of work blockchain with hundreds of thousands of nodes for this. A federated blockchain would be ideal for a situation where the final source of truth is a centralized system. > the implication that only a blockchain implementation can provide sufficient transparacy I don't think anything I said implies that. I certainly didn't intend to imply that. Certainly there are other secure solutions, however I'm saying that a blockchain is a pretty well understood solution that should work. > If you are losing your job (and get sued) because you changed data in the production database without authorization most people are less likely to do it. I think people are looking for better solutions than "most people don't screw up the system". > The idea that we need to be 100x safer than that is just absurd. Again, not something I said at all. But if there's a solution that's 100x safer and no more costly (in fact maybe even cheaper), why not do it?