> If you already have an efficiently functioning consensus system that can answer questions like this, what value does adding a blockchain have? It alters the

> If you already have an efficiently functioning consensus system that can answer questions like this, what value does adding a blockchain have? It alters the political topology. I would analogize it to saying "What does social media do? I can already talk to my friends". Essentially it forces accountability and transparency to happen in ways that they were not guaranteed to in the past. If you have a corrupt government, often corruption happens in private, which makes it harder to regulate, and harder for the public to even be aware of. They may know generally that things are happening and assets are being expropriated, but they don't know which or when, and to who. Having a blockchain does not prevent the corruption from occurring in some mechanical sense, but it does force it to the social surface. I think this is a real benefit with important consequences. > I'm fairly certain that would be news to many of its adherents. The bitcoin whitepaper begins with, "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." Ya, I think most people into blockchain/crypto get this wrong. You wouldn't even want an immutable, deterministic system that cannot be altered. Not only is it not what blockchain does, but it's a terrible idea. I think my take on its benefits is much better, and I wish people would adopt it.