3 ms·

If it's just a private network, why even call it a blockchain instead of a database? It's not even decentralized.

• ejstronge 5y ago
  I agree with your comment. Perhaps the GP is also considering the use of smart contracts (see ref 1 for an example) 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/philippsandner/2020/12/02/will-blockchain-replace-clearinghouses-a-case-of-dvp-post-trade-settlement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/philippsandner/2020/12/02/will-...
  • ineptech 5y ago
    Smart contracts are amazing, as long as its a contract between two crypto people doing crypto stuff. But (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) the oracle problem still stops them from using anything in the real world as an input; I think this is what GP meant by naval gazing.
    • ejstronge 5y ago
      The example contract in the link I posted doesn't rely on third-party data sources (with the exception, perhaps, of time). Does the oracle problem still apply?
      • Grustaf 5y ago
        It would seem that by definition, if you want smart contracts or anything "on the blockchain" to interact with the real world, you will need to find intermediaries you trust. Meaning you're back to square one if you want to cross the crypto-real world membrane.
• hestefisk 5y ago
  It can be quite useful for a more complex ledger between multiple banks. Yes it’s not open like Bitcoin but it’s easy to connect multiple partners, provides immutability / transparency, deals with varied levels of trust between actors (banks, shipping companies, importers / exporters, government entities), and allows you to formalise trade finance rules in a smart contract, etc without imposing a central database / solution. It’s an closed network involving complex transactions between a range of parties and therefore blockchain / smart contracts is actually a good solution.