> Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to

> Why would you want to depend on a central authority when you can have a network of trusted blockchain users all signing and broadcasting their transactions to each-other in real time, without an intermediary? You're already depending on a central authority to back your funds. So forcing a blockchain into the mix just introduces that additional complexity and risk, not a new dependency on a central authority. > Why hamstring yourself with a database and the upgradability woes therein, when you can use a blockchain? You're conflating "blockchain" with "distributed database". For example, a trivial example is a git repository storing ledger entries. It's distributed, can be used in an append-only fashion (and enforced at a higher layer), and such a system probably doesn't have the "upgradability woes" you're worried about. It's not a blockchain. > With a permissioned blockchain, the funds can be cleared much faster (instantly?) than in the current system. This can also be arranged without a blockchain.