I don’t think so. It is trying to solve the wrong problem, and the problem it manages to solve has simpler solution already. You are solving the problem where

I don’t think so. It is trying to solve the wrong problem, and the problem it manages to solve has simpler solution already. You are solving the problem where an entity (the whitehouse) wants you to know that a message came from them. Yes they can use blockchain to sign it, but they can also just put it on their website, invite the press pool for an announcement, and have their PR folks reiterate the message every so often anyone asks. This is not the problem with deepfakes. Imagine that a harmfull footage of the president saying something terrible emerges and someone has to decide if it is real or fake. This someone might be a simple citizen, a journalist, an editor etc. They check the blockchain and see that it is not signed by the whitehouse. Does that mean that it is fake? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the president just wants to surpress it. Maybe it was an off the cuff remark while they thought nobody is recording them, or maybe they realised that they made a mistake and decided to not sign the footage after all. Which means that the person judging the authenticity of the footage haven’t gained anything from checking the blockchain. Just as an example: during the Trump presidential campaing the now infamous “grab them by the p*sy” footage emerged. Obviously it wasn’t an official endorsed message from his campaign. Would you say it was fake just because it wasn’t signed by them? So how would this blockchain thing help exactly?