> A blockchain […] allows multiple entities (i.e. computers) to collaborate and do computations without needing to trust in either a central authority or in eac

> A blockchain […] allows multiple entities (i.e. computers) to collaborate and do computations without needing to trust in either a central authority or in each other This article seems incorrect from the very first paragraph. Bitcoin, the blockchain figurehead, has needed trust in central authority many times, from 2010 when Satoshi was around [0] to 2013 [1] and beyond. The problem with blockchain as it’s expressed in this article is that it incorrectly describes the system boundary at the software level, where in reality the human layer is very much part of the protocol, especially when it is unclear which chain should be followed (see both citations) due to unexpected software behavior. The “human judge” or “trusted central authority” is part of the blockchain system to ensure its smooth and continuous operation. Without this, the blockchain would devolve into a confused mess, as parties disagree on what is a bug and what isn’t, and what is the “best chain” (regardless of its length). Bitcoin history is filled with these confusing events, and centralized parties always publicly clarify what is Bitcoin and what isn’t, and the rest of the users follow along. Of course, if blockchain software were written perfectly from day 0 and didn’t need any further development, then you could always follow the longest chain “trustlessly”, but the problem is perfect software is impossible. As soon as the code does the tiniest thing that many users say is unexpected, you have a problem that demands centralized intervention. [0] https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/threads/185/ https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/thre... [1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-...