> This comparison isn’t valid: you’re using a shared blockchain service with high transaction costs but then saying the comparison can’t use a shared service.

> This comparison isn’t valid: you’re using a shared blockchain service with high transaction costs but then saying the comparison can’t use a shared service. The parenthesized bit immediately following what you quoted (in addition to other parts of the comment and its grandparent) specifically explains why the comparison can't use a shared service: who's going to run it while being trustworthy for all users of it? > So you’re saying I can process blockchain transactions without a reliable, high-speed network connection? You need one for any other database, especially a shared one as you suggested above. In fact, it'd need to be more reliable and more high-speed for a non-blockchain solution; even full nodes don't require continuous uptime (that's only needed for mining or staking, neither of which is necessary to query and post transactions), and blockchain transactions tend to be pretty light on bandwidth. > Just like it is currently, except with hefty transaction fees. 1. Citation needed on "hefty transaction fees". There are blockchains other than Ethereum, in case you weren't aware. 2. You're forgetting (or perhaps deliberately ignoring) that it's considerably easier to "figure out where things are being faked in-person" when the evidence of fakery is permanently in the public record. There's also far less room for plausible deniability on the faker's part. > “uncensorable” is just meaningless blockchain marketing fluff You might be surprised to learn that traditional database records, unlike those on blockchains, are trivial to destroy or otherwise tamper with. The inability to cover up fraud by editing transactions after-the-fact is nowhere near as meaningless as you assert. > Whether those records are paper, actions tracked on a website, PKI signed documents, or transactions recorded on a blockchain is a rounding error on the difficulty of setting up the real world legal system and monitoring which actually prevent cheating. And setting up said real world legal system and monitoring is considerably easier when the digital records are auditable by pretty much anyone and effectively impossible to modify. > all a blockchain tells you is that you paid more to store the receipt, not that it was accurate A blockchain tells you that the receipt was not and will never be modified. If there's an inaccuracy, that makes it much easier to detect it. If there's a pattern of inaccuracies, that makes it even easier to detect it and quantify it. What would've previously taken weeks or months worth of wrangling records from filing cabinets or arbitrary databases can instead be done in minutes or even seconds - freeing up time for the actually-hard parts of such investigations.