Of course, a certain fraction of bogus data makes a database worthless if you can't locate it and fix or erase it.
I'm trying to make a different point: legitimate uses of blockchains - unlike THE blockchain: maybe not permissionless, not PoW based etc - for specific application. An example: tracking deliveries.
You talk about tracking deliveries as if it is necessary and mission-critical that
that use case have blockchain tech attached to it.
The last 30+ years of our working "global parcel delivery system" would like to have a word with you.
Blockchain not bitcoin: solution looking for a problem that either doesn't exist, or isn't that critical.
Bitcoin solves a problem and the problem is what Bitcoin solves.
Statement of the century.
I'm not even implying it is
necessary to use
blockchains in tracking deliveries. I'm just pointing out a field of application where it
might be useful to use
some kind of blockchain', even if some data could be fake (while for monetary applications, this is obviously unacceptable).
In a previous post, I also pointed out how most academic departments sporting "blockchain" in their names very seldom deal with problems connected to deliveries. Rather, they often indulge in studying PoW etc related issues - which don't necessarily have anything to do with
blockchains in general.
My posts try to show how phony the "blockchain not bitcoin" stance is: people who say they're into "blockchain studies" are usually only interested in THE application of THE Blockchain.
In other words, I haven't made any statements about THE Blockchain - in particular, I've never said "blockchain, not bitcoin": I think it's plain BS. I'm baffled by the number (and high quality) of replies effectively contradicting a statement I never made.
