It can, but with something like a utility distribution there’s going to be centralisation anyway for practical, even graph-theoretic purposes. Trying to manage electricity sales over a line that someone in particular maintains with a decentralised system is a little silly.
That’s true to lesser degrees with other legal rights, which a sovereign government enforces, or in other scale industrial supply chains.
Even with something like diplomas, you kind of imply a gatekeeper to access to the chain existing. If I can issue myself a degree it’s basically an NFT market. If not, you have centralisation of some kind again, and you’ve just invented a more complicated way for Harvard to run an https API.
Sure but when the Blockchain is restricted to operation within a specific ecosystem that is kinda moot, no? Like, if I’m managing a supply chain but have concerns about the participants in that supply chain being compromised, then it’s okay for me as a central authority to define the standard and then use the decentralized nature of Blockchain to validate and distribute the use cases for that standard.
Take a company like Target as an example. They want to make sure that their supply chain ledger is immutable and trustworthy. They don’t want anyone within their organization, from the CEO down to the shipping dock workers, to be able to falsify or tamper with line items in the ledger. As a central authority they can define a standard using Blockchain that solves that problem AND doesn’t depend on a central authority to do it beyond the initial standard definition. That reduces attack surface significantly.
It can, but with something like a utility distribution there’s going to be centralisation anyway for practical, even graph-theoretic purposes. Trying to manage electricity sales over a line that someone in particular maintains with a decentralised system is a little silly.
That’s true to lesser degrees with other legal rights, which a sovereign government enforces, or in other scale industrial supply chains.
Even with something like diplomas, you kind of imply a gatekeeper to access to the chain existing. If I can issue myself a degree it’s basically an NFT market. If not, you have centralisation of some kind again, and you’ve just invented a more complicated way for Harvard to run an https API.
Sure but when the Blockchain is restricted to operation within a specific ecosystem that is kinda moot, no? Like, if I’m managing a supply chain but have concerns about the participants in that supply chain being compromised, then it’s okay for me as a central authority to define the standard and then use the decentralized nature of Blockchain to validate and distribute the use cases for that standard.
Take a company like Target as an example. They want to make sure that their supply chain ledger is immutable and trustworthy. They don’t want anyone within their organization, from the CEO down to the shipping dock workers, to be able to falsify or tamper with line items in the ledger. As a central authority they can define a standard using Blockchain that solves that problem AND doesn’t depend on a central authority to do it beyond the initial standard definition. That reduces attack surface significantly.