[brighton36]

> Ok and what does the html page do to solve the problem?

You should check out archive.org. You'd be amazed how much better a job it does at retaining records than blockchain.

> You seem to be a pretty big fan of bitcoin. I've noticed a huge blindspot in bitcoin proponents when it comes to private chains almost like they are threatened by them.

Because blockchains are bad at this, and most of us are in a position to know that.

> Bitcoin was never going to win the markets/use cases

Agreed

> private chains make sense in

Not compared to databases. Do you know when NYSE and Nasdaq will switch to a blockchain? The answer is 'never'

> Bitcoin went the way of ultra generalisation which has resulted in it being pretty much worse than everything else for everything else.

Agreed.

[sanswork]

Heads up but if you click on the timestamp you can reply before the button appears.

I understand what archive.org can do I'm asking how it can help solve the situation I described? You have your web page with what on it exactly? How does that help cut down settlement requirements?

Also archive.org is centralized so all the participants would have to trust them. The people investigating blockchain alternatives are looking for ways around that.

>Because blockchains are bad at this, and most of us are in a position to know that.

But they aren't. Bitcoin is bad at it but that doesn't mean blockchains have to be it just means they will be if you go into the problem with bitcoin as your only toolset. One you remove the need for PoW they are barely any more inefficient than a master-master DB with the combination of immutability and known entry ordering.

>Not compared to databases. Do you know when NYSE and Nasdaq will switch to a blockchain? The answer is 'never'

Did I say it was better than databases for every usecase? The NYSE and Nasdaq are already centally trusted figures. There is little benefit they would get from a blockchain.

I gave you a use case a few posts ago.

[brighton36]

> One you remove the need for PoW they are barely any more inefficient than a master-master DB with the combination of immutability and known entry ordering.

Once you remove the PoW - it's no longer a blockchain. That is what a blockchain is. If you believe that blockchain's don't require PoW - then off the bat you have major security problems. But in addition to that - your definition of blockchains would mean that we've been using blockchains since the 80's

[sanswork]

So you don't consider PoS systems blockchains?

PoW literally has nothing to do with what the blockchain is only in deciding who can add the next block and there are a lot of ways to do that when you know all the participants.