[pythondz]

The goals here seem to be data immutability and protection against tampering data. (like in spy movies, when someone hacks a government server to add fake passport data, this should be impossible)

Also as elmar pointed out, they can have a robust network with no single point of failure.

[cm2187]

But in a crypto-ledger system, if a computer in the UK embassy in Kenya is infected, you will still be issuing fake passports. This is effectively moving the problem away from a central server to all of the clients, and I am not sure this improves security.

I would assume that cryptographic signatures are a better protection against tempering.

[CyberDildonics]

It doesn't move the problem, it prevents it in certain scenarios or makes it more difficult. The scenario you describe is already a valid method of attack.

[icebraining]

A simple git repository with signed tags (assuming the key is well protected) would provide those features.

[scprodigy]

Decentralized consensus does not solve data immutability. The append-only feature in Blockchain does that. So, you only need an append-only DB, without any form of decentralization, to do the same job.

[pythondz]

The article is about blockchain technology (the title is misleading). So the append-only feature is implied, at least I hope so.

[scprodigy]

Guess the question is why you want a network of nodes, all of which may append a fake record, if you only want no one to change the data.

[CyberDildonics]

No can append a fake record without the matching private key needed to sign it.

[scprodigy]

Yes, the point is that decentralization consensus doesn't help.

[CyberDildonics]

Now you're moving the goal posts. It does help because it adding or removing from the chain will be noticed.