[kkennis]

Companies don't want to use an 'IBM blockchain'; they want their blockchains, with the data inside and the chaincode specific to their business logic, fully on-prem. And chances are higher than not that these blockchains will operate inside an adversarial environment. With a BFT-enabled blockchain (Hyperledger can be this), there isn't a need for trust at any business layer. That best represents the current state of many global supply chains today - there isn't a lot of trust in this business.

[Retric]

Block chains are at best only secured as much as the hash power to generate them. If your spending 1M / year generateing a block chain it takes about that much hash power to break it.

This creates a vast overhead as you can't secure a billion+ dollar market without massive and continuous investments.

[woah]

You're wrong. Most enterprise blockchains use BFT algorithms or even round-robin instead of mining. What they are after is a highly auditable shared computing environment.

[Retric]

You can use things that are not a distributed block chains.

But if you have some trusted party just use a DB.

[sanswork]

The use of PoW isn't what makes a block chain a block chain. The idea is that you don't have a single trusted party you have a collection of them that need to collude to cause harm to spread the required trust.

[notahacker]

Surely the trust issues in global supply chains - involving making and shipping physical products often subject to regulatory oversight in multiple jurisdictions - are much bigger than "the database isn't mutable"? Ultimately, a blockchain database can lie just as much about the quantity and quality of what's being shipped as a transponder which all interested parties can track on their own non-blockchain auditing systems.