This is nothing that cannot be achieved by a write locked DB, with verification via inputs from smart contracts. You are basically using the security of these massive P2P networks to shore up a consultancy model.
Yeah, exactly. These permissioned blockchain implementations rely upon some centralised source of trust (eg the government, network permissions, etc.) and I don't see exactly what distinguishes them from a distributed ledger. The core innovation and the whole point of blockchains is that they are permissionless and trustless. Or am I missing something here?
Yes, the core innovation in public blockchains, the double spend problem in trusless networks, is not present in private blockchains and private blockchains can he simplified with basic block that have existed for decades.
The biggest and critical issue with private blockchains is at the political level: how to make a lot of parties (e.g. bank) agree in a protocol involving critical things (e.g. money).
Many use cases we encounter in customer discussions can best be solved by using traditional databases which benefit from academic and industry investment over more than 50 years. Databases offer more mature algorithms, implementations, toolsets, talent pools and ecosystems.
That said, there are some compelling scenarios that customers are exploring where a decentralized model opens up new market opportunities, or reduces risk or reduces cost.
One challenge with a database is answering the question of who operates it, and whether that party could choose or could be compelled to act maliciously. Coco and its ilk are specifically designed to address that concern, with tradeoffs in other dimensions as mentioned above.