[jaclaz]

>The post now points to the PDF of a 7-page paper which goes into some detail.

Thank you for the note, I missed the "original" link.

Surely the "No" is more than a bit snarky, but it is not like the paper in itself contain that much of meaningful "news" or "ground-breaking" considerations, the conclusion (like it seems to me is happening very often on similar papers, i.e. a not-conclusion) is:

"We conclude that depending on the application scenario, there are indeed valid use cases for each, permissionless and permissioned blockchains, and centralized databases that need to be determined carefully."

It is not a "No", but it is a "it depends" that is not providing much more than the "No".