[danaos]

After years of debating, I still fail to see how the statements "Bitcoin is useless" and "blockchains have potential" can both hold true.

For a blockchain to be a blockchain, there must be a token to keep the incentive structure. Otherwise it's no longer a blockchain it's a simple database that will naturally be centralized due to economies of scale.

[sandworm101]

Blockchains can be run without incentives. They can be run internally by a large organization. Take the US military. I could see each service running a server to verify changes to a ledger of national orders. An effort to change the ledger would be possible but very difficult, demanding cross-branch conspiracy. Such a scheme could exist without incentives.

[PretzelPirate]

Instead of saying “without incentives”, maybe saying “with external incentives” is better?

Blockchains can function when each participant running a node is incentivized to be honest. The incentive could be that they are a known party in a business consortium and if caught colluding with other members, it would be trvivial to prove during a lawsuit.

[pvg]

Why would a highly hierarchical, centralized organization with extensive infrastructure for distributing and authenticating orders suddenly blockchain it all up to solve a problem (cross-branch conspiracy) they don't at all have?

[sandworm101]

To protect against outsiders inserting false orders to one branch. Or to provide a record of past orders.

[pvg]

Right, but they seem to do that pretty well as it is. The Sixth Fleet rarely ends up in Antarctica because of an air force prank.

[biggels]

I think you just described the federal reserve.

[yumraj]

One potential scenario: in an industry, with a problem that can be solved by blockchain, the various participants can come together to create the blockchain infrastructure to solve that problem. They don't need a crypto currency to incentivize the participants as their motivation is driven by the solution to the problem.