[bunderbunder]

I really wish I could remember where I read this so I could give proper credit --

Somewhere I read a helpful way to rephrase "blockchain" that really helps cut to the heart of the issue when you're dealing with technical questions like this: A blockchain is just an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series.

So, when you've got someone saying, "What if we use blockchain?", just mentally substitute the suggestion as, "What if we store the data as an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series?" Any bits of the proposed system that aren't impacted by the decision to store the data as an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series, also don't have anything to do with whether or not it needs to involve a blockchain.

(Yes, I realize there are additional questions around trust and proof of work and whatnot that come into play when you're talking about blockchain-as-in-cryptocurrency, but, as far as I can tell, it's a rare case that proposed use cases for blockchain in business are ones where anyone even wants trustlessness. See, for example, Walmart trying to use a centralized blockchain to manage their edible leaf supply chain.)

[sah2ed]

> A blockchain is just an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series.

Mentioning the hash is an implementation detail -- it is what gives blockchains their immutability property.

So I'd say even simpler: a blockchain is merely an append-only register that can be used by multiple parties.

[bunderbunder]

It is absolutely an implementation detail.

But it's also the defining characteristic - it's the essential thing that sets blockchains apart from all the many other ways you could create an append-only register that can be used by multiple parties.

The fact that the hash is both an implementation detail and the defining characteristic is exactly why, IMO, "blockchain" is an inappropriate word to use in most business plans. Implementation details as a headline feature of your elevator pitch is a classic characteristic of a solution in search of a problem.

As far as I'm aware, nobody was talking about peer-to-peer supply chain management before "blockchain" became a buzzword. Probably because you don't need peer-to-peer when you have a natural central authority. The organization whose supply chain it is in the first place, for example.

[TheColorYellow]

Supply chains aren't really owned by a single entity, right? Walmart may be the biggest actor and driver of requirements but they don't own anything beyond the specific services they are paying for. Its a complicated system of actors - which is where something like a DLT or blockchain can help bring together in a more cohesive way.

Agree with everything else you said.

[0xfeba]

I always phrase it as, "how does a distributed ledger solve this?"

[austinjp]

Bingo. The exact phrase I use. Sometimes I chuck in "permanent" and "public" depending on context.