[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.