[treis]

> I think most uses can be solved by a simple database hosted by a trusted authority

People say this in every blockchain related thing that pops up on HN but it excludes literally the only legitimate use case for a blockchain. That being the scenario where you don't have or don't want to rely on a trusted authority.

[schoen]

This seems clearly true for applications related to censorship resistance and certain properties of money and financial systems (if you explicitly don't want a government to make certain decisions in the systems), but maybe not for many other applications.

For example, is it likely that people don't trust Louis Vuitton to decide whether Louis Vuitton handbags are genuine? Isn't that the definition of a Louis Vuitton handbag being genuine?

In most cases where an institution is empowered to make a decision of some sort, the risk that they will later change their mind arbitrarily doesn't seem to loom very large. (I'd agree that it's great to have mechanisms for detecting this, although regular digital signatures and Merkle trees may suffice.)

[aboodman]

People say this because blockchains are currently extremely complex and expensive in exchange for the value prop "don't need to be hosted by a trusted authority". That doesn't mean the value prop doesn't exist - it just means there are better tradeoffs today.

There are tons of cases where groups of entities interact and don't inherently trust each other. That is basically all of trade. In all of these cases, it would be more ideal if no one party had to be a trusted authority.

As soon as it seems simpler and less expensive for blockchains to implement this behavior, they will suddenly become a useful tool for all kinds of applications.

[Skunkleton]

I think _you_ are missing the point. Bitcoin resolves the problem where funds from wallet X are moved into wallet Y. That alone does not solve much. I still have to trust that whatever I paid for will be delivered. And worse, if it isn't I have no way of reversing that transaction.

The moment I go to an authority and file a complaint, I am trusting that authority. I might as well just use their fiat as well.

The point above is that if I cannot trust the authorities (because my transaction is illegal), then there is a use case for bitcoin.

[stouset]

> That being the scenario where you don't have or don't want to rely on a trusted authority.

This doesn't even remotely solve the problem.

If someone can get a 51% attack, you now have a trusted authority. If you have a cabal of developers who are implementing your blockchain (and who the overwhelming majority of users will follow if they decide to fork), you have a trusted authority.

[adfgnionio]

In the case of supply chain management, you need a trusted central authority regardless. Who ensures the sensors are honest? A computer can't do that. It has to be a legal contract between the truck company and a central authority, backed up by the dreaded guys with guns.

[AndrewKemendo]

If you can't find or mutually organize a trusted authority you have much bigger problems than what technology to choose.

[woah]

What?