[leppr]

> There is a difference between deciding all transactions will be published and making them public by design constraint.

In a "blockchain" with a centralized validator set, there's no constraint forcing transactions to be public. The network will keep running even if the validators decide to stop publishing transactions. It's very much still a social contract.

Tampering (adding false transactions) is the only thing that could be hampered thanks to the requirement of client signatures: transaction/partial information censoring will still be possible. But in reality such a system will have the design constraint that funds must be seizable by the government, which in turn negates the only remaining technical advantage of a "centralized blockchain".

All that's left is the now empty word "blockchain". It's going to fit perfectly next to "democracy".

[darawk]

Right, but users would know when a secret transaction has been added. And no, your example does not negate the only technical advantage. Governments are not the only entities that might tamper. And most importantly, a blockchain forces even government tampering to be transparent, whereas a private database does not.

[leppr]

Yes, it's less black and white than I suggested, but the improvement is still a minimal increment compared to what someone would expect when hearing "blockchain". I guess I'm afraid the public record would just end up looking like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Redacted...

with citizens unable to discern between abusive and reasonable interventions.