[rglullis]

> different brands have different ideas on who a trusted third party is

If different entities do not all trust the same centralized party, then it is not happening. You are pulling a spherical cow again as an answer. What is so hard to understand about that?

[RhodesianHunter]

That is nonsense, why do all brands have to use the same solution for one brand to have something that works?

Why do you keep arguing about a space you're clearly unfamiliar with?

[rglullis]

Because it's not a matter of the industry that I am talking about, it is the general principle.

To make an analogy: I don't need to know all of the details of foreign trade and banking regulations around the world to know that people can use blockchain-backed cryptocurrency to send money all around the world in a way that is faster and cheaper that any banking or remittance company ever will be able to.

As blockchain tech matures and gets easier to be adopted by the masses, it will not matter if currently we have a gazillion different banks and if companies each are using their own ad-hoc method for managing world-wide transfers and FX: the moment that consumers are able to say "I want to use my crypto to pay for this", companies that are not on-board with that will simply lose business.

---

To sum up: you are arguing that the status quo is the only way to make things and that the only way to have any change is when they are of interest to the status quo. I am arguing that the status quo will not matter the moment that blockchain technology gets more accessible and makes more economical sense as a way to verify and coordinate work among entities that do not trust each other.

What matters in the end (to quote from the OP that started our discussion) is "The whole paper trail around a bill of lading isn't a joke if you are shipping from say China to South America". This is something that blockchain is basically designed to solve. It doesn't matter if the companies now don't want to use it, when the people holding the purses start asking for a solution that only blockchain can solve efficiently, the companies that don't adopt will lose business and fade away.

[RhodesianHunter]

> it is the general principle

So you're extrapolating a general principle that has yet to be proven anywhere into an industry you know nothing about. Great. This sort of attitude is part of why folks generally sneer at BlockChain enthusiasts.

> you are arguing that the status quo is the only way to make things and that the only way to have any change is when they are of interest to the status quo

You keep building a strawman of my argument that's easy for you to tear down. Are you aware that there are more choices than "status quo" and BlockChain?

> when the people holding the purses start asking for a solution

That's the thing, consumers DGIF, and have proven this for generations by purchasing based on cost and quality alone.

[rglullis]

> So you're extrapolating a general principle

If it is a general principle, it doesn't matter the specific application. That's the whole point of abstract thinking. But you don't seem to care about that. So, let's go back at the comment from OP:

  I work in old industry and the supply chain guys as well as finance is having a boner from the idea of moving their crufty systems to blockchain.

They are the ones holding the purses. Not "consumers who DGIF". It's not retail that is going to drive the adoption of better tech in the industry, it's the large purchasers who will make everything possible to increase their margins.

> This sort of attitude is part of why folks generally sneer at BlockChain enthusiasts.

Again, I will borrow the words from OP:

  But (Blockchain) - like the internet - it's just a fad that will soon pass.

My google-fu has failed me now, but I'd love to find a link to a story about a MS executive who thought that the idea that "internet search was stupid. People will just bookmark the sites they use more often and start navigating from there."

I will say this in the nicest way possible: your head is so stuck inside the box of the status quo and their current issues that you are not even able to contemplate a thought outside of it. You are dismissing something that can disrupt entire industries because the current implementation is not good enough. The moment that you stop thinking in a static way, perhaps you won't calling everyone "naive enthusiasts".

> Are you aware that there are more choices than "status quo" and BlockChain?

Sure there are! Yet none of the things you present as choices actually (a) solve the problem of coordinating work and attesting validity of information in a global scenario with competing actors and (b) have the potential to be automated/scaled to eliminate a lot of human intervention in the way that blockchain does. You are talking about big firms, big contracts, CYA agreements and certifications whose costs can not reduce with scale. How do you want me to believe that this is going to compete with technology that will be exponentially cheaper and simpler to operate and deploy?