[maccard]

> has use anywhere a verified supply chain is needed.

Sure, in the same way that a hammer can be used for a screw, or an HGV can be used for commuting to work - i.e. it _will_ do the job, but there were plenty of other alternatives available. The thing that a blockchain does is a _decentralised_ verifiable supply chain. A verifiable supply chain has existed since we've been doing digital signatures, and RSA has existed since the 70's.

The problem with using blockchain for supply chains is what happens if someone claims that the original source is wrong? Say I'm Maersk, and one of my ships says "no, I did deliver that". Are Maersk's customers going to say "no, we believe that guy, we're forking the blockchain?" Or are they going to say "That sucks, guess you shoiuld have delivered it" and claim the loss on their shipping insurance? We both know it's the latter.

> But this is demonstrably not true.

Is it? I've yet to see a demonstrable use case for blockchains that actually solves a problem. We've been doing this for almost 15 years now, and we're still waiting for it.

> It's just a technology and people have misused it but that doesn't render the technology itself useless or a scam.

People misusing technology doesn't make it useless, but if the _only_ use case is useless or a scam, then the tech is useless.

[emptysongglass]

You may think you're being well meaning but you aren't Maersk and can't speak for them. Maersk believes it's an advantage to them to use a blockchain. Maybe we ought to ask Maersk why they chose it.

Everything I read in this thread is dripping with vehemence, hate, ridicule, or certitude (your I haven't seen a demonstrable use case in 15 years).

If the kind of echo chamber you want to build is the one where you've won and any even smallest proffering of a tilt toward blockchain as useful is crushed congratulations you're doing it: nobody who even wants to give one inch to blockchain will come around here. When I try and point out one useful thing is a blockchain, oh that thing is a different kind of blockchain. It's astounding the mental acrobatics people will go to to stand victors over their tiny corner of the internet.

This is frankly culty, repressive behavior that's not at all in the spirit of curiosity.

[maccard]

I don't think your reading of my comment is fair at all. I think I was perfectly reasonable and avoided using words like culty and repressive. Instead of talking about the issues youve gone straight for a personal attack.

You're right, I can't speak for maersk, but given this is a pseudonymous internet forum where in this thread they are touted as legitimising the tech, I think it's fair game to speculate based on knowledge.

> When I try and point out one useful thing is a blockchain, oh that thing is a different kind of blockchain.

Meanwhile, everytime I ask for a problem that a blockchain solves, I get back problems that are better solved _without_ blockchains, or solutions that don't actually solve the problem in the first place.

I'm open to having my mind changed, I really am (it's happened many times on this forum), so please, feel free to share some of the problems that are being solved.

[DemocracyFTW2]

> dripping with vehemence, hate, ridicule, or certitude (your I haven't seen a demonstrable use case in 15 years).

> spirit of curiosity

I'm curious: what useful application of the blockchain have we seen in the past 15 years (outside of cryptocurrencies whose usefulness is apparently largely confined to pyramid schemes and paying for crimes)?