[wnissen]

Exactly! IBM had a number of these that all involved "blockchain" but somehow also required that IBM host the blockchain in their cloud. I am no blockchain expert, but if you have IBM running the show, why not simply let them be the authority who runs a standard shared database with an API on top? Decentralization takes extra work, but it's worth it when it allows two parties to transact who, crucially, have no reason to trust each other and no convenient intermediary.

[simne]

I'm slightly involved in business, not in subject, but could answer.

There are hundreds large ports in this world, and when ship transport your payload, owner MUST communicate with many govt and private structures.

And these structures are not friends to each other, remember, for example one of channels is nationalized by Egypt govt, near it strait owned by Turkey, and they are not in war state just now, but near, and they all don't love US, and from time to time make nonfriendly actions, and could achieve US sanctions.

And complex software needs good communication with vendor.

Now imagine, how consultants from same US company will work, when one country is US ally, but other is under US sanctions? - Communications will be extremely hard.

Open protocols and decentralization give perfect answer - nonfriendly countries will use blockchain, which is not owned by any subject, so they have not any reasons to block communications.

[oblio]

They haven't thought this through.

If the US wants to sanction country A, and country A uses a blockchain to circumvent sanctions, what do you think will happen next? The US goes: "ah, blockchain, foiled again!!!"?

Is any blockchain really resistant to country level attackers? I highly doubt that, especially against the US.