[Jasper_]

It can't track physical items, because you can always just lie about the data. Company A says "I put the jewels in box 1352", and Company B opens the box to receive a bunch of dish towels. Just because it's cryptographically verified, doesn't mean it has any semantic value.

If Company A and B already trust each other not to put bad data on the chain, then they also trust each other to just send emails back and forth, and you don't need a cryptographically verified blockchain. It secures the least important part of the process.

[agumonkey]

But how would you do that with ~all companies ? it would be standardization and heterogeneity hell.

[Jasper_]

Why would the addition of blockchains help standardize things?

[agumonkey]

they standardize transport, verification, encryption at least, consensus too iiuc

[Jasper_]

No, they don't do any of that. There are 100 different blockchain implementations at least, and none of them are standardized across any of those metrics. Everything from the consensus mechanism to the packet format to the bytecode is different. The standard way to interop between the Tezos blockchain and the Polygon blockchain is to create a token on both sides and attach a tag saying "don't touch me I'm actually somewhere else".

The only way to standardize ~all companies would be to have them all run the same exact ledger system, and if it was easy enough to make them do that, it would be easy enough to have them standardize a different reporting system for the same purpose.

[agumonkey]

i meant each but using a single one to host events and logic, not a multichain (yeah according to your input would be brittle at best)