There's always a comment in any HN blockchain thread where the commenter disproves the need for a blockchain by proposing just to use a blockchain instead.

▲

procaryote 6 days ago | parent [-]

M of N big institutions signing a thing doesn't really make it a blockchain

▲

baby 6 days ago | parent [-]

Your protocol has to use a consensus mechanism if you want to reliably make progress, and be able to recover if you make mistakes, this is exactly what a blockchain solves

▲

procaryote 6 days ago | parent [-]

That you _can_ solve it with a blockchain doesn't mean that you can _only_ solve it with a blockchain.

M valid signatures of N authorities is a consensus mechanism that just needs public keys. You don't need a blockchain if you're prepared to trust a set of authorities like stripe and their trusted partners.

	▲	woah 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's just a very unreliable consensus mechanism. Why is this being held up as a benefit?
	▲	baby 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's not a consensus mechanism in the rigorous sense, it's more similar to a reliable broadcast protocol (less powerful)