> It is a poor idea to use blockchain for government registries. If you want transparency, simply publish signed daily updates and that's enough.

A blockchain is essentially that, just with the daily update that's being signed also including the signature and hash of the previous day.

Blockchain as a technology is actually useful here. It does not mean automatically that blocks have to be mined by third parties, although pseudocurrencies have gone that route for decentralization reasons.

▲

codedokode 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Blockchain is unnecessary complicated, for example, it has mining, rewards for those who add new records, even VM and scripts and all of these are not needed for a government registry. I do not need scripts within a land registry.

	▲	homakov 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Blockchain is unnecessary complicated, for example, it has mining depends on configuration, you can make any traditional web service replicated (replication is one and only thing that protects data in decentralized ledger, same as DNA is stored in every cell) using something like CometBFT on top. Mining/PoS or VM - all optional.
	▲	c7b 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Clearly, you would scope the features and choose implementation options so that it makes sense for the use case. Mining (ie PoW and/or Nakamoto consensus) is clearly inferior to any deterministic consensus here. A cryptocurrency isn't necessary and would be a distraction. But at least some limited programmability could make sense (eg for escrow).