Need for distributed ledger
Peers are adversarial w.r.t. contents of transactions in the ledger
Enough peers exist so that no group can become a majority and thus assume control
No trusted central authority exists

Here, we have a single peer creating entries in a ledger. We can get away with a copy of the ledger and one or more trusted timestamping authorities.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I didn't say distributed. You are absolutely correct though. I was more observing that of all the BS tech bro babble that our Oligarch in Chief could spew into the universe, blockchain would be one that could be implemented reasonably.

[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

If your blockchain isn’t distributed, it doesn’t need to be a blockchain, because then you already have trust established.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

There are actually other comments on this thread that provide other benefits besides trust, like modification tracing. There is more to it than just trust.

[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

You mean a transparency log? Just sign and publish. Or if it’s confidential, have a timestamp authority sign it, but what’s the point of a confidential blockchain? Sure, we han have a string of hashes chained together á la git, but that’s just an implementation detail. Where does the trust come from, who does the audit? That’s the interesting part.