If you have too many blockchains, then you split the miners between the chains and open the doors for a big player to come in and overwhelm the other miners on that chain.
I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate, but I don't know whether this has been done or not.
>I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate, but I don't know whether this has been done or not.
This is what everyone is talking about. They aren't talking about mined chains.
>These proposed system achieve consensus by merely voting for truth, which is technology we've had since the 80s
So what? What does that really change at all? Nothing.
Subjective truth has been around for decades. No one cared about it , because its not useful. The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties. (Which private chains don't do)
The only reason blockchain is a buzzword now is so that consultants can bilk banks for database contracts.
It is no less truthful than bitcoin. It need not be more mutable than bitcoin. It is just different.
>The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties.
Right because of how current blockchains are implemented and used.
We know things are true in a blockchain because energy went into it. If only a single Bitcoin node were alive, and 99% of the network disagree with him - the energy would point to the truth. This is what makes it objective. With subjective chains there are a huge suite of problems in the form of stake grinding and long/short range attacks. Why does this matter? Non-objective quorum based sysetms have been around for decades. They're not more efficient than centralized systems for many economic reasons, some of which were really well laid out in a Isabella kaminska paper on the subject (let me know if you need a link)
Tldr: blockchains aren't paxos or raft. Blockchains mostly suck, but do one thing well: resist censorship
All those attacks are based on unknown dynamic participants which isn't an issue. So ya argue against a system they aren't trying to implement.
At least you understand now that immutability requires energy...
It sounds like you are missing a lot by having a bitcoin centric view of the problem space.
So there might be a greater press problem at work here not bringing out knowledge of other aspects of blockchain research to wider audience. I dont closely follow the field so I cant accurately guess more.
Keep in mind, this is just for the banks. You're not going to use it, except indirectly as your bank is using it to talk with other banks.