Or for that matter, recording of call details for billing between operators?
In a traditional database setup, the "transactional method to update it" would be sending a request to a central server to update the database. The central server can be run by whatever regulatory body or industry association is responsible for number portability -- ideally, this would be the group with legal authority to overrule whatever the computer system says anyway. It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
You could imagine doing it with a blockchain instead, but you could also imagine doing it using a Yahoo Groups email list -- that doesn't make it a necessary or good solution.
I mean, I can imagine government wants this, so if such ideas comes from government you're going to have such regulatory body. But otherwise, if it comes from operators itself, they don't want to introduce such entity, and they don't want to award one of them as an ultimate boss to rule all of the numbers. Blockchain, at least, gives them a chance to continue to be equal.
But as this article articulates so well, that’s a red herring. Like, you can come up with all sorts of wild scenarios where central authority can be bad. But ultimately, these are scenarios you’re unlikely to encounter in the real world, and if you do, there are much simpler solutions.
Blockchain technology always reminded me of that XKCD about cryptographer expectations vs. reality (https://xkcd.com/538/): it’s solving a problem that only really exists in fantasy for 99% of the population.
> It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
That makes it fit blockchain quite well, actually.