> Blockchains are for trustless systems
Not necessarily. Permissionless access, composability and public data are still useful which is not possible in regulated environments.
Not necessarily. Permissionless access, composability and public data are still useful which is not possible in regulated environments.
If I am the Central Bank of Hyrule and I point out to you three million rupees and you see them, you're confident in today's money supply, have no idea whether I'm about to mint another hundred million tomorrow. Your trust (or lack of trust) that I won't do so directly influences the value of rupees, that is, the exchange rate between rupees and other currencies (USD, ETH, whatever) or the purchasing power of rupees. If I do mint piles of rupees, the value of the rupee will crash, and it doesn't matter that you saw three million yesterday - they're not worth as much as they were.
If you know that I am unable to mint more rupees, then I'm not acting as a traditional central bank, I've just created an actual cryptocurrency like Bitcoin or something with a fixed supply.
Trustlessness is, no doubt, a "hard" problem solved by crypto. But, just because something is theoretically trivial doesn't mean that it is in practice. Could you architect a "distributed database with more ceremony?" Sure. Will they? Maybe not.
I realize this is offensive to fans of bitcoin/crypto's technical achievement and monetary ideals, but that doesn't mean it's not operative.
You don't need a PC to run a word processor. That said, if you wanted to build a dedicated word processor, you would probably use or modify a pre existing PC architecture.