it cannot really replace a simple database. it has an integrity guarantee. not in the way that data won't get modified accidentally, but that it won't get modified onesided.

the git version control system also uses a kind of a blockchain structure. git was made by the creator of linux. a major difference is that git does not use proof of work for consensus, I think it just does not use anything for that, other than the web server's access control mechanism.
commits are built on top of a large chain of histories, and the commit ID verifies that the current state and the history of it is the exact same when you checkout that commit ID on any other computer. if you go find in the repository a commit made 3 years ago, and change that commit (this is supported by git but not recommended), either the content or the metadata like time of commit, the whole history after that also need to get rewritten to remain valid, and so all those commits will now have a new commit ID

The point of the blockchain is to achieve distributed consensus of what's in the database. That way, one entity can't unilaterally change what the database says.

If you have a public non-profit institution maintaining the database, obligated to serve all legal customers, with serious consequences for tampering with it, you can get pretty much everything blockchain can do, for a billionth of the computing power.

But with that system, you would lose these features:

• partially-anonymous participants
• service of all customers, even illegal ones
• immunity to court orders

since a lot of replies branched towards Cryptocurrency, which is where blockchains are implemented the most in. But it isn't the sole purpose of blockchain.

It's a distributed, append only(theoretically), tamper proof data structure. Look up merkle tree, certificate distribution, etc. These comes in different shapes and sizes for storing transaction logs, to keeping track of online identity and false impersonation.

You can implement a blockchain that might not get as power hungry as crypto block chains(because mining), and it's a cool solution in distributed systems

blockchains are a solution looking for a problem.

It absolutely can't be replaced by a simple database, saying that makes me question that you truly understand the technology. Here's the important question, who owns the database and how do you know you can trust them?

Would you trust me to manage a database that holds your money? What about someone who's actively opposing you? How about a foreign nation? That's the thing blockchains solve, a decentralized 0-trust way to have an append only ledger, yes a database can be an append only ledger, but it can't be decentralized or 0-trust, that's the important thing here.

Let me give you a very recent example, Steam has been censored, and has had to remove certain games from their catalog, this happened because PayPal and other payment providers forced their hand. This is the sort of problems that arise from having someone own the database, they can dictate what you do or don't. Let me be extra clear, this sort of censorship is essentially impossible in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies because no one controls the database.

Not really, blockchain technically has been around for almost two decades and there still isn't a good use for them. It's very interesting piece of tech that could potentially be useful, but still isn't in a practical sense.

Think of it this way, blockchain tech is a solution looking for a problem to solve rather than the other way around.

Yes. Public append-only data structures. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency

Yes. Tracking stock shares would prevent dark pools and naked short selling to some degree.

That's also why it will never happen.

its always been a ponzi scheme, the people still pedaling it, are right wingers thinking they will still strike it big some day.i once followed a yotbers channel one guy pedal lost 1mil+ from SBF crisis, and hes still doing it to this day.

it's really difficult to be anonymous with a credit card

It's just a data store (database kind of implies extra features) that's trust-free and decentralised. It's not even the only way to implement one; Ripple for example uses a slightly different scheme.

How has nobody linked the XKCD on this exact question? Randall Monroe compares them in the alt text to grappling hooks: something cool that might have uses, but only in very specific niches. https://xkcd.com/2267/

Why is mining a nessecary part? Is it only to keep the quantity of units in circulation in check? And why is that nessecary? Is there an equivalent fixed amount of USD that is in circulation?

Why can't it just be a ledger of fixed qty where nodes get paid a fee for handling transactions and keeping the blockchain updated instead of proof of busywork? Why does it need to be so wasteful of electricity? Why is it so slow? Will it ever be as fast and cheap as an osko payment? I can (and have) sent $40,000 to another person from my bank account and it took under 10 seconds for them to receive it, even though they bank with a different entity.

Besides money laundering, you mean? Not as such.

Merkle Trees were thought up in the 70ies or so. A blockchain is a Merkle Tree without branches. They are used in a number of application; for example git which predates bitcoin.

The actual innovation behind bitcoin is mining. A payment system needs someone who runs it. Bitcoin introduced a way for these people to get paid by creating new currency for themselves. That way, there is no single entity in charge. There is no contractual relation that would require government enforcement.

If a Merkle Tree is the only thing a blockchain is to you, then it has legit uses. But that was already widely used before a simplified version became called blockchain.

If you're thinking about a bitcoin-type blockchain, then evading government oversight is its sole use. The technical overhead and the economic inefficiencies exist only to obscure identities and legal responsibilities.

Any application where you want to record something publicly without the possibility to alter it and in absence of a central authority.

A database requires a central authority so it doesn’t cover the same use cases.

Anything that requires a public, immutable database. Land registry would be one example. Notary public for electronic documents would be another.

You can leverage the majority consensus to create a trusted software build system. Each block would be a package build

Using it as a currency which requires no third party for transactions is a legitimate use case. See current payment processors vs Steam conflict for why it may be a good idea. There are a lot of times when it's not a good idea either.

However the price must be reasonably stable and transaction cost low. Don't think any of the major CCs qualify.

Recording data on an "eternal" digital data storage is incredibly useful. You don't need much imagination here but I think we overestimated how much people actually want this and how ok we are with less perfectionist systems given that they work now just fine. Storing something on the web is usually just as good in practice despite being less perfect data store mechanism.

That being said what if we have incredibly important information that is difficult to share or preserve - an immutable blockchain with so much financial security is a really powerful tool here.

Thats what got me into bitcoin at the beginning but disappoingly it never reached the point where it would outcompete non-blockchain tech. Mostly because we live in a better world than many believe 🙃

Some countries are considering using blockchain in the future for their land title registry.

here is an article about it

I read something about potentially using blockchain the future while using onland (ontarios land registry service) but i can't seem to find the page that mentions it.

here is a similar system proposed for Bangladesh

People will easily list a lot of credible legitimate usecases

that are hypothetical

and have remained hypothetical for 18 years.