A blockchain (or a timechain, as Satoshi Nakamoto called it) is only good for being a ledger of transactions for money.

So do you mean the cryptographic authentication of transactions as they're included in each block?

Someone said, ( It's a ledger, distributed and verified with cryptographic proofs.

suppose anything that uses a ledger could work with a blockchain. Its power comes from its redundancy. There's no way to lose it.

It might be a good way to run an independent and unregulated stock exchange. It would allow for public knowledge of the ownership of all shares as well as voting the shares, and being it can be proven that the shares were voted by the owners the votes can be legally enforceable.)

And I think, Blockchains don't solve the oracle problem, though. Sure, you can put anything on a ledger, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it'll mean anything real. If you run an independent and unregulated stock exchange on a blockchain, you still need to trust that the shares and the companies themselves actually exist in the first place. So it ends up being a more complicated way of doing what databases already do today.

The only thing in the real world that a blockchain can help verify without trust is work, as long as each block can only be found by hashing the answer to a cryptographic function. This is why cryptographic proof of work is the real innovation of Bitcoin, and why trying to put anything else on a blockchain is like using horses to pull an automobile.

We love the innovative