> The current socio-economic environment, including rapid digitization of information and processes, the rise of machine learning (ML), and ubiquitous access to the Internet, amplifies the need for human-human and human-machine interactions that are transparent, dependable, resilient, and operate at a global scale—without a single point of failure. This might ring a bell; the concept of distributed ledger technologies (DLT), or blockchain, refers to systems implementing these properties.
I don't understand what sort of people can write rubbish like this. We need human-human interactions that are transparent, dependable, resilient, and global; and therefore blockchain? What are the authors smoking?
None of this requires the specific (and pernicious) distinguishing feature of blockchain: permissionlessness (enabling the wanton abandonment of the rule of law we see in that space in practice). Good old 1990's distributed computing technology (permissioned!) allows for transparent, dependable, resilient, and global interactions (machine to machine though; I have no clue how the authors interact with other humans. Presumably with WhatsApp or iMessage, which are neither transparent nor without a single point of failure, but are just fine.)
I don't understand what sort of people can write rubbish like this. We need human-human interactions that are transparent, dependable, resilient, and global; and therefore blockchain? What are the authors smoking?
None of this requires the specific (and pernicious) distinguishing feature of blockchain: permissionlessness (enabling the wanton abandonment of the rule of law we see in that space in practice). Good old 1990's distributed computing technology (permissioned!) allows for transparent, dependable, resilient, and global interactions (machine to machine though; I have no clue how the authors interact with other humans. Presumably with WhatsApp or iMessage, which are neither transparent nor without a single point of failure, but are just fine.)