You are taking the argument too far, but then you probably know it.
It's just a "tamper-proof" ink for a reasonable price, nothing more, nothing less. It won't grow bananas or lemons, and GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) principle still applies.
How about if instead of coming up with the fictional scenarios that won't work, you instead learn about technology, ignore hype (and greed) and come up with the some that will work? Hint: they exist.
Please try to track the context of an argument. You're ignoring the part where simias was responding to a post which stated that blockchain is "totally accurate [and] reliable", which is in complete contradiction to your view that it's GIGO.
> So specifically, blockchain offers a totally accurate, reliable, secure way to track and exchange data across a multitude of distinct businesses with little opportunity for corruption.
There is nothing said there about contents of the data, so the GIGO principle still applies, as always. Attacking blockchain that it doesn't help if input is garbage is thus pointless.
I would suggest you read the quoted statement again. It is very precise and true (imho of course).
You could, depending on your requirements. If someone needed proof that this was indeed signed and sent at that time, it gets more difficult with e-mail.
It's just a "tamper-proof" ink for a reasonable price, nothing more, nothing less. It won't grow bananas or lemons, and GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) principle still applies.
How about if instead of coming up with the fictional scenarios that won't work, you instead learn about technology, ignore hype (and greed) and come up with the some that will work? Hint: they exist.