In case anyone needs a thorough source to explain why you don't need a Blockchain, I found the NIST paper (esp the flowchart on page 42) quite helpful:
It worked wonderfully to cut the BS coming from a greedy manager, in a non confrontational way ("so, what do you actually need?" , "you say 'security', but which aspect do you need? immutability ? non-repudiability? confidentiality??"). I think NIST's clout helped, along that they'd have to fully understand a 65 page report. I'm sure the content of the report would have been quite eye-opening, but that wasn't needed. Greed is a feeling, not a rational process.
That's an excellent flowchart. BTW, there is a real example of meaningful blockchain use for auditing single source data (the "caveat" in the flowchart). It's the hypercore protocol https://hypercore-protocol.org/
That's very interesting. Would you mind coming up with a concrete and detailed business case? In this example you will provide, who are the entities with write access? How do they have a hard time deciding who should be control of the data store?
In the hypercore protocol participants control only their own data. So, no write conflicts. But they need to verify parts of data of other participants. The blockchain (specifically, the Merkle tree) helps with that. An alternative solution would be to just sign the pairs `(recordCounter, recordData)` instead of putting records in a tree and signing the root node. But the hash tree also helps to verify integrity, in addition to authenticity.
You didn't answer my question. Let's stay strictly on topic here if you would mind. We don't want to waste resources exploring a dead-end. So, what's the business case?
Would you mind coming up with a concrete and detailed business case? In this example you will provide, who are the business entities with write access? What's their context? What are their interests? How do they have a hard time deciding who should be control of the data store?
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2018/nist.ir.8202.pdf
It worked wonderfully to cut the BS coming from a greedy manager, in a non confrontational way ("so, what do you actually need?" , "you say 'security', but which aspect do you need? immutability ? non-repudiability? confidentiality??"). I think NIST's clout helped, along that they'd have to fully understand a 65 page report. I'm sure the content of the report would have been quite eye-opening, but that wasn't needed. Greed is a feeling, not a rational process.