@dajbelshaw most of the points that they make against "Blockchain" are actually against *Proof-of-Work*. They talk about how it requires you to trust miners, which is *not* a property of Blockchain; it is a property of Proof-of-Work.
Also, here is another quote from the article:
"Would you rather trust a human legal system or the details of some computer code you don’t have the expertise to audit?"
Most definitely the latter, because I *can* audit it.
@dajbelshaw even if I didn't have the expertise to audit the software, the option would still be available. I cannot audit my bankers at all. No amount of expertise would enable me to do that (legally at least).
@Zambyte @dajbelshaw A little deconstructivist for my taste.
While it is impossible to 'audit' a person (know every thought or action they have or do), I do not think it is necessary to know the position of every atom in the universe to form a reliable trust relationship. Nor is such exact knowledge necessary to make a statement about the past / future which goes beyond being labelled as nothing more than 'one perspective' and therefore unworthy of trust.
We can say a great many things with a level of certainty high enough to pass the threshold of veracity. Whether or not a certain event happened in the past is one such statement. Whether or not to trust a given banker is another.
