> Not particularly. It's using the wrong tool for the job. A distributed database is helpful in many ways, but you don't need an attached proof-of-work system.
Blockchain doesn't imply PoW. You could consider each block minted with e.g. a M of N signature scheme, in the case of a stock-trading system you don't need open anonymous/participation and it's quite fine to rely on trusted parties.
I suppose, but at that point you're really blurring the line between 'blockchain' and 'authenticated database logs', and it starts to become a mere buzzword.
At this point "blockchain" pretty much refers to a hash chain, transactions signed by private keys, and some kind of distributed consensus, which could be proof of work, proof of stake, or traditional byzantine consensus if you know who all the node operators are.
Yeah, every invoicing software in my country hash chains the documents for validation purposes (it's a requirement for SAF-T[1]), yet we don't call it a "blockchain".
'Blockchain' pretty explicitly specifies the data structure, the method of securing a block is an implementation detail. For example Proof of Stake is basically a variation on a M of N signature scheme.
Without an incentive to "mine" blocks (cryptographically solve).. Anyone can write blocks to the network. How would the network ensure a trusted actor is writing blocks?
