I am sorry to say so, but I am simply trying to reply to the points that you are bringing up. Your original claim was that private blockchains are “naturally” safer than a database. I even agree, if the database is unsecured, but even with a trivially secured DB this stops to be the case. I showed how 1) a database can be trivially made to be as audit-safe as a blockchain and b) how a blockchain without miners isn’t any safer. Your claim was that the DB solution involves a lot of work, is complicated, and has, over time evolved into a claim that it is fragile.
I happen to disagree with that, since all I need to turn a database into a secured ledger are two db fields — one where the client writes the record signature, one for the DB’s signature of the record plus the previous record’s hash — and three triggers, Insert, Delete and Update, that instead of modifying the row add a new one and sign it. Neither of this is either difficult to understand or implement, nor fragile - we now literally have a cryptographic chain, but in a relational database. If the DB also happens to be replicated and Byzantine Fault tolerant, the only factual difference to the traditional blockchain becomes the missing Nakamoto consensus, but the whole thing is vastly cheaper to run and consists of proven components.
At this point, however, you keep adding and removing components to what started out as a conventional blockchain (remove miners and Nakamoto consensus, add validators, auditors, etc, etc) to make it cheaper than public blockchain but safer than an RDBMS based solution — but then it stops being about “blockchain technology” being inherently safer than databases — we are now talking about an entirely different animal consisting of many different parts, none of which were part of the original — that you happen to also call blockchain.
So what I read is “these are the components that a ledger needs to be tamper-proof” — but then it literally does not matter whether we started with a blockchain or an RDBMS — given enough mutations, you can turn any software into any other software. So my perception is that it is you who keeps switching targets. Maybe it is simply that you imply something different when you say blockchain, than the general public (to which I belong), in which case we are talking at cross-purposes and I need to figure out what you mean when you say blockchain.
I don’t disapprove of blockchain, just like I don’t disapprove of dynamic hash tables, BFT, RDBMS, and all the other algorithms and data structures — I am a programmer, to me it is mainly a data structure, like any other. What I disapprove of, is the attempt to squeeze it into everything and make it a religion.
I would, however, very much like to understand the benefits of using an unproven, three-year old software that employs the same algorithms we have been using for close to five decades, instead of using software that already uses that same algorithms and adding the new one on top.