The top public blockchain that could be used to track pork chops - Ethereum - has been proven to be fundamentally insecure.

If there is a benefit in using blockchain to track pork chops, and if all the pork chop companies know and kinda-trust each other already, a private blockchain could keep the hackers out and implement various security schemes, and maybe even have a board that could publicly organize a rollback to undo a "DAO-hack". (As seen with Ethereum, such a "board" exists implicitly anyway even in a public blockchain system).

The ability to rollback "bad" transactions would be key in being able to comply with legal requirements, resolve contract disputes, etc. Plus having Sybil proof systems require PoW or PoS both of which could be difficult and inefficient for a market specific solution. E.g. why would people want to run a miner for pork chop trading? PoS might work though but still requires a founding core group that's trusted IMHO.

When was Ethereum proven to be insecure? It was proven that not all third party applications built on top of Ethereum are secure. That doesn't prove that they can't be secure. Arguing that Ethereum is insecure because a contract written on top of it had a bug is like arguing that the US dollar is insecure because a bank storing it was robbed.

I meant the third party applications (which a pork chop tracking system would be). The pure blockchain crypto should be safe.

But do you enjoy reading something like this [1]? Can you analyze blockchain code like that? Ideally before you know that there's a bug?

It's on Ethereum to show how to make things secure. The general level of software buggyness is inacceptable if you say "code is law".

[1] http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/18/analysis-of-the-dao...

Well, that's the only advantage of proof-of-work secured blockchains. There are strategies that use something blockchain-like for simple distributed consensus, which do have advantages[1] (and also disadvantages) over other approaches to distributed consensus.

1- The main advantage over something like Paxos or Raft is simplicity. There are also serious disadvantages, and normally I would still suggest grabbing a library that does Paxos or Raft instead of something blockchain-based. Still, it's not "no advantage".

Still, even with that difference, they have the big advantage(for managers) of having their security tested(to some extent, it is a different implementation) at such a large scale at bitcoin.

The implementation is what needs to be tested. Consensus algorithms are generally proven rigorously (given certain empirically verifiable assumptions).

Proven? that's great.

You're right, from a technology point of view. But for this system to run, you need to convince a lot of people, from different cultures/backgrounds, to use it.

Maybe talking about the safety of the bitcoin network instead of a mathematical proof makes that marketing challenge easier ?