If it's just a private network, why even call it a blockchain instead of a database? It's not even decentralized.

It can be quite useful for a more complex ledger between multiple banks. Yes it’s not open like Bitcoin but it’s easy to connect multiple partners, provides immutability / transparency, deals with varied levels of trust between actors (banks, shipping companies, importers / exporters, government entities), and allows you to formalise trade finance rules in a smart contract, etc without imposing a central database / solution. It’s an closed network involving complex transactions between a range of parties and therefore blockchain / smart contracts is actually a good solution.

I agree with your comment. Perhaps the GP is also considering the use of smart contracts (see ref 1 for an example)

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/philippsandner/2020/12/02/will-...

Smart contracts are amazing, as long as its a contract between two crypto people doing crypto stuff. But (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) the oracle problem still stops them from using anything in the real world as an input; I think this is what GP meant by naval gazing.

The example contract in the link I posted doesn't rely on third-party data sources (with the exception, perhaps, of time).

Does the oracle problem still apply?

It would seem that by definition, if you want smart contracts or anything "on the blockchain" to interact with the real world, you will need to find intermediaries you trust. Meaning you're back to square one if you want to cross the crypto-real world membrane.

> Here blockchain is seeing a pretty good adoption, although mostly in private networks.

No, it isn’t. There are some pilot projects but more have been abandoned than completed. And you don’t need blockchain for this.