But the centralized team running it could still "fat-finger" it. Any "master DB" system has problems that blockchain-like approaches have definitively solved, allowing progress on valid messages when large portions of the usual maintenance systems have gone down or been compromised.
Is there a major RDBMS out there that struggles with 150MB of data?
But if that's enough, why hasn't the FAA solved the problem already?
And even a "major RDBMS" is vulnerable to stodgy management leaving design in a state where it's vulnerable to a single central point of failure, where "2 contractors who introduced data errors" (!) can bring it down.
Modern highly-distributed consensus systems are not vulnerable to that. Neither accident nor malice from 2 government contractors could prevent all authorized updates worldwide in a distributed consensus system like Ethereum.
DC & northern Virginia (or wherever the FAA's systems hosted) could even spontaneously disappear into a lava pit and the official consensus set of NOTAMs would continue to update.
Hell, if you _really_ wanted to insist on an exchange data format, XML would work just fine.
Yes it can. That is not the question. The question is why do you think a bog standard, but correctly implemented and administered database could not handle the same?
Imagine the following: the task is to move two wheels of cheese 5 km from A to B. Your proposal is akin to someone comming and suggesting that a suborbital rocket can do the job. And you are right. It can. But so can a Toyota Corolla without breaking a sweat.
So tell me, why should we use a “hypothetical modern crypto-consensus solution” here, with all its complexity, instead of a well understood and bog standard and well implemented database?