I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why "the enterprise" would have any need for a distributed ledger in the first place. It always amounts to maybes and what-ifs. Usually, cooperating enterprises have a mutual trust in each other, or they wouldn't have entered into the partnership in the first place. A requirement for both trustlessness and anonymity doesn't make much sense in this context.<p>As far as I can see, blockchains only really make sense if they're protected by some sort of proof-of-work, in which case old data becomes increasingly difficult to alter as more blocks are added to the chain. To me, it appears that the concept of a blockchain was developed for this exact purpose in the first place, and that without this requirement (old blocks accumulating proof-of-work) there is no advantage to using a linked list of blocks.
Stross fans will know what I mean when I say this nomenclature sounds like something out of "A Colder War" [1]. Those who don't know what I mean are strongly encouraged to follow that link, at the far end of which is a rather good piece of short fiction that answers the question: "What if Lovecraft was right - and Kubrick, in <i>Dr. Strangelove</i>, was right, too?"<p>Better a ZK-SNARK than an XK-BOOJUM, I suppose...<p>[1] <a href="http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm</a>
If Ethereum is going to implement Zk-Snarks, and there's already an enterprise alliance with the Ethereum Foundation, and Ethereum offers benefits like smart contracts and so on, why would enterprises use ZSL? (Genuine question)
For a moment there, I thought they meant this Enterprise: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_(computer)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_(computer)</a>