> it's very strange [...] why it's only specifically 'public blockchains' and not all blockchains both 'public' AND 'private'?
There is nothing objectionable with private blockchains (except maybe the hype). They are permissioned, and don't need PoW. As such they're just another data structure: an append-only distributed database that certain people can append to (like git).
It is neither wasting energy, nor a scam, nor an unregulated mechanism to move/launder money.
> There is nothing objectionable with private blockchains (except maybe the hype).
Is that why companies like Adjoint closed down their products and removed services like 'Uplink' and even basic projects like nanocoin, because maybe they also think that blockchains'including private blockchains' in their case didn't work for them?
So when a company partners with Adjoint and shut downs their solution, the whole chain is abandoned and rendered useless for these clients; assuming you have read the article [3] mentioned by another critic of all blockchains.
> It is neither wasting energy, nor a scam, nor an unregulated mechanism to move/launder money.
And Adjoint and others still shutdown their private blockchain offerings. Not all blockchains 'waste energy' or neither is the technology a 'scam' (some are but not all of them are) and some of them are compliant with standards like ISO 20020. Otherwise they all would have been destroyed a long time ago.
There is nothing objectionable with private blockchains (except maybe the hype). They are permissioned, and don't need PoW. As such they're just another data structure: an append-only distributed database that certain people can append to (like git).
It is neither wasting energy, nor a scam, nor an unregulated mechanism to move/launder money.