For his blockchain example, I couldn't find his Dutch handicap parking story via Google for more details so I don't know if a traditional central database would solve the same exact problem.

I'm saying that virtually all dismissals of a blockchain in favor of central databases almost always removes the benefits of decentralization. The ironic part is that the skeptics don't realize that the central db "solution" is incomplete when compared to all the decentralized goals (e.g. multiple witnesses guarding against tampering, potentially lower cost ownership verification, etc). Yes, if one changes the rules or moves the goal posts around, one can replace a decentralized blockchain with MySQL. If somebody is the skeptic, does he even notice that he performed that sleight-of-hand in his argument?!?