On the contrary, blockchain finds its activism among SQL-illiterate people, and certainly not the aforementioned groups. Mind that we're already a decade in.
There is widespread experimention with blockchain technology by government, academia and industry.
For example, the majority of central banks are experimenting with blockchain/distributed-ledger technology:
https://qz.com/1083712/one-in-five-central-banks-say-they-wi...
NASA is researching using blockchain technology for spacecraft navigation:
https://www.uakron.edu/engineering/ECE/news-detail.dot?newsI...
Third parties have historically been pretty good at sussing out consensus from the two. Judicial systems, market exchanges, etc.
When you pay a middleman, you are literally paying for Trust-as-a-Service, among other things (brokerage, etc).
Blockchain also costs money to build and maintain as a service, but it's probably the fact that the enormous cost is socialized that makes it an easy pill for many to swallow.
And court cases are even more expensive.
Um, there is still a middleman taking a cut with Satoshi's Glorious Blockchain. It's called transaction fees and they go to the miners who piss away small countries worth of electricity in order to validate a pathetically small number of transactions. You didn't think proof of work was free, right?
We're talking about private, permissioned blockchains.
With a SQL database, this is not an issue because SQL transactions can have constraints preventing said double spend.That is to say, the SQL database can take a lock on the row and ensure no other concurrent transaction modifies it in parallel.
Consensus solves a problem that only exists in a decentralized system.
Since SQL databases are centralized, that problem doesn't exist. Even for multi-master / distributed SQL variants, there's typically a way to wait for a write to commit across N nodes before going on, which solves the problem much more easily.
In short, I think your question makes no sense.
