Not sure why this was flagged. It seems a pretty well-thought out, non-troll argument even if you don't agree.<p>Personally I think that bitcoin-style blockchains are pretty useless outside of some very specific cases. Consensus between parties that don't trust each other is pretty much what our entire system of banks, governments, and lawyers (when things go wrong) was created to deal with. Replacing all that with an simplistic algorithm is the worse case of Engineers Disease.<p>I know that a some people have made a lot of money from bitcoin - good luck to them. And bitcoin does have some value if you want to move value around without those pesky government controls. But I don't see how the whole system will not just fade away once the smart people have extracted all the money from the suckers.<p>But I don't have any bitcoin, feel free to ascribe this comment to sour grapes.
This reminds of an article from a few months ago:<p>>Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain<p><a href="https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100" rel="nofollow">https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-...</a><p>Blockchain technology seems to be the ultimate case of a solution in search of a problem. I'm sure there are some niches where it maybe useful, but the hype around it is so absurd it borders on the religious. How often do you see comments here, for example, professing faith in its glorious, inevitable future? It's sometimes like talking to a fervent Christian about the Kingdom of Heaven that will come when Jesus returns.
Blockchain's primary utility is in creating what initially was a complicated way to allow people to convert money into another currency that was easy to transfer around the world and use in ways that people would not want to use real fiat currency for. Without that utility, the whole thing would be a boring article somebody wrote back in 2008. Without the obfuscation of blockchain and mining and distributed ledger and all that, if people in china said "hey I want to convert my RMB into something called magic money that allows me to move 1 billion RMB into another country", the government would block them. But when they did it with bitcoin nobody initially freaked out because they were confused.. so eventually blockchain will be improved and as it improves it will become more centralized, more reliable, and less anonymous.. no big surprise this has happened many times before in the various era's of the internet...
The author should consider replacing "blockchain" with "Bitcoin" in their title. They spend the entire time talking about Bitcoin and do not make mention of any of the (many) alt coins that are attempting to solve various subsets of the problems they present.<p>None of their criticisms of Bitcoin are novel.
Blockchains are very inefficient if the ledger can be controlled by trusted sources. Git for example is far more efficient at managing local copies of object state and history. Most organizations have no use for trustless data structures, so I would agree that blockchains have limited use outside of pure p2p anonymous networks.
"I just don’t know when the bubble will pop."<p>I've been wondering this as well. Surely someone must have a rough idea when Bitcoin will tank.<p>I mean like a Big Short-style idea. I understand people are straight <i>pumped</i> about bitcoin but I don't care about those people; I want to know when Bitcoin will pop.<p>There must be someway to figure this out.
The article just seems to be willfully ignorant. Blockchain has already proven itself useful to the millions of people who have bought things off of darknet markets. He tries to make the argument that the ability to fork the protocol is essentially the same as having a centralized third party control the protocol which is just astoundingly wrong.<p>He basically completely ignores the idea of a blockchain as a way for non-trusting parties to quickly and easily agree on truth but then makes the argument that since the <i>smart</i> tech companies AMZN, FB, and GOOG aren't offering blockchain services, that the technology must not actually have any real use cases, another ridiculous point.
> A company’s stance on blockchain can also serve as a test of a company’s management. In my view, companies pushing blockchain technology (e.g. IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle) are disconnected from customers’ actual needs and have mediocre management. Companies that don’t talk about blockchain (e.g. Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple) are more likely to produce sensible technology that will work in the real world.<p>And yet, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and Intel are solving their customers’ needs on a daily basis. Could it be that blockchain tech is in its infancy like the Altair was at Xerox PARC?<p>I’m not sure what repulsed me more: the author’s smug attitude, or the trash design of his blog riddled with ads.
I don't agree that distributed ledgers are a bad idea, though ones that can be controlled by large amounts of computing power might be. In general, though, something that doesn't rely on central trust to accurately record something seems like a really good idea, to me. I'm more interested in applications in civics such as voting, though. I don't know whether blockchain is the best solution because AFAIK it would be difficult to anonymize individuals, but if a workable solution could be made this could renew public trust in historically corrupt institutions around the world, and steel other ones against becoming corrupt.
Anyone who has to deal with UCC1 filings at the State & County level can point to a blockchain use case that is a killer app. I've approached a few of the ICO's on this use-case without interest.
I am sure there will be people who will comment about how bitcoin =! blockchain. This is one of the biggest issue in cryptocurrency space. There is no branding. I think someone might start a coin called Block Chain or blockChain just to muddy waters.<p>Still it will be interesting to see a survey - Maybe Coinbase can run it on their platform on what a novice cryptocurrency investor thinks blockchain means. Is it a coin or bitcoin or technology?<p>I also find the betting against cryptocurrencies using AMD a fascinating hypothesis. Any traders on this forum have insights on this?
Blockchain tech is more than just Bitcoin.<p>To ignore that at this stage in the game makes me think the author is a trader looking at the tech from an investment perspective.
on the same page with banks faking Libor, his main argument is governments can ban banks working with bitcoin and everything is dead in the water, first of all, a global enforcement of it must be done, seconds there are even constitutional rights here at play, and you can buypass banks all together, and in Japan is legal tender.<p>If bitcoin can challenge banks & money printing machines even a little then it kind of achieves its goal, and I think is happening already otherwise you won't see so much bad press, don't tell me bankers are just trying to inform, they are really worried about me losing money speculating on bitcoin, they didn't cared when they crashed the economy in 2008, also I saw a news story the other day, the poland central bank or so, paid 30k euros to a famous local youtuber to trash bitcoin.
> Disclosure: I am short a company (not mentioned in this article) that hypes its ‘blockchain’ solutions. Short AMD. Long FB and GOOGL.<p>Is the author short Riot Blockchain? Because that's an easy one to short. Maybe Long Blockchain Corp? Kodak?
For those who didn't make it to the bottom, the author is short on AMD's stock. AMD stands to benefit from the activity of crypto currency mining.