Vaporware turns out to be vapor. Shocking.
trackerware corporations couldn’t maintain their monetization stranglehold
Blockchain is just a ledger. Most systems don’t need a ledger, they need a database. It was a solution looking for a problem in most cases and the marketing/business types don’t listen to the engineers if the engineers are even in the room.
it does still hold value, but the value is super niche and generally shouldn’t be exposed to the user… it’s an implementation detail
If I understood it correctly, the main problem it can solve is lack of trust. If the involved parties can’t find a single authority to trust, they can use a blockchain instead.
Finding cases like that is a bit tricky. For example, you trust your ISP, your bank, maybe even your government… to some extent… They’re not your best friend, nor do they have to be. You can still trust them enough to take care of certain jobs. You pay your ISP via bank transfer, and they provide the service you signed up for. As long as there’s just enough trust, the system still works and there’s no need to use a blockchain.
Same goes for banks. Most people trust that the bank isn’t going to run away with your money. As long as that trust exists, there’s no need to use a blockchain.
that’s absolutely the main thing yup… in almost every circumstance where people implement blockchain, a trusted entity is involved so there’s no point to the blockchain
almost always there’s a single entity issuing a thing, and then that same entity also consuming that thing
we are absolutely right now in the trough of disillusionment with blockchain (well, among people who actually understand anything at all - as usual let’s not count trump and his base as rational actors), and at some point there will be useful solutions remain
(and side note too, we’re in the peak of inflated expectations with AI… i can not wait for that crash and to be left only with useful things)
Turned out that those in control of the tech could control the tech, so contrary to the hype nothing was free, decentralized and scalable. Never.
Not an expert, but IMO, it’s because it was misused. Cryptocurrency is just one application of blockchain technology, but people equated blockchain to crypto, and crypto was turned into an investment scheme instead of an actual currency. Then came NFTs, which people turned into rugpull scams. And news of the volatility of cryptocurrency and all those NFT scams drove away any chance of regular people adopting anything blockchain-related.
misused
Give me an example of a real world problem that was either unsolved before blockchain solved it, or blockchain solves it better than existing alternatives.
I’ll go ahead and save you “decentralized currency/finance between untrustworthy entities” (i.e. cryptocurrency) because it doesn’t actually (and can’t actually) solve that in the real world. Humans are too error-prone, and an immutable ledger presents too high a risk for business-ending mistakes for any business with any alternative options to adopt it for their primary revenue pathway.
Give me an example of a real world problem that was either unsolved before blockchain solved it, or blockchain solves it better than existing alternatives.
International online payment without a company telling you that your legal adult entertainment is morally wrong
Did blockchain solve it? Is blockchain actually pragmatically solving that problem better than existing alternatives? Or is the cost of adopting a blockchain payment system as the primary payment system, with all the risks inherent in it, higher than the benefits when compared to alternatives?
No alternatives existed or exist. You asked for a use case
Would be great if it did, but it doesn’t. I’m also not talking about using it as a primary payment system
If we take that example to be true there are still issues with it. Just look at any of a dozen stories of people who had millions in crypto currency stolen from them. The police and feds will just sort of go “us not being able to do anything about it was the point.”
Like I said, not an expert. Also, regardless if it’s a revolutionary solution to something or not, it doesn’t negate the point that it was made to be used for something, but it’s being indirectly used for something else instead.
i’ll give it a crack
in australia, we have various credentials provided by the government to attest to a persons fitness to work with children (i’ll just refer to these in bulk from now on as WWCC: working with children checks). there are many of these - one per state for individuals, plus teacher’s accreditations per state, and a few more. they’re ongoing certifications, so can be revoked if anything happens
it’s a legal requirement for businesses who engage in activities involving kids to ensure anyone they employ - including volunteers - is appropriately vetted
needless to say, this gets quite complex for national organisations!
i was the engineering lead for a startup that organisations could add their workforce into the system, with the credentials, and the system checked periodically to check that everyone’s credentials are valid, about to expire, etc and notify people if something goes awry
of course, that doesn’t need blockchain BUT
in cases of child sexual abuse, things tend to only come out after 30+ years on average (according to the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse). organisations need to be able to prove that they were doing everything they possibly could to protect the kids under their care. 30 years on that’s no small task! our company might not even exist in 30 years!
along with our automated checks, we also published an event to the eth blockchain: a hash of the card details as an index (ie if you know the card details, you can look up all instances of validation), and a hash that proves the check took place
what’s that hash? well, i won’t get too into the weeds but essentially we push a payload to IPFS which contains:
- a link to a kind of “template” of an HTTP archive for a typical request to the validation service
- a diff that allows you to reconstruct the HTTP archive of this instance of the request given the original template
- various pieces of the HTTPS handshake with the validation service that allow you to essentially validate after the fact that the content of the HTTP archive was exactly what the validation service sent at the time - HTTPS is essentially signed information after all, so we have a chunk of HTML attesting to the validity of a card that’s been signed by the government! cryptographic proof - not just “take my word for it”
we also published a page on IPFS that allows people to enter card details and load all this information and produce all the technical details to prove what happened (we also had plans for some kind of hardware pack with pinned versions of things because browsers and technology change)
you might be able to do this by relying on the date header that the server sends, but to be really sure, writing the hashes to the blockchain proves that the event given happened at a very specific time and date
blockchain shouldn’t be big and flashy: it’s a very niche use-case, but for those niches there’s really nothing like it
The money behind the hype went into “AI” instead
I’ve also heard the theory before that even GPUs went pretty much straight from mining cryptocurrencies to then be used for training LLM models.
AI became the new buzzword
So whenever there’s a new tech innovation, there are two instances of it.
The first is the actual tech innovation, that often finds a specific use in a few industries, then just becomes part of how things are.
The second is the venture capitalist innovation. It has nothing to do with the technical stuff (as long as the tech is complex enough to impress the average 5th grader). It’s more a concept or an idea, and a lot of big promises of unending potential. And as soon as the potential is there, stock prices go up. And that’s the only point.
The second one blows up big, then deflates quietly when the next thing takes everyone’s attention away. The actual tech innovation usually just finds its niche and quietly chugs away.
Any time anybody talks about a “tech revolution” or some similar word vomit, they’re presenting the second thing. Currently we’re on “AI” (i.e. LLMs), which will become a niche novelty when the next big thing comes along (I give it a few more years).
Currently we’re on “AI” (i.e. LLMs), which will become a niche novelty when the next big thing comes along (I give it a few more years).
I think llms are overhyped. But at the same time, their two main uses are “better google” and porn, both of which I would hardly describe as “niche”.
They’re here to stay. But things are ridiculous with every chat app adding AI companions or jetpack for wordpress begging me to generate an AI image
From what I’ve heard, the biggest problem is the inputs. You can write a ‘smart’ contract that says ‘if I get a pizza, user9000005 pays user30000004 XXX bitcoins’ but there’s no direct sensor for ‘user9000005 has a pizza.’ Someone has to manually put it in. At that point, it’s not automated. It’s just a payment processor with way less certainty, so why bother?
Yeah, there’s this whole concept of “Oracles”, which were supposed to be trustable sources for facts, but they can mainly deal well with things like stock prices or weather data.
It would also have been possible for these Oracles to employ people to fact-check things in case of a dispute. So, user30000004 might claim that the pizza has been delivered and wants their money for it, while user9000005 says nothing got delivered, so then you have someone physically drive out to user9000005 and see if there’s pizza there or not.
But yeah, you still have the problem that a pizza isn’t hard to hide/eat, so you’d need to do some expensive detective work to try to figure out the truth. And that just isn’t worth the cost…
Why less certainty? It’s more certain and less censorable than any other digital payment method.
It’s harder to doctor, but that’s not really the big worry with a contract. Contract disputes are usually more along the lines of ‘he didn’t pay me’ or ‘she didn’t deliver the goods.’ It’s much rarer for it to be an ‘I signed a contract that said BLAH, but they forged a contract to say BLAGH and faked my signature on it.’ As for censorship, I’m not sure what you mean. A government would find it difficult to obscure an on-chain contract but that’s also not really an issue. I don’t want to guess what you mean.
You’re thinking on a very narrow definition of a contract, here’s a simple contract example that’s currently being censored and wouldn’t be censorable on Blockchain: Buy NSFW games.
A simple contract could sell you NFTs for game keys that could be redeemed on Steam/Itch/GoG or even the own dev site. So there’s no middleman who could oppose this transaction and say which sort of games can or can’t be sold. This whole thing would be completely automated, secure for every part and non-censorable.
You’re hearing contracts and thinking on paper legal documents, whereas smart contracts usually refer to programs acting on tokens, the code that acts on those tokens is the contract, in the example above the generation and transfer of the tokens would be the contract.
Exhanges can still ban specific users.
So? Just use another exchange, that’s the same as saying paper money is bad because pawn shops might ban specific users.
-
It’s actively transforming global agriculture. While the USA failed to innovate Canada has integrated blockchain into it’s agricultural sector to facilitate unparalleled traceability.
-
Blockchain transactions are painfully slow compared to other payment processers. BTC is only 7 transactions a second. VISA handles 65,000 transactions per second. That’s one of the major reasons we’re not seeing more widespread adoption.
-
Crypto currency isn’t backed by a nation’s GDP; which is effectively the mechanism that gives money value. However USA just passed laws recategorizing crypto issuers as financial institutions; that must comply with regulations such as having a % of their liabilities(crypto) as collateral (Cash). So we shall see where things go.
Crypto currency isn’t backed by a nation’s GDP
Stablecoins? USDT is the most traded crypto globally since 2019.
Well the value of the USD is based on the bond market which is essentially based on USA’s GDP.
I’m not saying stable coins don’t exist. I’m explaining the fundamental valuation difference between crypto and national currencies.
Also traded /= transacted. In the context of OPs question, the existence of stable coins has not pushed the needle on crypto from a trading asset to liquid transactable colloquial currency.
Canada didn’t integrate blockchain into agriculture on a whole. The article you linked was a pilot study.
VISA handles 65,000 transactions per second. That’s one of the major reasons we’re not seeing more widespread adoption.
I thought they were gonna fix that by running a bunch of bar tabs
It’s actively transforming global agriculture. While the USA failed to innovate Canada has integrated blockchain into it’s agricultural sector to facilitate unparalleled traceability.
This example is a nice summary of the issue with block chain. Sure it can be done with block chain.
However, is it really doing it better than SAP or whatever large corporate program used to do it? Is there an ecosystem of thousands of specialised consultant that will tailor a solution for your need? Most managers tends to be conservative with tech, they want a brand they know (Microsoft, SAP) wich can provide a support contract and be sued, and with sales-person wearing a tie. The cryptobros and theirs block chain based startup do not match.
-
AI is the new crypto, crypto still here but its largely used by shady people and conservatives love to invest in a scam, because they play it like its stock, but its easier to understand and less convoluted than a stock, buys, puts,whatever. the threat of CRYPTO has largely faded into background.
Expensive and useless. Decentralization was an illusion and they don’t solve any real problems
Tell that to itch.io and Steam - the latest victims of centralized payments systems.
To my knowlege, unless we completely abandon traditional currency, we still have the same problem. You still need 3rd party payment processors and/or currency exchanges, which have the ability to act as gatekeepers - esspecially since the libertarian markets promoted by crypto tend to end up monopolised eventually.
which have the ability to act as gatekeepers
How do you imagine any crypto-exchange acting as a gatekeeper? You can send your crypto from exchange to whatever address and pay for anything from there. To my knowledge, there are no exchanges that ask you to provide any details about addresses you’re sending your crypto to.
Well, for converting from Crypto to government run currencies, you need some information, be it a mailing address, or a bank account. Ignoring that, I know some systems exist for blocking or limitting transactions between specific wallets (currently mostly used to block known scammers), although I’m not sure of the specifics of that.
But how do you use KYC to gatekeep anything regarding crypto? For example, how the thing which happened to Steam and Itch could happen in crypto world?
An exchange, intermediary, or market manager gets large, then blacklists the wallets or bank accounts of the company? Basically the same thing that happened with traditional currency. To my knowledge, theres nothing preventing that.
What stops the company to maintain a team of people whose work is to register new wallets and accounts on exchanges all day every day? How exchange going to figure out that a certain person’s account is linked to the company? Even if they will hire detectives, what will they do if there is a whole team with rotating people? Also, exchanges don’t ask you to pay taxes or declare where you got money from, that happens after you take money from them to your fiat bank accounts. Also, you can go to another exchange. There are countless exchanges, more than 2, and new ones can open every day (a big difference compared to payment processors, where just 2 basically monopolized the market).
To call it useless is just untrue. There are many possibilities, Crypto is just a black hole eating the hype and funding that would otherwise go into valuable tech
It’s still out there and going amazing!!! Despite the lack of mainstream media coverage, blockchain and smart contacts couldn’t be doing better.
On an unrelated topic, does anyone want to buy some NFTs? I can give you a really good deal. No take-backs, though.
Oh that? It was bullshit just like AI.
The vast majority of it was driven by speculation and outright scams. The few who were genuinely trying to make a currency couldn’t make something competitve with existing systems, as they all ended up with the same problems and then some. Usually, blockchain based systems are very slow, expensive, centralized (in who has control over it), hard to regulate, and insecure. The only real advantage they have, is being harder to modify records for, meaning they’re less private and more traceable, if that can even be considered a plus for currency.
It’s in the same place as those NFTs that sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
