From what I see in discussions about blockchain hype, blockchain is conflated with cryptocurrency by largely ignorant opinions on the Internet.
I concede this:
It's true that a blockchain is just an distributed immutable series of transactions, aka a slower database. I agree that that's overhyped and people don't need things like IBM Hyperledger, and basically any private blockchain or one that depends on trusted parties(the great majority of coins that boast to be faster than Bitcoin).
However, I believe all that misses the actual point and proves the ignorance of most such articles, because it is also true that cryptocurrencies solve the previously unsolved double spending problem and provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making. Of course, from this I exclude the great majority of centralized shitcoin cash grabs / delusions.
Yes, there are scaling issues which might never be surmounted (I'd call it 50-50 that things like Lightning Network / Ethereum sharding will succeed One Day™). However, having an open, open source global payment/calculation/information network is a thing of great potential.
From the very outset, it's explicit that the system is designed such that network security and correct-operation-as-designed was based on making that behavior optimal for those with the most to lose.
In other words, miners make the most money when they operate the network as designed. Potentially malicious actors get less return behaving maliciously than they do otherwise. It's simple, dumb, brutal, and effective.
What's important is that the design of the system allows anyone with an internet connection to participate, and is in that sense open to all.
BTW, ownership of currency literally doesn't matter in a proof-of-work currency (other than the ability to affect trading price). Only in proof-of-stake systems is that a possibility, and it may be possible, through careful design, to avoid that.
In the way that they are forkable and sufficiently large groups of people (because a very small number has little effect) breaking away, or just having that ability, can:
- disincentivize those participating in network decisions from making them in bad faith
- ditch the bad/evil network and form their own (and if they wish and can agree upon it, punish evil participants by not giving them equal money on the forked network which would theoretically become the main one in time)
I used to believe in this before the Ethereum DAO thing happened, which made me realize: cryptocurrencies sell themselves on "decentralization" yet by the nature of the technology, anyone with access to sufficient resources can gain control of the system. There's nothing to stop this from happening at any point in the future of any cryptocurrency... and it's insane to think that any sort of currency that needs to be forked repeatedly and without warning will catch on with normal users. I'm no cryptocurrency hater or anything and the idea appeals to me at a deep level but I have a hard time seeing the tech as it currently exists working in practice in human society.
I think the instability of the past (contentious forks, DAO, anything else) are growing pains, but with enough time I believe it's possible that we as a sort of hive mind will settle on something more permanent and stable because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network.
>because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network
It will always be in someone's interest to attempt to take control of a network, thus eventually causing opposition interest to fork the network, thus continued fragmentation and impenetrability w.r.t. normal users
Basically, how do you solve the "government and/or private individual/group with enough wealth and/or access to resources can take control of a cryptocurrency by acquiring majority consensus" problem?
In proof of stake, that could be a problem (though there are mechanisms people claim can handle it). But in a proof of work currency, having majority consensus would mean they'd have to have the majority of miners - and even then they have to follow the rules because users' nodes will just reject invalid blocks. And in the worst of cases, people can fork away, and if they change the PoW algorithm while doing so - they'll also render the malicious actor's ASICs useless.
I'm not saying this is fool proof, but the innovation of Bitcoin is precisely the system which is designed to resist these things (again, it's still very hard).
> provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making
It's proven it can do all of these things except that it can be used as a "medium of exchange". It doesn't mean it's not possible, it just hasn't proven it yet. All crypto has proven is that we can create a digital version of bullion, that doesn't have all of the same issues as trying to barter bullion.
I do believe it can be used as a medium of exchange right now. However, yes, it is very limited due to current price instability and lack of global scaling. The jury is still out on whether that'll change.
Fair enough on the phrasing, but when I say "I believe", I mean to say that I reason that isthe truth but like to try to remain modest and not throw around very bold claims.
Anyways, solely by the fact that some people use it as a means of an exchange - Bitcoin is a viable medium of exchange.
Is it perfect? Is it great (considering current legal realities etc.)? Can it be used by everyone on the globe? Currently the answer to all three is "no", but it has a non-negligible chance to improve in all these aspects.
What do you need to see to consider lightning network a "success"? It's already running on mainnet, me and my friends have a lightning node. Much different than sharding which is not yet implemented (like all of ethereums big promises)
I'd like more time to pass in order to see what shape (graph-wise) the network will take, and how realistic running your own personal node will be 10-30 years from now (provided Bitcoin and LN remain viable).
I like the concept of LN, but I am unsure what kind of on/off-ramp fees (I am only worried if it's in the thousands of dollars or more) people might have to pay in order to increase the funds of their node - and more importantly open/close channels (because services for topping up will surely be much cheaper than opening/closing channels). I'm not worried about that now, but in the future once a large percentage of the world might be using it as their primary financial interface.
And lastly, a big concern for me is the legal situation of crypto and LN (LN separate because it's much more anonymous). While technically nobody can stop you from using LN, it would be much better if I could run my node and use it for the majority of my financial activity(including receiving salary).
If I've said something reminiscent of concern trolls, please note that I think that Bitcoin still has the greatest potential (over Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum).
P.S.
I'd also like to know when we'll have a user-friendly, relatively bug-free (will never lose money) app for using LN. Or have I missed that?
> unsolved double spending problem and provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making
This seems to be the fundamental piece of Bitcoin dogma that still gives a modicum of hope to Blockchain enthusiasts. Let me try to get the record straight:
Firstly, “Bitcoin” is not tied to any blockchain by the laws of physics. Some people call the BTC blockchain “Bitcoin”, some people call the BCH blockchain “Bitcoin”, and some people call the sum of both UTXO sets “Bitcoin”. Some even call the set of all forks that originate from Satoshi’s genesis block “Bitcoin”. To wit, there is no set-in-stone definition of which blockchain is “Bitcoin” in the event of a fork. Some think it’s “most POW”, others say that’s not true because users can change the POW algo to escape from centralized miner takeover. The latter camp will argue that the fork that the economic majority call “Bitcoin” is Bitcoin. Some will say Bitcoin must use SHA256, others will disagree. Some say that the 21M supply cap is a defining characteristic of Bitcoin, others will say that if the majority of the network wants to change it to 22M, then that’s the new Bitcoin. So I think it’s clear at this point that Bitcoin is not tied to any one blockchain and is actually determined by social consensus.
Here’s a thought exercise: Say exactly half of the investors think a hard fork should be done to make Bitcoin fungible and anonymous (like Monero), but the other half disagrees. If such a fork happens, there is a social struggle to establish consensus on which fork is “Bitcoin”. It is impossible to accurately measure which side is “winning”. Maybe you can do Twitter polls to ask people which blockchain they think is Bitcoin, but we all know that such surveys can be trivially manipulated. So there is no robust way to mathematically determine which blockchain is Bitcoin. You may believe “BTC-Fungible” is Bitcoin but you have to understand that someone else, or the majority of the market even, may disagree with you and believe that “BTC-Non-Fungible” is Bitcoin.
A historical example: In 2013, due to a bug, there were 2 Bitcoin blockchains: the v0.8 blockchain and the v0.7 blockchain. For the time during which the 24 forked blocks were being mined in parallel, which blockchain was Bitcoin? The most reasonable answer is “both” but admittedly it’s not clear. Others would say it was v0.8 because it had more hash rate? But then Bitcoin just rolled back after 24 blocks mined? That doesn’t sound very immutable...
Anyway, this is where double-spending comes in. When the fork was happening, double spends could be done easily without having to be or work with a miner. Just send the merchant Bitcoin on the v0.8 fork. Luke DashJr could have easily done this since he’s the one that called for that chain to be dropped. Then, when the social consensus resolves on v0.7 being Bitcoin, it’s too late (24 blocks): the merchant already accepted your v0.8 tokens and you’re free to spend them again somewhere else on the v0.7 chain.
In conclusion, proof-of-work consensus does not rule Bitcoin, social consensus does. Double-spends are easy to understand when you talk about Bitcoin as being a God-given or set-in-stone ruleset. However, the rules of Bitcoin are in constant flux, determined by the market. This makes double-spends a social problem, not one resolved by code.
People have been writing about consensus since the very beginning of Bitcoin, and long before that. These are not new ideas, at least not to anyone paying the slightest attention to cryptocurrency development. It's just about all Vitalik writes about now, and is the motivation for essential designs like Ethereum's ICE AGE.
Social consensus, however, doesn't affect the standard 'malicious' double-spend cheat. You're not going to get social consensus forming around an obvious 'criminal' behavior. It's only going to happen around political issues like network governance/rules (like the DAO), technical bugs (like BTC forks), or global political issues (Satoshi Dice blacklist?).
Considering this a criticism of cryptocurrencies is inane. We're all just apes shouting at each other about value. We can just as easily blacklist or boycott each other outside of any kind of value-information network to achieve the same effect; recognizing that this behavior can become part of the network is trivial.
Social/political elements will always be the ultimately arbiter precisely because human assessments of value aren't physical or mathematical realities. This is overwhelmingly obvious when stated explicitly, but for whatever reason this is seen as some sort of 'gotcha!'
Bitcoin still achieves an entirely novel way for humans to communicate information about value. It is still qualitatively different from anything that has come before precisely because it is reliably a consensus mechanism. Nakamoto consensus is the innovation, yet many do not understand this consensus.
> Social consensus, however, doesn't affect the standard 'malicious' double-spend cheat. You're not going to get social consensus forming around an obvious 'criminal' behavior.
You haven’t refuted my point with any evidence. I’ve shown how one could spend a digital token twice by taking advantage of weak social consensus (see my Luke DashJr example). This attack bypasses Nakamoto consensus. You don’t need any hashrate or material wealth to pull this off, you just need social capital... or a wrench https://xkcd.com/538/
This is a very good comment. I'll think about this and edit this comment when I can. Sorry, not trying to cop out.
Hopefully I can sort some stuff out for myself too while responding to this. I'm not trying to overstate my knowledge on the subject (it's hard to understate it), just trying to reason this out for myself due to the fact that it's hard to find credible argumentation online.
To my knowledge, not without a centralized arbiter which can then be evil, stupid, or taken over/destroyed by bad actors. Please correct me if I have the wrong info.
For those on the "you don't need a blockchain hype train." I suggest your write a dApp, and see how easy it is to connect to a highly fault tolerant function as a service that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to access other contracts deployed by others. There is a lot more to blockchain than what is discussed in this article.
The storage of information that no one owns for one. Further on chains like Ethereum's one can build a contract based on a contract built by another party. Further using the data in that contract in new and novel ways. So lets say I build an app lets say for simplicity sake, I build a game and expose all the mechanics as a contract but I absolutely hate swords. So I will not implement swords in my contract. You are free to come along and build a contract that extends my contract and adds swords to it. My contract is still 100% whole and unmodified but you are able to get what you want.
From a more practical aspect I see great value in, non-corporate owned data. For example medical records. If everyone had a contract where they can provide their key to their medical providers so that they can add diagnostics, x-rays etc. and then only individuals you grant access to can read said records you would have a nice solution to open but secure medical records. Without a central authority or corporation owning and having control of that data. an open credit report would be another good one. Social networks not owned by Facebook and where anyone can build apps ontop of said data would be another.
It's not a fix all as companies are pitching it based on the buzz but anywhere where open data that needs to be secured and would better off if it where not owned by an organization, block-chain is a great solution. Sure there are speed issue with it right now. But assuming that, the speed issue is addressed I see a lot of uses for it.
> My contract is still 100% whole and unmodified but you are able to get what you want.
So, a VCS fork? We had that for a while.
> medical records
All you're describing is an online folder with a standard API to which you upload encrypted files. The point of the blockchain and friends is to achieve consensus. It brings absolutely nothing new to that use case. It's only worse, since it relies only on encryption to protect extremely sensitive data. Do you want all your records open in twenty years when someone breaks whatever algorithm used back then?
Some kind of electronic notary:
Some kind of hash that verifies something hasn't been tampered with which is signed by multiple parties which keeps adding transaction on top of transaction making it costly and costly to change the hash.
No one is denying the use for it, it's just that it's literally not actually being used yet. Again, I'm waiting for someone to provide an answer to it actually being used, not "it could be used here".
There are ways of making smart contracts upgradeable. The code is immutable, but it can also say "if x has been toggled, point to this newly uploaded contract instead."
Let's assume that you set that up properly, so that the toggle is flipped only when a particular signed update tells it the address of the replacement contract. Yay!
Please put ether into this contract, it will benefit all participants.
Later: upload new contract, flip the toggle: all your ether belongs to me. Thanks!
The hype around "you don't need a blockchain" is reaching a fever pitch as well. Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases.
There are a few good points made, many business scenarios would be fine with a centralized database.
However, the content is highly opinionated and shows a lack of understanding regarding to crypto transactions and block generation, for example.
> many cryptocurrencies rely on trusted third parties to handle payouts. So, they use blockchain to generate coins, but don’t use blockchain to handle payouts. Because of the issues involved around trust. Let that sink in for a moment.]
> Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity. So, if that sounds like you, then yes, you should consider using blockchain.
Oh my, this is soo opinionated and short sighted, it starts with complete rubbish, pointless read I guess.
> Or, if you’re running a large logistics company with one or more supply chains made up of many different vendors, and need to identify, track, trace, or source the items in the supply chain, then blockchain may be the solution for you as well.
Can someone explain to me why. You need a block chain for this? Why not just an evented database with a signature field and periodic hashes?
A blockchain doesn't handle the supply chain problem very well because supply chains + blockchains suffer from the oracle problem. Blockchains don't know anything about information outside of their chain and need a trusted 3rd party - an oracle - to tell them about it.
Imagine you want to track eggs through the supply chain from farm to table. Ultimately the trust of your system is rooted in the farmer and various other organizations that are updating the state of these eggs in the chain. If they make up fake data, the system isn't trustworthy.
Typically the solution for this is to only let trusted players into the system and have some sort of organization - perhaps the government - that vets users of the system and penalizes those that enter fake data. In this case, the trust of your blockchain-egg-supply-chain-tracking system is rooted in the organization accrediting and inspecting users of the system. If that's the case, you're better off trusting that organization to run a traditional database. You shouldn't use a blockchain.
This is akin to the ISO-9000/9001 problem where you can produce a very shitty product, but it's an exceptionally well documented shitty product if you ignore the corrective action side of the equation.
> Can someone explain to me why. You need a block chain for this?
We have been using analogues of the system described for literally centuries. A titles office is very like a block chain. Rather than currency being transferred between people, it's titles to land or buildings. Individuals do transactions by creating a transfer and giving it to the titles office to be blessed. The transfer is worth nothing until the titles office puts it's stamp on it. The titles office function is to create an immutable, consistent chain of ownership.
The formal name for the software equivalent is a "permissioned block chain". There is nothing particularly special about it - if you gave the problem to a bunch of 4th Uni Students, this is what you would expect to come back. The term "block chain" looks to be a marketing grab to me. I don't think it really applies - the only thing they have in common with crypto currencies is they record a chain of ownership. Crypto currencies have blocks so they can spread the high cost of proof or work over many transactions but there is no expensive proof of work in permissioned block chains, so they don't need blocks either.
All that aside, given we have been using these manual systems for centuries I don't think there is much doubt automating them with electronic equivalents would be result in something that is both faster and less costly. But whether it's a good idea for logistics chains is debatable. One thing the titles office and crypto currencies necessarily have in common is there there isn't a lot of "new stuff" entering the system - they are tracking existing stuff (the titles or currency), which they can easily verify by just checking the person authorising the transaction is the person recorded as the current owner by the chain. When new stuff does enter the system it is very tightly controlled. Crypto currency does it via mining. Titles are usually created by acts of parliament releasing land.
In these logistics systems new stuff is continually entering the system, and some separate external system has to vouch it is in fact a tray of A grade fruit or whatever. But I sure whoever is fogging their existing permissioned block chain implementation is telling every customer with a vaguely similar system it is a near perfect fit.
How would you prevent a rogue developer from updating/deleting events? Even if you could tell from the hashes that something changed, you would lose whatever data the dev changed. Backups can help mitigate this, but not until after the fact.
Have database replicas that only listen to INSERT statements (easy to implement in My/Maria SQL with BEFORE triggers), and design the software that works with the DB as append-only.
The same way American Express, Visa, the Automated Clearing House and your bank prevent rogue developers from updating/deleting your money: With internal security processes, threat of termination and ultimately the legal system.
Not necessarily. Think of git. Git is not a blockchain. If a rogue developer deletes code and/or rewrites history and forces a push, I will know and can undo that rather easily.
Amusingly, that's because git is a merkle tree, which is one of the core building blocks (ha!) of a "blockchain" as it's used by "blockchain" enthusiasts.
Ability to create tokens and make money out of it has created a lot of unnecessary hype. Blockchain has its use-cases, but not as many as some want it to have.
I think Blockchain technology as distributed immutable ledger is a very nice data structure for a lot of real world use cases (supply chain, market place, contracts,..). Sure it's also a huge hype thanks to crypto currencies, icos, etc. but the technology fulfills a need. However, I see more advantages in using private quorums leveraging proof of authority instead of public networks of untrusted nodes. I understand that not everyone might be ok with this tradeoff.
Distributed immutable logs of data existed long before the Blockchain (as someone pointed out, Git is a good example - just sign your commits). The innovation of the Blockchain was specifically the combination of that with the POW, which enabled coordination between untrusted nodes without falling prey to Sybil attacks.
A private blockchain is just giving another name to a preexisting model. It's like saying "I use a pedelec, but I see more advantages in removing the motor and battery".
This article is a clever strawman. Their technical definition of blockchain is accurate, but there is one detail missing which changes everything. Most "blockchain solutions" use smart contracts, which make heavy use of data validation.
So I'd review that checklist again, but this time without the need for all parties to trust each other. Yeah, that's a pretty significant difference.
It's easy to find valid arguments to support the idea that blockchains are overhyped. But I get the impression that the author's understanding of the subject is outdated. Did the author even bother to do any research on why there was a bubble? It would not have taken more than minutes to stumble across the definition of a smart contract.
> Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!
Did he get this wrong? Don't blockchain ledgers always get backed up? Isn't the difference being that instead of just backing up to one place and at one specific time like most database setups, blockchain data is backed up with everyone all the time with every transaction? - which is why it can take hours to just updated one record
“allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity.”
Except for the fact that it is kept in a public ledger for eternity.
It’s easier to just nod yes and take money from your management who’s decided they need a blockchain, than spend time burning bridges in explaining why they don’t
As a professional blockchain developer and someone who believes and works towards decentralisation and the economic emancipation of the under-represented, I find this type of article very sad.
The author probably buys his drugs in a store like most people do, but he fixates on the payment technology that can allow other to buy them semi-anonymously and securely in the privacy of their own homes, while ignoring TCP/IP or PHP or whatever browser that needs to be used in the same transaction.
This seems like an agenda but experience has thought me that I shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. On the topic of what a blockchain is and what it enables, Thomas is ignorant but also incredibly unaware of his own privilege.
I need a public, decentralised blockchain, smart-contracts and cryptoeconomics to bootstrap digital economies that don't rely on advertising or selling user's data. I also need them to help bring electric power, clean water and food to people that don't buy drugs online with the tokens I create. You know why? Because they are too busy trying to survive failed nation-states.
Thomas, if you read this, please consider that your opinion is your own and you do have the right to express it anyway you want but for now the only thing you've accomplished is that I will stop using and advising Solarwinds to my customers.
Sounds like another example of the politician's fallacy. Yes, people need those thing, but one can recognize that while still disagreeing that the blockchain will in any significant way help with that. And that kind of argument - "either you're with me or you hate poor people in failed nation-states!" - is just emotional manipulation.
I might feel more emotional about this because I'm involved right?
From my perspective, I'm not appealing to your feelings, I'm telling you that buying drugs is a very small portion of what makes cryptocurrencies relevant and blockchain based commerce a necessity.
I was just at a talk where Steward Brand, a man known for the Whole Earth Catalog, the Hackers Conferences, the Mother of all Demos as well as the Trips festival (early SF psy-scene) was showing incredible vitality and enthusiasm about what the Ethereum community is accomplishing right now.
Before that, there was this fantastic presentation by Glen Weyl from Radical Markets fame who has a vision for empowering under-privileged and under-represented that relies on blockchain. His work with Vitalik Buterin and others (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656) on Liberal Radicalism is a step forward towards funding of commons and allowing communities to self-organise.
At no point during the last 5 days did I hear one person at this conference mention buying drugs with cryptos.
What happens when blockchain "databases" grow to multiple terrabytes or petabytes? This presents a huge barrier to spinning up a new validation (mining) node. Are there plans for sharding blockchains?
Bitcoin for example (and many others), will prune old blocks that are no longer required to make transactions on the network. If a block has all unspent inputs used up, the block will be pruned
That is a logical solution for Bitcoin. Doesn't Etherium track transactions back to the beginning of time though? That sounds like a Shlemiel The Painter problem.
Whilst I agree with the general statement of this article, it seems the author doesnt understand that there are different kinds of "blockchain" than that used by bitcoin
It would make it possible to trust the academic credentials presented by foreign applicants. Currently this process is very cumbersome. Some unversities require applicants to submit notarized transcripts to thirdparty for verification. The process is long and painful. And if the applicant wants to apply in multiple Universities, then they have to get multiple notarized copies of their transcripts. And if they want to apply for post grad , they have to repeat the process for getting notarized transcripts.
First issue with the post: "Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity."
Let's see, there's this thing called _cash_ and you don't need an id to buy drugs with it as well. Weapons can be purchased easily with it. Hits can be put out on people with it. Basically, anything bad in the world anyone would want to do that requires a payment, can be done with cash. The biggest 'offender' in this - the US dollar.
Next: "Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!"
Bullshit - in regard to backing up. Of course it doesn't need to be 'backed up'. It exists in its entirety across the globe, replicated on many thousands of machines, in many different countries. Hmmm, sounds like 'big replication' problem solved. (Marc Andreessen likes it anyway: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/)
The fact is, it is amazing because it's been running like this for over a decade now with NO HACKS, no data breaches, no hiding of anything based on this scandal or the next. No one company owns it. No one government owns it. And it's worth billions of dollars (meh). It does sound amazing to me.
"Blockchain should make your system more trustworthy, but it does the opposite. Blockchain pushes the burden of trust onto individuals adding transactions to the blockchain. This is how all distributed systems work. The burden of trust goes from a central entity to all participants. And this is the inherent problem with blockchain."
Snooze, bullshit... It is a FACT nowadays that the centralization of the internet has been bad for it. Even the inventor of it has come out against it. Putting trust in a third party is never a good idea in my mind. Strong encryption exists and it empowers the individual to USE IT. When I make a bitcoin transaction, I sign that transaction as valid. Me. I don't need a bank or a government or any other third party to make this happen. This is lost on many people, but having the freedom to transact securely and encrypt YOUR data is about as important of a concept as there can be nowadays. There are many government and corporate entities that do not want you to have this capability (I'm looking at you 'Senator' Feinstein..). You may have to trust Apple to provide 'secure' environments to run your/others apps, but they are not working in your interests and will change course as soon as it suits their profits.
Anyway, this is a stupid article, to be blunt. It's from someone who is rallying against the marketing of blockchain and instead of taking on those messages/issues/marketing directly, he falls into the same trap as the rest of the naysayers.
If you talk to a _real_ blockchain/crypto developer/advocate, they will probably tell you this: "if you want to make a immutable, open, distributed transactional database that isn't blindingly fast, then using a blockchain that has cryptographically signed transactions might be a good idea.". Ethereum has taken this a step further with smart contracts, which, have more or less worked.
But NO ONE I know or talk to on a day to day is saying use a blockchain for your app database needs. And anyone who does, does not know what they are talking about and should probably be fired from any development position they hold.
What is happening right now in this space is the smart people have their heads down and are cranking on the next generation of tech that everyone will be using in 5-10 years. The smart investors see this as well and are all positioning themselves as we speak. I personally stopped working on _legacy_ tech last year and am 100% exclusive on crypto and blockchain products.
I have already seen this movie before twice: the first episode was called the web, the second was called mobile. So, hate if you will but it won't change anything. The early adopter wave is at the end and we'll see more mass adoption in the coming years. Good luck!
TLDR; stupid article, known inaccuracies, known typical trolling content. Move along..
I concede this: It's true that a blockchain is just an distributed immutable series of transactions, aka a slower database. I agree that that's overhyped and people don't need things like IBM Hyperledger, and basically any private blockchain or one that depends on trusted parties(the great majority of coins that boast to be faster than Bitcoin).
However, I believe all that misses the actual point and proves the ignorance of most such articles, because it is also true that cryptocurrencies solve the previously unsolved double spending problem and provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making. Of course, from this I exclude the great majority of centralized shitcoin cash grabs / delusions.
Yes, there are scaling issues which might never be surmounted (I'd call it 50-50 that things like Lightning Network / Ethereum sharding will succeed One Day™). However, having an open, open source global payment/calculation/information network is a thing of great potential.