The percentage of people saying blockchain doesn't have a substantial use case, is about the same percentage as there were in the late 70's or early 80's saying the internet didn't have a substantial use case.
Initially, few people thought file transfer over the internet was a substantive use case because the transmission speed was too slow. Then throughput capacity picked up, but people then shifted the argument to something like, "It's good for medium size file transfer, and I guess I can sometimes send this clunky email thing instead of picking up the phone or sending a fax." This process repeats itself, with goalposts ever shifting, until someone talks about the possibility of selling everything over the internet, starting with books, and most think it's nutty, but believe hearing "you've got mail" every morning might get mass adoption.
I'm not sure whether 'blockchain' is a database or a universal computer or a new software primitive. Or whether we can even tell. What I know is that it is at the very least some sort of network infrastructure (in the most abstract sense of the term). Just like with the internet (another network infrastructure), the space of substantial use cases increases as more people and technologies are connected to it.
Could it end up being a dud apart from some random use cases? Emphatically yes. Could it end up being pretty important? Possibly (we don't know).
Ironically, the best evidence I have for being agnostic about the potential of 'blockchain' is the number of educated and non-educated people making wild claims about the benefits of decentralization, etc.
When the telegraph arrived, a substantial mass of people said it would usher in world peace. When the internet arrived, a substantial mass of people made wild claims about breaking us free from corporate power, educating the masses, etc.
> The percentage of people saying blockchain doesn't have a substantial use case, is about the same percentage as there were in the late 70's or early 80's saying the internet didn't have a substantial use case.
Cite some numbers.
Even claiming the Internet is a reasonable comparison is a leap you haven't justified.
Why is it comparable to, ooh, let's just pick a completely random example, this HUGELY SUCCESSFUL THING?
Why not some other technology? e.g.
* blockchain: the Apple e-World of distributed databases
* blockchain: the Ford Pinto gas tank of distributed databases
* blockchain: the cold fusion of distributed databases
Initially, few people thought file transfer over the internet was a substantive use case because the transmission speed was too slow. Then throughput capacity picked up, but people then shifted the argument to something like, "It's good for medium size file transfer, and I guess I can sometimes send this clunky email thing instead of picking up the phone or sending a fax." This process repeats itself, with goalposts ever shifting, until someone talks about the possibility of selling everything over the internet, starting with books, and most think it's nutty, but believe hearing "you've got mail" every morning might get mass adoption.
I'm not sure whether 'blockchain' is a database or a universal computer or a new software primitive. Or whether we can even tell. What I know is that it is at the very least some sort of network infrastructure (in the most abstract sense of the term). Just like with the internet (another network infrastructure), the space of substantial use cases increases as more people and technologies are connected to it.
Could it end up being a dud apart from some random use cases? Emphatically yes. Could it end up being pretty important? Possibly (we don't know).
Ironically, the best evidence I have for being agnostic about the potential of 'blockchain' is the number of educated and non-educated people making wild claims about the benefits of decentralization, etc.
When the telegraph arrived, a substantial mass of people said it would usher in world peace. When the internet arrived, a substantial mass of people made wild claims about breaking us free from corporate power, educating the masses, etc.