Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

Blockchain is a bad vision for the future

Blockchain is not just a horrible technology, but a bad vision for the future. Its failure to achieve adoption to date is due to the fact that trust-based systems, norms and institutions work intrinsically better than the type of blockchain systems that are not necessary for reliable parties. That is permanent: no matter how much blockchain improves, it is still heading in the wrong direction.

This December I wrote a widely spread article about the inapplicability of blockchain to any real problem. Most people opposed the technology argument, but hoped that decentralization could produce integrity.

Let's start with this:
 Venmo is a free service to transfer dollars, and bitcoin transfers are not free. However, after I wrote an article last December saying that Bitcoin had no use, someone responded that Venmo and Paypal are raising money from consumers and that people should switch to Bitcoin.

What a surreal contrast between the non-utility / non-adoption of blockchain and the conviction of its believers! It is so obvious that this person did not become Bitcoin enthusiast because he was looking for a convenient and free way to transfer money from one person to another and discovered Bitcoin. In fact, I would say that there is not a single person who has had a problem that I would like to solve, discovered that an available blockchain solution was the best way to solve it and, therefore, became a blockchain enthusiast.

There is not a single person who had a problem that he wanted to solve, he discovered that an available blockchain solution was the best way to solve it and, therefore, he became a blockchain enthusiast.

A blockchain is a literal technology, not a metaphor.
All the enthusiasm for something so useless in practice?

People Why has made a series of unlikely statements about the future of blockchain; for example, you should use it for AI instead of the type of behavior tracking that Google and Facebook do, for example. This is based on a misunderstanding of what a blockchain is. A blockchain is not an ethereal thing in the universe in which you can "put" things, it is a specific data structure: a linear transaction log, typically replicated by computers whose owners (called miners) are rewarded for registering New transactions

Blockchain-based reliability falls apart in practice
People treat blockchain as a "futuristic integrity wand": shake a blockchain at the problem and, suddenly, your data will be valid. For almost anything that people want to be valid, blockchain has been proposed as a solution.

It is true that manipulating data stored in a blockchain is difficult, but it is false that the blockchain is a good way to create data that has integrity.

It is true that manipulating data stored in a blockchain is difficult, but it is false that the blockchain is a good way to create data that has integrity.

To understand why this is the case, let's work from the practical to the theoretical. For example, consider a widely proposed use case for blockchain: buy an ebook with a "smart" contract. The goal of blockchain is that you don't trust an e-book seller and you don't trust yourself (because you're only two people on the Internet), but, because it's on blockchain, you'll be able to trust the transaction.

In the traditional system, once you pay, you expect to receive the book, but once the seller has his money, he has no incentive to deliver it. You are relying on Visa or Amazon or the government to do things right, what a recipe to be a fool! On the contrary, in a blockchain system, when executing the transaction as a record in a tamper-proof repository that is not owned by anyone, the transfer of money and digital product is automatic, atomic and direct, without the need for intermediaries to arbitrate the transaction, dictate terms and take a fat cut along the way. Isn't that better for everyone?

Hm Perhaps you are very skilled at writing software. When the novelist proposes the smart contract, it takes an hour or two to make sure that the contract withdraws only an amount of money equal to the agreed price, and that the book, instead of some other file, or nothing at all - Actually reach.

Audit software is difficult! The most analyzed smart contract in history had a small mistake that nobody noticed, that is, until someone noticed it and used it to steal fifty million dollars. If cryptocurrency enthusiasts who raise a $ 150 million investment fund

All the underlying blockchain worldview is wrong
You actually see it again and again. Blockchain systems are supposed to be more reliable, but in fact they are the least reliable systems in the world.
Today, in less than a decade, three successive exchanges of bitcoin have been hacked, another is accused of using insider trading, the DAO smart contract of the demonstration project ran out, changes in cryptocurrency prices are ten times those of the world's most poorly managed currencies, and bitcoin, the "killer application" of transparency crypto, almost certainly is artificially backed by fake transactions involving literally imaginary billions of dollars.

Post a Comment