> It doesn't matter. If the only thing that people are doing with this "amazing tech" is speculation, that's all it's good for.
This is a ridiculous statement. When electricity was first developed all it could do was kill animals. Does that mean that's all it's good for?
Because the current most popular use of it is something you've personally deemed as "not a use-case", phrasing which you have moved away from.
> Indeed, you didn't. Because blockchain apologists very rarely do, since for 100% of cases the proposed blockchain solution doesn't solve the posited problem.
This is inappropriate. I could easily have dismissed your initial arguments as simply being a blockchain hater and we'd get precisely nowhere.
> 1. Doesn't need blockchain
> 2. Blockchain doesn't solve the problem of "ensuring integrity of food labeling and efficient management of quality and contamination issues."
This is a silly argument. Many things don't need electricity but electrifying them made them useful for certain new use-cases. Similar with Wifi, Bluetooth, etc. It's hardly "useless" to stick bluetooth and batteries into headphones but you can absolutely have them without it.
The idea that something doesn't "need" a technology has never been a driver of whether or not uses exist for applying that technology to that thing.
I provided a review of the data from the IEEE, a recognized industry standards body.
From the article you supplied:
> It didn’t take long for that dream to fall apart. For one thing, there’s already a costless, instant way to exchange value without a middleman: cash.
How does one exchange cash seamlessly and instantly with cash from say, California to Germany?
In the rest of that paragraph the author suggests that bitcoin wouldn't work but VISA and MasterCard absolutely can.
What happens when VISA or Mastercard decide to cease business with an entity? Why is it okay to require a percentage to process transaction fees rather than a standard fee? How is a percentage with minimum cost model (Visa/Mastercard/Amex/etc.), which the author lays out later on about microtransactions, better for the business owner or the user? There are no sources on those particular points, there's no clarification as to why it's a superior system, the author doesn't discuss the history of the systems at all, etc. It's very lacking in context, research, and salient factual points.
In fact, almost every following example provided in the article falls into this trap: "Company X can already do this! blockchain was never needed" -- that is a poor argument.
To view that blog post as a reputable source seems very strange to me. If that view is where you're sourcing most of your opinions on the usefulness of blockchains, then I'd suggest looking for other viewpoints. I'm unsurprised that some in the financial industry don't want a nearly-free way to send money around the globe instantly, just as I would be if someone working at a large crypto exchange was spouting off about how cryptocurrencies are simply the greatest thing around, ever and you should sink your life savings into them.
This is a ridiculous statement. When electricity was first developed all it could do was kill animals. Does that mean that's all it's good for?
Because the current most popular use of it is something you've personally deemed as "not a use-case", phrasing which you have moved away from.
> Indeed, you didn't. Because blockchain apologists very rarely do, since for 100% of cases the proposed blockchain solution doesn't solve the posited problem.
This is inappropriate. I could easily have dismissed your initial arguments as simply being a blockchain hater and we'd get precisely nowhere.
> 1. Doesn't need blockchain > 2. Blockchain doesn't solve the problem of "ensuring integrity of food labeling and efficient management of quality and contamination issues."
This is a silly argument. Many things don't need electricity but electrifying them made them useful for certain new use-cases. Similar with Wifi, Bluetooth, etc. It's hardly "useless" to stick bluetooth and batteries into headphones but you can absolutely have them without it.
The idea that something doesn't "need" a technology has never been a driver of whether or not uses exist for applying that technology to that thing.
I provided a review of the data from the IEEE, a recognized industry standards body.
From the article you supplied:
> It didn’t take long for that dream to fall apart. For one thing, there’s already a costless, instant way to exchange value without a middleman: cash.
How does one exchange cash seamlessly and instantly with cash from say, California to Germany?
In the rest of that paragraph the author suggests that bitcoin wouldn't work but VISA and MasterCard absolutely can. What happens when VISA or Mastercard decide to cease business with an entity? Why is it okay to require a percentage to process transaction fees rather than a standard fee? How is a percentage with minimum cost model (Visa/Mastercard/Amex/etc.), which the author lays out later on about microtransactions, better for the business owner or the user? There are no sources on those particular points, there's no clarification as to why it's a superior system, the author doesn't discuss the history of the systems at all, etc. It's very lacking in context, research, and salient factual points.
In fact, almost every following example provided in the article falls into this trap: "Company X can already do this! blockchain was never needed" -- that is a poor argument.
To view that blog post as a reputable source seems very strange to me. If that view is where you're sourcing most of your opinions on the usefulness of blockchains, then I'd suggest looking for other viewpoints. I'm unsurprised that some in the financial industry don't want a nearly-free way to send money around the globe instantly, just as I would be if someone working at a large crypto exchange was spouting off about how cryptocurrencies are simply the greatest thing around, ever and you should sink your life savings into them.