Of course individuals have the option to use whatever system best suits them. I am thinking more about how far blockchain can actually scale.
Technical people assume that a system without trusted intermediaries is a universal good because it is logically superior (I have certainly thought this myself) but that does not jibe with how most people feel and act.
The majority of people value trust to the extent that they will trust in things that seem absurd objectively simply because it makes them feel good. For them a system without trust is a negative.
If the key feature of blockchain is a negative for the majority of the population that does not bode well for widespread adoption.
Not to be all "both sides tho," but I think you're both right. I code on blockchain stuff from time to time, and it's both really awesome for the decentralized no-trust part and straight-up nonsense for entire categories of problems that would be better solved off-chain. The hype machine is crazy and driving things toward the blockchain that absolutely don't belong there. ("Uh, do you need a blockchain, or do you just need to cryptographically sign something, and you've never thought about cryptography before today?") There are still some very interesting untapped possibilities that aren't better-served by any centralized system yet.
Technical people assume that a system without trusted intermediaries is a universal good because it is logically superior (I have certainly thought this myself) but that does not jibe with how most people feel and act.
The majority of people value trust to the extent that they will trust in things that seem absurd objectively simply because it makes them feel good. For them a system without trust is a negative.
If the key feature of blockchain is a negative for the majority of the population that does not bode well for widespread adoption.