[spookthesunset]

> When you do so, you'll get the "enlightment" you were looking for.

Which is what? That the blockchain is a solution in search of a problem? There is very, very little reason to use a cumbersome data structure when better ones exist (eg: just a regular database, or something like git). Worse, the only way the blockchain gets all it's supposed valuable attributes is when you provide a financial incentive to mine. Aka -- bolt a "currency" on top of it and then go market it to tons of rubes so you can convert all of the generated tokens into cold, hard fiat to pay your bills. Without the "currency", who will pay miners to trustlessly verify all the transactions? The parties running the service? If so... since you seem to trust all them to pay the bills.... why not just use a database instead and save some substantial fiat?

The whole bitcoin/blockchain "movement" is just pure hype. It's people at the top of the pyramid hyping a worthless technology in order to cash out their tokens before the whole thing collapses in on itself...

[plokiju]

> There is very, very little reason to use a cumbersome data structure when better ones exist

Do you not see any value in decentralization? In theory with blockchains, you could replace giant companies with open-source programs that pay for their own server costs with transaction fees, without taking any profit margin off the top. That would be very interesting for stuff like cloud storage and social networks. You can argue it's overly idealistic and may not work out, but you can't pretend there's no value in decentralization

[JumpCrisscross]

> In theory with blockchains, you could replace giant companies with open-source programs that pay for their own server costs with transaction fees, without taking any profit margin off the top

Do you think these applications are viable if the token has significant monetary/speculative value attached to it?

[plokiju]

Absolutely - in some cases the monetary value is what makes the applications viable in the first place. It's just like any other market; in theory the price of the token should reach equilibrium to reflect the value it provides, even if there's some speculation along the way

[cocktailpeanuts]

Internet was a "solution in search of a problem" too.

That said, you're free to believe what you want to believe.

Just one thing though, everything you said above I heard hundreds of times before, and there are good explanations for them. I just don't have time to argue here because these are things you can find out on your own if you put your mind into it. (To be honest I don't think I can convince you no matter how I try unless you open up your mind, so I won't try)

Anyway, if you don't care, that's fine too. It's not like not believing in cryptocurrency will doom your future. You'll do fine. And even if the whole thing fails, I'll do fine too. But it's always good to have an open mind about things you don't yet completely understand and try to learn. ("Thinking that you understand completely" doesn't count as actually completely understanding)

[JumpCrisscross]

> Internet was a "solution in search of a problem" too

Eh, the history of ARPANET involved practical use cases (i.e. communication between specific institutions and ballistic missile defense coordination) from the start [1]. If one includes circuit switches, i.e. the telegraph/telephone system, as a blueprint Internet then the practical application reaches back earlier.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Creation

[cocktailpeanuts]

And Bitcoin doesn't have a practical use case?

[te_chris]

Please elaborate?

[mrep]

> Internet was a "solution in search of a problem" too.

No, no it wasn't. Close to light speed communication provided about 10 orders of magnitude faster/cheaper communication than before. I cannot even fathom how someone would not immediately realize how that massive increase in communication would not be useful.

Contrast this with blockchains which are practically 10 orders of magnitude more COSTLY since every node has to process every transaction when you could just do that on one server (hence why bitcoin transactions cost 2.5 Billion dollars a year to process a fraction of what Visa can process).

[cocktailpeanuts]

> I cannot even fathom how someone would not immediately realize how that massive increase in communication would not be useful.

Just like you cannot fathom how Bitcoin can be useful in February of 2018, 99.9% of the world population couldn't fathom how Internet would take off back then when it launched. That was why it was not mainstream for a long time until it took off.

[mrep]

> 99.9% of the world population couldn't fathom how Internet would take off back then when it launched.

The dotcom bubble was fueled by speculation in how useful the internet would be. Granted, it busted but many companies survived it and some are now the biggest companies in the world.

> That was why it was not mainstream for a long time until it took off.

Internet growth has been incredibly fast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage

I can see some utility in blockchains. However, my main point is that the economics of them make them terrible for 99.99% of problems.

Internet: 10 orders of magnitude faster/cheaper communication than before.

blockchains: 10 orders of magnitude more COSTLY.

[cocktailpeanuts]

> I can see some utility in blockchains. However, my main point is that the economics of them make them terrible for 99.99% of problems.

Then we're talking about different things. My comment was specifically in response to "Internet was a solution searching for a problem".

Your point actually supports my comment because like you said it's terrible for 99.99% of problems, which means it may be great for 0.01%, which means it's a solution that's solving only a small problem for now, and looking for more problems.