|
|
|
|
|
|
by trophycase
3043 days ago
|
|
|
The article just seems to be willfully ignorant. Blockchain has already proven itself useful to the millions of people who have bought things off of darknet markets. He tries to make the argument that the ability to fork the protocol is essentially the same as having a centralized third party control the protocol which is just astoundingly wrong. He basically completely ignores the idea of a blockchain as a way for non-trusting parties to quickly and easily agree on truth but then makes the argument that since the smart tech companies AMZN, FB, and GOOG aren't offering blockchain services, that the technology must not actually have any real use cases, another ridiculous point. |
|
|
Truth of what exactly? It would seem like many useful applications require off-chain oracles which completely subvert the point of the block chain. The only truths I can think of that two non-trusting parties could agree upon is are outputs of deterministic algorithms (i.e. math/logic/hard truth), which has to be utterly useless to the real world, except maybe to harness idle computational to compute prime numbers, PDEs, etc. (i.e. still pretty useless). I'm clearly missing something if all of the hype is warranted and would appreciate if you could point me to any resources/examples that cover this.