[rosser]

You're confusing Bitcoin with blockchain. The former is a specific implementation — the first, yes, but that doesn't limit its other uses — of the latter. The latter is an abstraction that has uses far beyond mere money.

That's the myopia. If you (the general you) can't see the difference, I'm not the one who's short-sighted.

[xt00]

Totally agree that they are separate things but I’m talking about how the technology was immediately leveraged.. for example if we were talking about how roads can be used for lots of things other than allowing cars and trucks to drive fast.. Blockchain is infrastructure, so without a use for the infrastructure it’s just boring new tech.. I mean maybe an example of what I mean by boring new tech is like a new programming language.. “Blap programming language allows you to write everything as a monad! All monads all the time!”... that kind of thing.. it’s like ok some new infrastructure but what does it allow me to do with it? That’s what I’m talking about.. I think Blockchain is super cool and I love the distributed nature of not trusting people, but I am concerned that the history of other technologies that are cool initially because they are decentralized will end up being controlled by people who benefit from the tech the most and people that benefit are likely to be subject to scrutiny by various governments.. so that’ll end up screwing everything up.. so that concerns me..

[pwinnski]

I'm not confusing them. I'm pointing out that the first implementation didn't even use the word blockchain, but was focused entirely on bitcoin as a currency.

That someone can come along later and imagine (though not really demonstrate) other uses of an underlying technology is fine and dandy, but it's definitely not myopic to think that the person who initially created and linked the two concepts wasn't stupid.