[smt88]

> it was designed to be a solution to one thing and do it well

What is that thing? It seems like the best application of blockchain is as a semi-decentralized, semi-anonymous token for transferring value.

But it's not even really good at that. It's not liquid, it's prone to bugs and attacks, and it doesn't even seem to be that anonymous.

So I'd personally argue it was designed to be a solution to one thing, and it does not do that well.

> Scammers seized the oportunity to market blockchain as a solution to all your problems to profit themselves and a lot of people were fooled.

So anyone who advocates blockchain for something other than cryptocurrency is a scammer?

That seems a little farfetched. There are plenty of "true believers" who have completely bought into the blockchain-for-everything nonsense, and they're now using "DeFi" to rebrand because blockchain has become such an embarrassing buzzword.

[Barrin92]

To be fair you can be a scammer without necessarily being aware of it, like the hordes of MLM people who run around and actually think it's a business.

has the same dynamics like the crypto world even, with it promising in a sense to create value out of nothing by just holding on long enough and spreading the gospel

[smt88]

You're absolutely right. I just think of these "unwitting scammers" as victims, because they lose money from their participation. But I admit that they could certainly be considered both scammers and victims, as the two are not mutually exclusive.

[wrinkl3]

> But it's not even really good at that. It's not liquid, it's prone to bugs and attacks, and it doesn't even seem to be that anonymous.

All software is prone to bugs and attacks, and for something that's only just entered its second decade I'd say Bitcoin did remarkably well in that regard (no currency nullifying epxloits).

Complete anonymity was never Bitcoin's core feature (it aimed to keep the users pseudonymous with its addresses), but anonymous blockchains are possible, and Monero and Zcach demonstrate that really well.

[nomad543]

> What is that thing?

Blockchain brilliantly solves one and only problem, double spending. This single problem it solves enables the creation of true digital cash securely.

> So anyone who advocates blockchain for something other than cryptocurrency is a scammer?

if there is any kind of token sale, yes.

[smt88]

> Blockchain brilliantly solves one and only problem, double spending. This single problem it solves enables the creation of true digital cash securely.

Considering how many cryptocurrencies have had to mitigate bugs, hacks, and 51% attacks[1], it clearly doesn't solve this problem at all. Like the traditional monetary system, it requires careful design, policing, maintenance, "bug" fixes, and regulation to prevent double spending.

> *if there is any kind of token sale, yes.

You're contradicting yourself by moving the goalpost. You dismissed the core premise of the article, which is that lots of people propose blockchain as a solution to non-currency problems.

You dismissed it by claiming that all people advocating for non-currency blockchain applications are scammers. They're demonstrably not.

You can see people on Twitter and reddit who are just investors in a wide variety of coins. I'd call these people suckers or victims, not scammers. They believe in their coin(s) of choice, and many of those coins are supposedly going to become valuable when they become app platforms.

1. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-be...

[lokedhs]

> You're contradicting yourself by moving the > goalpost. You dismissed the core premise of the article, > which is that lots of people propose blockchain as > a solution to non-currency problems.

Whenever I see a proposed blockchain solution to problem, in particular problems that are not related to currencies, I read their descriptions to figure out what they are actually proposing.

I don't think I've ever seen such a proposal not involving some value token of some kind kind. In other words, even non-currency problems becomes currency-problems when you apply a blockchain solution.

If I'm wrong, I really want to see a blockchain solution which is not centred on participants earning tokena that holds value.

[im3w1l]

I would name a slightly more fundamental problem: Consensus on when things happened. With that nut cracked, avoiding double spending is fairly easy.