[mattdesl]

Considering BTC's network uptime has been about 99.9% for over a decade, I'd say the "here to stay" articles may have been relatively accurate? (I don't care much for BTC, though I do feel a narrow scope of its usage will probably persist in some fashion for many more years.)

> Show me one blockchain application that has nothing to do with virtual assets that not only turns a profit but is provably more efficient than a database based solution.

The only thing ledger specifies is virtual state and virtual assets (ie: tokens). A simple example of an application that is easier with a smart contract than traditional financial services and a plain old database is an escrow agent for handling a significant sum across hundreds or thousands of global participants (and thus potentially currencies). In practice; a smart contract application built on this may look like a time-constrained Kickstarter campaign, but using a trustless/ownerless escrow contract to accept and manage payments.

[lern_too_spel]

A centralized database can handle the escrow too, and far more efficiently. The only reason decentralized crypto solutions have a head start is that people who work in crypto tend not to care about what is legal.

[mattdesl]

Yet there is a key difference in trust - that a centralized actor (say, Kickstarter) will not mutate their private database, will not go under, and will not fail to meet its promises in how the funds are managed.

There is also an ease of use (for developers building these applications), particularly in terms of finances: say, an escrow that holds $1M worth of value and may need to return those funds to 100K donors across the globe should the fundraiser not meet its goals before a set deadline.

[lern_too_spel]

Trust works because of legal frameworks. You have to have the same trust that Ethereum won't do another fork, and you have to trust that the smart contract isn't fraudulent. In exactly the same way, the law is what keeps the average person from being fleeced.

A central database has far better ease of use for developers than a distributed ledger.

[mattdesl]

To some users and developers, the chain/contract is easier, less expensive, and simpler to trust and build upon than the equivalent legal and traditional financial structures on a global scale.

[leifg]

Even if that’s true the argument “web3 is better for some users and developers” is very far from “web3 will disrupt the internet as we know it”

[mattdesl]

It is already disrupting the internet as we know it… NFTs, DAOs, trustless contracts, peer-to-peer payments w/o reliance on a central payment processors — these are all new concepts that the web hasn’t seen operating at a global scale, accessible with little more than a thin layer of JS and a browser extension.

Perhaps this disruption won’t last, or won’t succeed in replacing traditional systems, but obviously in 2021 it has succeeded in capturing a lot of interest & discussion (and a lot of $ value, too).

[KarlKemp]

That, like everything else in the space, breaks at the point where anything of non-virtual value needs to be returned to the buyers/investors/etc. That just happens to be impossible unless you allow for trusted people observing and certifying a part of reality. So they basically came up with a set of “crypto assets” to trade using the “crypto currencies”. Of course those are more or less the same concepts with different labels. Still, it feels so much more real to buy a virtual something with your virtual money than just exchanging it for other virtual money.

[mattdesl]

These contracts intentionally only deal with tokens and virtual data/assets. A “web3” Kickstarter alternative built on a common set of OSS and fee-less escrow contracts does not need to manage anything other than tokens - that is the currency being exchanged.

If you are concerned about price fluctuations in the cryptocurrency, you could set this contract to operate only on a stablecoin like DAI.