>One could make the same argument for a dictatorship being superior to the rule of law. After all, you can always talk to a human to resolve your problem.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you're talking about, this makes no sense. The judicial system also requires humans who are tasked with resolving the problems who you can talk to, that's literally the whole point of it.
>Removing human decision making from a process makes it a game where everyone plays by the same rules.
First of all, no it doesn't because that presumes the machine is always going to be working correctly. Computers don't do this. Second of all, somebody always has to build and maintain the computers, so there is no situation where you can remove all human decision making from the process. I hear executives making these kind of comments all the time as an excuse for cost cutting but that's all it is. You can't make a tech company that isn't paying IT staff in some way.
>You ignored his point
No, you're wrong. His point was also wrong. I actually agree you can indeed reduce administrative expenses by using computer modeling, and most insurance companies already do that. My point is this has nothing to do with blockchains. You don't need blockchains to do that, and attempting to do that on blockchains only increases cost. We're getting into an area where everything is wrong again, please stop with this because I would rather not.
>If you keep making up your own bad arguments
Except this is not my argument. The parent comment just made it and I've heard it probably hundreds of other times. It's the same kind of comment as "maybe we can put the deed to my house on the blockchain" which is equally nonsensical and I've probably heard that hundreds of times too.
Your argument seems to be that there are other solutions that aren't blockchain, which I can't deny. That's true of any solution to most problems, and it neither invalidates the original proposed solution nor lessens its usefulness.
Blockchains create a completely transparent, decentralized ledger. If you don't see any novelty or potential value in that, then that's fine. As far as life is concerned, one's opinion on blockchains should probably fall pretty low on the priority list. I suspect we at least agree on that.
>and it neither invalidates the original proposed solution nor lessens its usefulness
Yes, you're right that by itself it doesn't invalidate the proposed solution. Aside from that, blockchains are still useless and that's what invalidates it. They don't do anything meaningful. Any blockchain-based solution is useful in spite of the blockchain, not because of it. I've never seen any use of blockchains to disprove this.
>Blockchains create a completely transparent, decentralized ledger.
No they don't, in theory they could do that if everything was perfect and if we didn't have to deal with the other side effects of open trade and capitalism, but in practice they don't. Every blockchain I've seen is heavily manipulated by private interests and has serious problems with centralized control. And those are just the big L1 chains. It only gets worse when you consider side chains, a lot of those have no attempt at providing transparency or decentralization at all and it's evident they're privately controlled by one company or group.
>If you don't see any novelty or potential value in that, then that's fine.
I agree there's novelty in it, but that's about it. There's no practical value whatsoever, current or potential. They're useless. I've been pretty consistent about this for the last year. Personally I humored crypto enthusiasts for the last 10 years before this and I listened to as many of their pitches as I could, I tried to look high and low for the good in it, but it's just not there. Enough is enough. It's all bad and nothing meaningful has been accomplished. There's no practical uses of this technology. However it is a very big lightning rod for scammers and fraud.
I am pretty anti-crypto generally but I feel compelled to reply to your maximalist position that there is "no practical value whatsoever, current or potential" to blockchains. The one use case I have seen for blockchain that is real is that cryptocurrency is great for moving money around the world when governments or banks maybe don't want you to do so. At the very least the experience of sending crypto is about as annoying or a little bit less annoying than sending a wire, and you can avoid all those pesky AML/KYC requirements that banks and payment processors impose.
I am not suggesting that this isn't ethically fraught -- of course it is. But one can imagine uses. I personally have known a couple people who fled Syria during the civil war, and bitcoin was a useful way to pull money out of the country, and much less dangerous than carrying a suitcase of cash.
But isn't this awfully close to saying: Blockchains/Cryptocurrencies are useful exactly for money laundering and sanction busting? And ... saying that publicly _and_ supporting the implementation tends to go very badly. (As it should imo, but that's a different story).
IF that is the summary conclusion to crypto (which I'm currently holding), then this is pretty close to "no practical value whatsoever", isn't it?
>The one use case I have seen for blockchain that is real is that cryptocurrency is great for moving money around the world when governments or banks maybe don't want you to do so.
No it isn't. You don't need blockchains to create illegal banks and exchanges or to launder money. All of that was around for a long time before blockchains. You could even create those things "as a service" without blockchains, it would be just as shady and illegal. I'm serious here, there is absolutely no practical value to blockchains whatsoever.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you're talking about, this makes no sense. The judicial system also requires humans who are tasked with resolving the problems who you can talk to, that's literally the whole point of it.
>Removing human decision making from a process makes it a game where everyone plays by the same rules.
First of all, no it doesn't because that presumes the machine is always going to be working correctly. Computers don't do this. Second of all, somebody always has to build and maintain the computers, so there is no situation where you can remove all human decision making from the process. I hear executives making these kind of comments all the time as an excuse for cost cutting but that's all it is. You can't make a tech company that isn't paying IT staff in some way.
>You ignored his point
No, you're wrong. His point was also wrong. I actually agree you can indeed reduce administrative expenses by using computer modeling, and most insurance companies already do that. My point is this has nothing to do with blockchains. You don't need blockchains to do that, and attempting to do that on blockchains only increases cost. We're getting into an area where everything is wrong again, please stop with this because I would rather not.
>If you keep making up your own bad arguments
Except this is not my argument. The parent comment just made it and I've heard it probably hundreds of other times. It's the same kind of comment as "maybe we can put the deed to my house on the blockchain" which is equally nonsensical and I've probably heard that hundreds of times too.