[azangru]

> Because there are no use cases for blockchains.

Someone in the comments on LibreOffice blog expressed the same opinion. Which surprised me. Has the consensus been reached among the serious non-grifting public that blockchains are useless to represent peer-to-peer trustless money? Has bitcoin been declared a failure?

[soco]

I'm not sure how a word processor uses peer-to-peer trustless money. The discussion shouldn't even be about crypto and blockchains, but about how crypto and blockchain can benefit LibreOffice. Given we cannot identify how crypto and blockchain can benefit anybody (well, except scammers and those 11 folks who actually transferred assets to third world countries) I believe the topic should have quickly died off but yeah...

[azangru]

> I'm not sure how a word processor uses peer-to-peer trustless money

The parent (and the commenter on the site) weren't saying that an office suite has no use for blockchains; they were making a far broader claim that there are no use cases for blockchains.

[xigoi]

Bitcoin is wasting humongous amounts of energy during a climate and energy crisis, which makes it morally unacceptable.

[azangru]

That's not the argument the parent is making. They say, no use cases.

[fsflover]

Banks also require a lot of energy.

[DemocracyFTW2]

And so does heating swimming pools, baking bread and enjoying one's night at the movie theater, none of which excuses or justifies wasting energy for whatever real or imagined purpose.

[xigoi]

Not nearly as much.

[input_sh]

If it didn't find its way into everyday person's pocket in 14 years since Bitcoin's whitepaper (even with all the money and attention thrown its way), I think it's fair to say it's unlikely that'll happen in the next 14 years as well.