“Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain”

in blockchain •  7 years ago 

The title is not mine but Kai Stinchcombe’s in a Hackernoon article, “Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain”.

I’m too lazy to do the fisking, in fact I may even agree with several arguments made by Kai, but maybe somebody could remind Kai that the Internet was doomed too after the dotcom crash. That ecommerce wouldn’t take off. That Paypal was never going to become a viable, trusted alternative.

03752A7B-EAD6-46BF-84C5-57696D4AD491.jpeg

Scanning the world for actual blockchain uses, photo via Unsplash.

Or [gasp] that Apple has been doomed for almost two decades, most definitely a decade at the very least.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. The third richest man in the world is a prolific Apple Inc. investor, and had he received a traditional burial late Steve Jobs would have been the richest on the cemetery.

And, worth noting, for those seven transactions a second Bitcoin is already estimated to use 35 times as much energy as Visa. If you brought Bitcoin’s transaction volume up to Visa’s it would be using as much electricity as the rest of the world put together.

Maybe somebody could even remind Kai that not each blockchain is a slug. Next year even Ethereum network will speed up when the network switches from PoW to PoS.

Maybe somebody could even tell Kai about the Bitshares, Steem, and EOS blockchains which are designed to operate fast and power thousands, millions of transactions hourly. Without breaking a sweat.

Do not disclose too much though.

I fear that inviting Kai to Steem, telling him that whole new economies are designed and built, to operate freely, may be too much of goodness and revolution for he who brands himself whatever the opposite of a futurist is.


Do not tell Kai that the publication of an unedited article, which was already paid for by a publisher, is rewarded with another $1,000 within hours after publication. Which if the SBD earned is converted to cash via exchanges, right now would net the author another USD 4,500 at the rate of 7.638 at the time of writing, as per Steem Supply.

Maybe Kai would think differently when realizing that the token-economy that is the Steem blockchain currently drives the earnings of thousands of Venezuelans, Filipinos, Indonesians, and others living in less affluent nations. That without Steem(it) actually having reached scale large enough to become a true liquid currency.

That not every token-network has gone through all hype.

Bitcoin is what banking looked like in the middle ages — “here’s your libertarian paradise, have a nice day”
~ Kai Stinchcombe

Maybe we should invite Kai to publish here on Steemit. But then again, chances are that his content, zealots as we are, may get downvoted. Which will undoubtedly lead to Kai claiming we are commie libertarian zealots.

I do agree with many of Kai’s arguments, but it are also dinosaurs naysayers like him who in the era of innovation and disruption have historically drawn the short straw.

Yet, his article, and also the comments, are worth a read. He would have enjoyed it much more if instead of 23k claps his publication had earned him USD 2.5k. I assume he would.

Can somebody now please do the fisking. Or invite Kai, I have no Facebook. We can also blast him alert and invite him via Twitter, of course, although it seems he has abandoned that platform.

Disclosure isn’t any of his strengths either. Nor is image sourcing

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

It's a long read but he makes several good points. There are myriad of paper or rather, classical methods that have better control over a particular situation that blockchain is trying to break into. I tend to agree that blockchain doesn't apply in most places because there are existing methods and infrastructure that already do so.

But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't try and see if they can come up with something better. Although as he put it, it's been 10 years and we really havent seen much. The reality is that I don't think people have really tried in those 10 years except for the last year or so.

It's a great read either way. I am going to re read it a because I'm sure I missed something.

I agree, @motoengineer. He has many valid points and many use cases which blockchains currently can only dream of ever breaking in to. Let alone improve.

Yet, the fact that he spent enough time to write that rant alone is sufficient evidence there is more than just smoke.

I’m one of those who think we need regulation, customers need protections, but blockchains are (almost) 10 years old. Only slightly older as the www Internet during the dotcom crash. In reality though, the Internet was around a quarter of a century old already then.

Many blockchains will fail. Much money will dissipate in those. As many cons as in real life will happen. Despite all regulation IRL (2008 crash, anybody).

But I am firmly convinced the token-networks like Steem will disrupt and improve vertical social mobility.

Somebody needs to tell the world there’s jewels too. Rough diamonds still but Rome wasn’t built in a night either.

Part of me believes that an honest monetary system is not 100% viable. There has to be some way to leverage it to make even more money. That is how real cash works. The more you have, the more the people who have it want it and the more the people who dont have it want it.

With most cryptocurrencies out there, you cannot do much except buy and hold them. With steem you can actually earn it, and on top of that, you can do some shady things to hide where it goes. With that said, I think steem has this type of potential. Its a little shady with the self upvotes, a little shady with gaming the system by raking in thousands each day with self upvoting, but the reality is that it is within the parameters of the code, and it is within the parameters of what people will do in real life to get ahead.

Shitty way to say it, but that's one of the many reasons why steemit will live on. It is literally a money making cow.

I have no tolerance for half-***ed journalism! Here's my own experience with their stupidity:

For years and years, the media howled that Flash (the animation program) was doomed. Apple, after all, wouldn't support the flash plugin on mobile devices, rendering the .swf content unviewable. Firefox stopped supporting it. I even had executives emailing me concerned that I wouldn't have a job. (In reality, I've worked with both Flash & After Effects)

The doomsday drums were never once tempered by the facts:

  • Flash has usefulness that makes it unique from many other programs, and its dev team wouldn't let the program itself die, regardless of the lack of acceptance of the .swf format
  • Flash isn't limited to the flash plugin. It could, almost from the 90s on, output to video
  • There was a way to convert swf to html5, and development was underway to output to html5

Adobe kind of chickened out and renamed "Flash" to "Animate" to escape years of bad publicity. But Flash lives on. The swf output was replaced with html5 output. Solved.

Down playing important developments like blockchain - or pushing "sky is falling" articles about Flash is what media does best.

That's why I call em, "Presstitutes".

Actually, the person who wrote it even isn’t a journo. But writes like one. One on Medium.

Here is where it gets interesting: he’s a founder (co-founder) of a startup which relies on the existence and use of credit cards.

I think he's right that blockchain is not the solution to every problem, but it will have some real applications where you don't want central control. We know Steem can handle far more transactions than Bitcoin, but it's still not well known. I think Bitcoin proved the concept of crypto, but others have done it better.

Agreed, @steevc. Many a blockchain zealot needs to step down from that pedestal that blockchain will improve everything. It won’t. That realisation, or rather acknowledgement, will speed up a real focus on actual implementations.

But generally, I love articles from naysayers because they serve both as a wake up call and also a motivation.

Historically, disruption has won. Even more so in recent decades. A theory backed by most of his (online) examples.

Yes, very interesting that "social media" was not one that was covered. He tackled the most promising use cases of blockchain up front, and I am not so convinced about his arguments there.

You've already taken down the "payment systems" argument. Yes, there is a point about the cost (lost/stolen private keys, etc), but I think it's a reasonable cost for the benefits (admittedly a hard one to do properly though...securing your identity).

"Smart contracts" ... I think the examples given were actually good proofs of concepts, and I don't think of their failures as fatal to the initial idea. You need formally-verifiable contracts so that people would trust them to put money in them, which I believe are possible.

Decentralized storage is one of the more interesting use cases, and I think he misses the point. Yes, Dropbox works fine, but this is an application where decentralization makes sense, to distribute storage to almost any participant and incentivize them for the storage, and not even need a centralized gateway to manage it. I believe the current storage-based coins do have smart replication in place, though I haven't done my full research there yet. Permissions is also something I don't see a problem with, it could easily be implemented.

My two cents.

I have a number of articles highlighting what can be achieved with the blockchain. My most recent even highlights Estonia have an ID card with Blockchain tech built into it. The reality is that once a technology becomes built in people don't shout and scream about it, it is just second nature. Check out the article here

The reality is that once a technology...

No truer words have ever been spoken. I love the current tech scene output in Estonia. Definitely one of the leading nations and most definitely one of those to be watched for becoming a future innovation hotbed. If not for the winters, Estonia could eclipse post-Brexit London. But then Estonia has much more social activity and less gentrification. A must watch startup scene, supported by an innovative and forward thinking governance.

Estonia also have the open-mindedness to realise the immigration is a good thing, immigration brings creativity and innovation with it. It seems the UK is locking down borders, which I believe will lead to lower innovation especially when this is coupled with their red tape and slow moving infrastructure. I'm an avid watcher of BBC Click, they have been to Estonia a few times in the last couple of years to demonstrate the technology innovations that are coming out of there! Many of these innovations have been from refugees and migrants who have been allowed to settle there.

Absolutely agreed. UK universities are trying their hardest to make sure that the UK stays in the Erasmus program, as well as many other EU research programs, because of exactly that exchange leading to improved quality.

But we couldn’t have expected such insight from the tabloids who fueled the populist vote. Why would they have had the drive to make the the UK the innovator of the EU red tape machine? That wouldn’t have sold. It is also doubtful they had the foresight that could have been the UK’s role.

Self-destruction is much more fun. At least for train wreck watchers. Brexit is a sorry tale.

This was one of the many articles friends have sent me over the last few weeks. I'm starting to feel like a doctor who has to debunk every crappy headline on a crappy study.

Here's what I wrote back to my friend.... (I started do some fisking, but I'm leaving most of that out because I don't want to edit for permanency on a blockchain. Already spent to much on this article.)

For me, he is simply counter-hyping (probably necessary, but not exactly truth-seeking). There are enough inaccuracies and overt sarcasm that it's hard to take him seriously. He raises good critiques on the current state of bitcoin. He seems ignorant on the blockchain side -- conflates bitcoin with blockchain and cherry picks the blockchain use cases.

While blockchain emerged in the 2008 Bitcoin whitepaper (I'm guessing that's his "10 years"), the fire for applying blockchain more widely didn't start until about 2014 (aka Blockchain 2.0). And many of the Blockchain 2.0 companies didn't start seeing big-time funding until the last couple years. It's like asking a baby to walk out of the womb.

The only serious point I'll take from him on blockchain is this: Blockchain is trendy right now and is prone to overuse -- sometimes people are using it as a solution in search of a problem. That will always be the case with new technologies (need another smartphone app, anyone?).

I actually need another smartphone app, yes. The Steemit app. 🤓

I put his counter hyping down to a poorly disclosed in his Medium article interest of conflict.

Everything going on right now with blockchains and cryptos -- it's exciting and it's extremely difficult to keep up with events. A lot of folks I know are getting interested in this first from the investment side. That's not a bad thing, but if you haven't been reading in this space for a while, it's hard to intuitively tell the b.s. from the truth -- even from normally reliable people (who sometimes are human and get carried away). The fact that value in the form of a coin or token can be assigned to these technologies is potent ... and makes for a lot of fighting and confusion.

So how are they supposed to reconcile the fact that there is a bit of a bubble with the fact that there is also an underlying tech revolution? They see articles hyping, then articles counter hyping. One moment they're feeling like they've made the smartest investment decision ever with visions of Thailand beaches dancing in their heads. The next moment, they're in a cold sweat wondering if they bought into a Ponzi scheme.

How much do they look at the actual tech? None. Not saying they need to learn to code, but try to breakdown a basic blockchain structure -- yes, probably. With knowledge, comes confidence.

So it's articles like this (and many, many others sent to me) that contribute to the confusion. I put fanboys pumping scam coins in the same category.

And yeah, where the hell is that Steemit app?

I could also use a Steemit Artificial Intelligence app to write my posts for me. 🤖✍ = 💣