My major questions have always been: where is the business value in blockchain applications? what can a blockchain app do that can't be done by non-blockchain (beyond decentralization - bc I don't think this produces much business value)?
Decentralisation is the selling point of blockchain technology.
Anyone building on a blockchain that doesn't think decentralisation is beneficial in and of itself is a conman.
The sad part is that the blockchain is the least interesting part of this hype. The interesting part is making all mutations of state require signed inputs which has given a really needed push to the PKC UX. Metamask is fucking amazing and interacting with applications that utilize metamask as the source of identity is so simple, something that you'd be hard pressed to find before all this hype.
As to decentralized, there seems to be a wonderful libritarian ideal around cryptocommodities but I’m reality they are much more centralized than anyone wants to admit. There are probably 10 people that if they wanted to could absolutely demolish bitcoin.
Too much hype around all of this. Not even getting into the massive waste of power and potential.
Having worked in computational finance the entirety of my career, I still don't totally understand how this combination of Dunning-Kruger and Libertarian leanings somehow became a thing.
The financial times while back had an interesting take: there's a structural reason why VC throws money at seemingly non-nonsensical ideas (Theranos, wireless charging etc) - many have a policy portfolio mandate to shoot for 100x returns and as such they will throw money at impossible things as part of their fiduciary duty. So, especially in the climate of free money, funding a slightly-better-widget-startup takes a backseat to things with lottery odds that may not make any sense at all.
It is the fatal flaw of POW. It is like just pretending that the power cost is not part of the cost of a transaction.
That is why it takes time to get approved on coinbase and other exchanges that try to follow the law.
BTC is just a widely distributed set of middlemen imposing delays and costs (both mining rewards and transaction fees are costs to everyone holding or using BTC that run from holders/users to miners.)
At some point I will exchange to USD to pay whatever I owe in taxes and to pay any vendor that does not take crypto. I imagine if I were an unscrupulous actor I would skip the tax step and avoid vendors that don't accept crypto.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time
Who knows what they would be if bitcoin was actually used to buy things.
For less than $5,000 it is free and instantaneous in the United States (e.g. Zelle). For more, it is free and instantaneous (wire; my bank waves the fee; most charge $15 to $35).
The number one thing holding back the blockchain from becoming a proper database technology is its proponents insistence on applying it to problems that already work faster and cheaper.
I take the point that in other places the norm is a lot worse and blockchain systems are producing better results, but it won't be long before banks get their act together and improve their services to match modern expectations (for fear of becoming obsolete), and then the blockchain competitive advantage is gone.
For big amounts, transfers of money are either slow (big wire transfers between banks) or unsecure (cash, how do you know if those bills are real?). Therefore either the money or ownership stays insecurely in limbo on one side.
Therefore escrow services currently provide a solution for this, or notaries. But in the end they are still not atomic, and not free either.
If both money and proof of ownership are both on blockchain, you can do a REAL atomic transaction. This could work for selling cars, houses, etc, on an international level without much fuzz.