Blockchain though didn't really excite too many people until Bitcoin came along and got a lot of people excited about how it was going to make them rich. I disagree with utility being in the eye of the beholder though, utility should always have a measure. If it can't be measured, it's something else.
A huge amount of froth and noise around BTC/Crypto when it comes to the greed component. Agreed. It's not in any way a 'sexy' tech. It's quite boring but it can and is finding use cases in many fields. The majority implicate business processes - not mass market applications. Society can benefit from that - but clearly not as directly as some other technologies. If it's deemed to be less significant in terms of impact as opposed to Technologies B, C or D - I'm not going to object to that. I don't really care. The point is that it's still a relevant tech with some use cases already in play, many at pilot stage and more as yet unclear/undeveloped.
As a concept, blockchain isn't at all complex, it is a very neat idea that has come of age as the internet has developed, and has multiple applications, but I don't rate it that highly in terms of technological achievements.
It's incredibly lacking in complexity upon initial consideration. It's an immutable, public database.. Again, I don't really care where it ranks in terms of technological achievements. I mean, what would the metric be for that anyway? Depends on what's important to you. It's still a highly significant tech. On that metric, Jobs wasn't at the races but he brought about change due in large parts to simplicity.
I'm on record here (that phrase again
) saying I don't believe Bitcoin will be successful and will ultimately fail, I base that on my understanding of its technical constraints and limitations, which I find a little on the crude side. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again, we'll see how that prediction will fare in time. That's not to say cryptocurrency will never take off, just that I don't believe Bitcoin will be the solution if and when it does.
That's speculative - and is open to debate both within and outside of crypto circles. As things stand, I think it will maintain and build on its position - but I can't say I'd be surprised if we revisit this in a couple of years and things have changed in that regard. At the moment, I see it's relevance staying on track but I reserve the right to change my mind on that one as things progress.
Again, it comes back to the utility, what problem are we trying to resolve. I share the Antonopulos view that crypto could solve a very significant problem in situations like people living in corrupt states where governments or the banking system cannot be trusted. But for the majority of the world, we can already transact with pretty much anyone else we choose at very low cost and with instant confirmation, and significant consumer protections when things go wrong. So I don't see what value it has to offer me as a currency.
Where there are people there are variables and whilst there are more pressing use cases in the developing world, we're not beyond benefiting from it closer to home. The most place I'd like to see blockchain tech being used is in all government systems - showing a complete trail of $. But of course, Turkey's don't vote for Christmas so we'll be waiting for that to filter in - for a long, long time to come. Look at the scandals we've had around charities in Ireland? And that's on our end. In the receiving countries, so much charity money and aid goes 'missing'. That's why the U.N. has been collaborating with a couple of the crypto projects to tackle that (as well as identity projects).
I could look at my last few years in Ireland and see that I'd have little use for crypto on a day to day basis - so no argument there. That said, in the last year, it would have been a tonic (but it's not ready yet either until it is being moved around in more volume). There's plenty wrong with the movement of money internationally from the perspectives of cost/time and this bureaucratic paperchase that's implicated in it (i.e. aml/kyc).
Other than that, given the opportunity (i.e. once volatility diminishes or a stablecoin exists that can be trusted), then I will custody my own money. I'm not having anyone lock an account or take funds from an account without my consent - or have a government or bank take that money. People think that sort of stuff doesn't happen in western countries but its only a short while ago we were ever so close to it.
Lastly, in terms of privacy, most people don't give a monkeys or they simply get jaded and give in to whatever the convention is. When cash goes (and regardless with what happens with decentralised crypto, someday soon there will be central bank digital currency), the details of every single transaction a citizen ever makes will be available to some cretin(s) in public administration and government bodies. Secondly, run into an issue with someone at that level and your entire wealth could simply be switched off in an instant. I don't see that as a healthy scenario.
I'd put blockchain well ahead of LAF too, maybe someone filing all day might differ, but I'm a technology guy, and think paper filing is outdated.
I'll take that as a 'progressive' move forward in the discussion. :-D