The only interesting feature of bitcoin is the trustless consensus but it's not as useful or revolutionary as the hype would have you believe. In particular it's only working as intended as long as you remain withing the digital world, as soon as meatspace is involved you need trusted third parties and arbiters. "Blochain technology" whatever that is, is a solution in search of a problem.
>Command Query Responsibility Segregation is a software pattern that divides the system into two distinct parts, an append-optimised command side and a read-optimised query side.
My point was about the "append-optimised" part. Of course the blockchain can be arbitrarily fast to query but you can only make about 5 transactions (or "inserts") per second on the bitcoin blockchain on average. Not very impressive as far as DBs are concerned.
hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100
Why you don’t want a blockchain https://twitter.com/jimmysong/status/964172100054417409
Do you need a blockchain? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16315456
Avoiding the pointless blockchain project: How to determine if you’ve found a real blockchain use case https://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-b...
The reason is that the institutions that created these things are extremely well insulated from competition. They are well insulated from competition, in part, because they have acquired the public's trust, through a long track record of not stealing everyone's money.
Solutions to the distributed adversarial consensus problem provide a way to give new businesses access to the same, or even greater, levels of public trust. Now - obviously there are still scams in this space. When I say 'trust', what I mean is, in the sense that two counterparties can transact in a way that doesn't require intermediation to ensure the completion of the transaction.
This really is a fundamentally novel and socially significant innovation. It really does reshape the competitive landscape of a number of industries. At least, it has the potential to. But it is also true that there is an enormous amount of greed and hype floating around. And this isn't in any way intended to justify the ICO scams, or the sky high prices of the existing currencies. It's not clear that anyone has yet figured out the right interface and set of practices for actually realizing all these economic gains. Nobody has yet made the iPhone of blockchain.
But the basic technical problem - distributed adversarial consensus was indeed solved by Satoshi. And that really does have substantial, positive social implications for the future. And I fear that people here are losing sight of that because of the gyrations of these silly markets.
It absolutely does no such thing. Trust has nothing to do with technology and you'll never escape the need to trust real world, meatspace based institutions and humans. At the end of the day you are arguing "code is law", which is a pile of fresh horse manure, clear to anybody who saw what happened to The DAO.
Technology is created and governed by humans and you have to trust those humans. You need human meatspace based institutions in place to deal with when that trust is broken. No technology will replace this--at least in any kind of world I'd want to live in.
Satoshi's Glorious Blockchain will never succeed because it is a technological solution to a problem that can never be solved by technology.
Anecdotes are not arguments. You keep making statements, but providing no justification for them. You could say all of the things you just said about the internet in the mid 90s. And people did. And then in 2001, those people felt vindicated. But today, they look like the fools that they were.
Ya, that's distributed adversarial consensus. Decentralized currencies are an excellent instance of such conditions. They really are a useful and interesting application. That doesn't mean they deserve all this hype in the form of investment from the average person, but if they weren't so hyped, they'd have a serious use-case as a world reserve currency and they'd make a very nice international settlement layer. Because all of the countries in the world would know that the currency was politically neutral. I think that's a pretty sweet/useful property to have.
There are definitely a few other cases where adversarial consensus problems exist too. I think decentralized prediction markets are a pretty great application of smart contracts, for instance. But yes, a lot of these things are way way over-hyped and being pushed for things way beyond their useful scope.
"Permissioned blockchains" is like someone thought "what if we took the radios out of cellphones and connected them by cables" and proceeded to call that a brand new invention.