Frankly, it’s kind of hard to pitch blockchain if you’re at all honest with your stakeholders.
“So, we want to recreate databases, except vastly slower, far less energy-efficient, and way harder to use.”
“So, we want to recreate databases, except vastly slower, far less energy-efficient, and way harder to use.”
1. They're immutable (this is as I understand even unique as compared to git, which also uses Merkle trees)
2. They use distributed replicas (as opposed to distributed partitions).
3. Maybe some other stuff that's slipping my mind at the moment.
The multi-billion dollar question is in which use cases those traits are actually useful. So far we're progressively ruling things out as we watch distributed blockchain products simply gravitate back towards centralization.
Blockchain is not Bitcoin or crypto somehow. Crypto is blockchain + proof of work and some p2p. Blockchain is more or less the fancy word for immutable merkle tree. The idea to have a tree or chain of hashes based ond the previus one existed before bitcoin. And proof of work existed also before. It was used to prevent spam in emails. But didnt have sucess.
The glorius idea of nakamoto was to put it all together.. it was a good idea and worth a try but now we know its mostly worthless unsless you are a criminal or some fringe use case that shouldnt exist in Democratic and humanistic conditions