Just because you haven't heard of one doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There is plenty of use for it, it's just not the same as for Web2.
There is plenty of use for it, it's just not the same as for Web2.
Keep in mind that "web 1.0" was immediately useful, to many people, at a large scale. The original web wasn't restricted to web developers doing web development things. It was used by industry, government, and academia at scale almost immediately.
It's being used by many people today. It's not for everyone. It will evolve and at one point we won't even know we are using it.
The thing about blockchain isn't that it isn't that you couldn't build it with "web2" the thing is it would be unfeasible to do so and still maintaining the trust.
By separating the "owners" of the database from what it gets used to verify, things that are a kind of wicked problem or at least a chicken and egg problem become possible.
Here are a couple of examples from my perspective of what is technically doable but practically unfeasible with a proprietary.
https://twitter.com/Hello_World/status/1465382119811784708 https://twitter.com/Hello_World/status/1463539727202754563
I am pretty convinced that the government will be using this sooner or later too, for things that require transparency, but they are not going to be early adopters (in contrast with the internet where they were)
But I am fine with you not seeing this or agreeing. Time will tell, I put my money were my mouth is :)
It's been more than 10 years and billions poured into the ecosystem since Bitcoin started, and I still don't know anybody who uses a blockchain for anything beyond speculation, even though I'm in tech.
After how many more years without widespread adoption would you be convinced otherwise?
Plenty of people use is.
> There is so much use for blockchain especially as infrastructure for society and in 10 years from now we will not even be thinking about it.
So you do seem to think that 10 years matter and that it's the time left before it becomes part of our lives, but still it's unclear what's supposed to change in the meantime and why this hasn't happened yet. There's just as much money lost on a regular basis (maybe even more now that projects are bigger), it's still mostly a speculation platform, no real infra in sight and mostly "ideas" that don't pass a basic business plan analysis or simply the question: "wouldn't it be better to implement this idea, but without a blockchain?".
Bitcoin has changed very little since its inception. The first 10 years haven't fundamentally changed its adoption, there's no reason to think that 10 more would do much more. "Just believe in it" is not very enticing for a technology.
My point is that Web 3.0 is not a great con and that it's here to stay and that down the line we won't even think about it.
It also being used today, but today we are having the same kind of discussions as we had with the internet in the 90's
Bitcoin changed from being currency to being store of value. Quite a big change.
But again I am not sure who you are trying to convince here. I have already provided plenty of examples of what I think is use cases both from business to infrastructure to societally. I never said just believe it and I am not sure why that straw man is being thrown in there.
It's always the same discussion though. People who say they want use cases aren't really interested in them. It's a weird phenomena to me but each to their own.
You are more than welcome to think there isn't a reason to think it's going to work out and then you act accordingly to that belief. I see it differently I do see the need and act accordingly.
It's all good.
It's never really been used as either in practice, because of its volatility. "Store of value" is a big statement for something that was once at 60kUSD and is now at 20kUSD. It's mostly used because "number goes up".
> plenty of examples
I went through your links, they don't pass the test I mentioned, namely: in practice, you're better off without a blockchain. That's why so many of these are just "ideas" and not actual businesses and never take off, even 10 years in and all the tech being there already.
You are proving my point exactly. You set up some arbitrary rules that you want reality to comply too and then you make all sorts of claims from that.
And some of these I mention ARE already businesses some of them.
This is exactly what I knew would happen. "If this is reality I deny reality" is basically what you are saying.