Since this thread is about an article celebrating UPI's 10B transactions/month: That means between 4133 (28 days/month) and 3733 (31 days/month) transactions per second on average.
Bitcoin is at 7 transactions per second.
The bitcoin blockchain takes ~500GB these days. At UPI's transaction volume, it'd take 250TB by now, replicated at various sites.
Whatever you think of blockchain, it has some serious work ahead.
This article is nearly two years old, but provides a good overview of the latest techniques devised for achieving scalability in public blockchains:
https://polynya.medium.com/rollups-data-availability-layers-...
Since then, layer 2s (which are the principal execution layer of the modular blockchain stack the article above expounds upon) have seen exponential growth in adoption, and mounting innovations bringing them progressively closer to their theoretical potential of 100,000 transactions per second:
Also, the blatant scam nature of them is a bit of a problem.
While there's a lot of hype, the Washington Post already printed the truth in 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/08/bitco... which an economy professor have nicely expanded on in two blog posts https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-pon... https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2021-01-16-yes-pon...
Put another way, there is nothing inherently scammy in using a distributed blockchain to record balances, and cryptography to authenticate updates to the balances. While opening the door to financial contracts to every one in the world with a computing device may make scam offerings more common, it's overly simplistic and lazy to resort to a caricature of crypto tokens being, as a rule, scams.
Articles like the ones you linked above want a return to serfdom, under the control of officialdom. There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own money, in a form more useful than physical cash.
In long lived immutable digital systems, guess what, that doesn't exist.
Talk to your actual scientist cousins, crypto-graphers.
If we're at the "totalitarian government" stage, "easily readable immutable data source" is EXACTLY what they'd dream of.
In any case, anonymity is a gradient. It's a question of how much resources a state has to expend to track a user, and that value can be increased with better privacy technology, so that the state has to eschew broad-based restrictions on mutually voluntary interactions and focus its investigative resources on only the most dangerous actors, who engage in genuinely predatory behavior (murderers, thieves, etc).
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/05/debunking-bu...
> Ordinary person: “Your weird Internet money sucks to use. It’s slow and expensive. I lost my coins by mistake and it can’t be fixed. If I get hacked it can’t be fixed either.”
> Bitcoin advocate: “But everyone wants [list of ideological aims held only by weird people]! Everyone I know, anyway.”
But in specifics, censorship resistance? I just read that in an article.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sex-workers-crypto-failing-t...
> “You get on an exchange for as long as you can, until they shut your ass down,” says Knox. “You quickly [run out of exchanges], so you sit on a lot of useless money. The whole ‘crypto is permissionless and censorship-resistant’ thing is a bunch of bullshit.”
All your sophistry aside that is.
Please read the responses and don't encourage flame wars.
> The only fundamental difference inherent to the respective designs of blockchains and traditional banking, is censorship resistance through genuine self-custody.
Then this is nonsense. The fundamental difference between the two is that one deals with real money while the other does not.
It’s just people have limited amount of time in a day, and caring that government X can trace their transaction is waste of time. Also, in the last 3 years of lawsuits, we’ve kind of seen how crypto payments are traceable as well if someone really wants to find the source.
Second, it is politically and generally legally easier to prohibit a class of interactions involving a subset of the population (e.g. those who refused to be vaccinated against COVID) by way of prohibiting intermediaries from interacting with them. So for instance, restaurants were prohibited from serving the unvaccinated in many jurisdictions, but the unvaccinated were not prohibited from patronizing restaurants. The authoritarian policy was easier to enforce like this, because the direct target was commercial establishments, which is a smaller group whom the population at large is less likely to defend, and a group that is already subject to greater restrictions.
Easier still to enforce restrictions on would be handful of financial intermediaries. Another example would be restrictions on investment. The SEC prohibits companies from selling stock to the public without meeting onerous registration requirements, but it does not prohibit the public from buying stock from companies without SEC approval to sell stock. The ban on the stock issuer is enough to deny the public the ability to invest in non-SEC-approved stock, and it is politically much more viable than imposing prohibitions directly on the public.
The administrative and political cost of imposing authoritarian policies increases in proportion to the size of the set of parties that need to have their actions restricted to effectively enforce the policy.
The solution to, the government is extrajudicially spying on our transactions and without due process blocking people from their finances, is not a system that uses an immutable public ledger. It’s reforming the law to protect people’s right to privacy and due process. It’s getting rid of the authoritarian government that strips people of their rights and freedoms.
Governments can engage in broad based prohibitions that affect large subsections of the population, but they are less likely to do that than imposing restrictions on smaller subsets of the population who constitutes chokepoints through which a much larger number of people can be prevented from engaging in an interaction.
Earlier I made the point that:
The administrative and political cost of imposing authoritarian policies increases in proportion to the size of the set of parties that need to have their actions restricted to effectively enforce the policy.
That does not imply that growing the size of the minimal set of parties whose actions need to be restricted for the state to successfully repress a class of interactions guarantees that that class of interactions will not be repressed. It means that fewer governments, in fewer contexts, will pursue a prohibition, as the size of that set grows.
If you're looking for a silver bullet that guarantees a people will live free of tyranny, then the blockchain is not it. It is just one of many institutions that counteract the tendency toward repression. And that's the best any institution can ever be.
>>The solution to, the government is extrajudicially spying on our transactions and without due process blocking people from their finances, is not a system that uses an immutable public ledger. It’s reforming the law to protect people’s right to privacy and due process. It’s getting rid of the authoritarian government that strips people of their rights and freedoms.
The solution is to pursue both. When the political track fails, a non-political check on the power of the state—like wide adoption of cash—can potentially save a people from greater levels of tyranny.
The anti-crypto contigent are consistently small-minded neurotic individuals who could be safely ignored if they did not back repressive government measures like futile COVID lockdowns, or a "War on Drugs" or "War on Crypto".
There is a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) in a pilot phase in India since last year.
I personally think a centrally owned service like the IPS is very useful. I just think we would be better off having a permissionless and decentralized alternative that has wide enough adoption to make useful and hard to prohibit, to both provide competition to the centrally controlled network, and to act as a failsafe in case that network is mismanaged and run in an abusive fashion, e.g. locking out those who refused to get a COVID vaccine.