Bad research based on subjective opinion? I dont see how anyone would see blockchain in itself as useless. It provides a verification method without the use of a centralized system. Are all peer-to-peer systems useless now? Its not to be used as a tool for everything. It will not fix everything. I’d be more interested in research of what happens when reactionary practices are used. Such as using blockchain just because it’s the hot new trend without thoroughly thinking about the consequences of such actions. blockchain = bad / blockchain = good is not good enough, each implementation needs to be studied independently and answers derived from that. Replace blockchain with AI and it’s the same.
It’s a way of verification and trust in a system where no one trusts any central authority, but does trust an algorithm. That seems too specific to ever actually be useful. People will end up relying on services or instructions that make the system digestible and usable for them, but as long as they still rely on those giving the instructions, the same problem arises.
And when an example case is brought up, it’s always one central authority that is pushing the idea - and could achieve the same more easily and without power waste using a central server.
I mean, if one party pushes for use of blockchain, you’d just need to trust that specific system (algorithm, network…) and not explicitly the party pushing for it.
I also wouldn’t call it power ‘waste’ since it does useful work - confirmation. It may be more inefficient compared to a centralized authority though. There are other ways of doing confirmations than proof-of-work as well, though each have their own drawbacks - just like a centralized system does,
Bad research based on subjective opinion? I dont see how anyone would see blockchain in itself as useless. It provides a verification method without the use of a centralized system. Are all peer-to-peer systems useless now? Its not to be used as a tool for everything. It will not fix everything. I’d be more interested in research of what happens when reactionary practices are used. Such as using blockchain just because it’s the hot new trend without thoroughly thinking about the consequences of such actions. blockchain = bad / blockchain = good is not good enough, each implementation needs to be studied independently and answers derived from that. Replace blockchain with AI and it’s the same.
It’s a way of verification and trust in a system where no one trusts any central authority, but does trust an algorithm. That seems too specific to ever actually be useful. People will end up relying on services or instructions that make the system digestible and usable for them, but as long as they still rely on those giving the instructions, the same problem arises.
And when an example case is brought up, it’s always one central authority that is pushing the idea - and could achieve the same more easily and without power waste using a central server.
I mean, if one party pushes for use of blockchain, you’d just need to trust that specific system (algorithm, network…) and not explicitly the party pushing for it.
I also wouldn’t call it power ‘waste’ since it does useful work - confirmation. It may be more inefficient compared to a centralized authority though. There are other ways of doing confirmations than proof-of-work as well, though each have their own drawbacks - just like a centralized system does,
it’s chewing through tremendous amounts of power and water to improve…? what?
I have yet to see the upside.