Over the years I feel brainwashed by the thoughts of others with no willpower to affirm my own beliefs.
Simply, to me blockchain/crypto is this idea of P2P communication where the intermediate technology that “handshakes” our connection isn’t essentially governed by a centralized entity. But, “handshaking” in this world costs and gas is often times used as the processing/energy to enact this exchange.
Now, for what can be exchanged, it can be quantities of an item. Or information stored within an item. Kind of like Pass by value vs. Pass by reference, in a weird way? Or cryptocurrencies vs. smart contracts?
Now, my own belief is, comparing this system with torrenting, seeding and other technologies that existed long ago and still today. What makes “blockchain/crypto” so valuable that cannot be solved with the technology invented prior to it. To me, it seems like there is extra charge and latency and thus just more negative values overall, when the final overall goal should be this idea of exchanging information without a middle man. We still need ISPs, we still need physical wires to complete the “end-to-end” connection with a peer. So isn’t everything still fundamentally centralized?
What is it actually improving? And is my way of thinking accurate? Why can’t there be a normal P2P project handling exchange of information and/or modern fiat in the same way (Something like Paypal, but transactions have no middleman)?
Edit: The only thing I recognized was the ease of transferring money in other countries. But, that was solved pretty much in the beginning. Why didn’t it just stop there? And, now with US regulations, it’s much harder to buy crypto and all the fees on top of it, kind of ruins a lot of the advantages the early adopters (at least for US citizens) had.
- Crypto is a scam: Part One, Part Two, Part Bankman-Fried
- NFTs are a scam
- Bruce Schneier: “It’s not secure. It’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use of nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”