If you have any feedback/criticism, let me know.
@pj I've always held that the "blockchain not bitcoin" crowd miss that any blockchain has no value if it offers no value to decentralized actors.
So you set up a blockchain to do... whatever. Great. Now what's it worth to anyone else?
This is why I tell people that a bitcoin is really just a placeholder on a blockchain that offers value to all, for whatever reason they approach it.
If you don't own a placeholder, you have to buy one from someone who does....
@pj Those placeholders also have to be universally useful. Blockchains that address niche interests, like "dentist coin" (or whatever that was called, lol) have by definition limited utility. Great if someone needs to buy that particular placeholder, but useless to everyone else ("everyone" being 7+ billion humans walking the face of the earth).
Myself and every other human on earth can express our wealth, whatever it may be, in bitcoin, for it lacks any such pigeonholing.
@pj All blockchains, bitcoin included, potentially suffer from the "we threw a party, but no one showed up" problem. It exists, great, but no one is RSVP'ing.
By virtue of being useful in ANY exchange of value-for-value, whatever it may be, bitcoin gives value to blockchain. There is no "other way around" to this.
Any others that operate on this same metric must jump the hurdle of the network effect. Some others do, but not like the first mover. They don't improve on it, only copy.
@pj So yes, blockchain is a massive inovation. But without bitcoin, who would care?
The results of the thousands of blockchains out there now tell us: no one, unless you can "show them the money".
@Aurelius_17_6_313 I agree with that, you not only need the huge network of nodes but also the huge ecosystem of intergrations, the enthusiasm of talented developers, hardware nerds, etc. From a pessimistic viewpoint though, Bitcoin's lack of a popular smartcontract language add-on (RSK for example) could be a weakness, maybe. Then again, keeping "value transfer" separate from "unstoppable distributed computing" seems like a good idea...trying to combine those two things seems a little crazy.
@pj It could very well prove to be... or maybe not. This is why I get a little tired of maxis from time to time (I think a lot of them are basically just fanboys). This stuff is being tested in the "also ran" cryptos. If they create a solid model, bitcoin will absorb it. They're like a massive test bed for adding spokes to a wheel, improving it, when the wheel itself cannot be reinvented.
@Aurelius_17_6_313 yes, but slow to absorb could lose first-mover advantage, like you said. It's still early days though, as far as the distributed computing part. What I mean is, someday people won't incorporate in Wyoming or Delaware, they'll incorporate in some blockchain and all the business payments/receivables will pass through some unstoppable distributed code that can't be shut down. That would be the ultimate liability protection. A lot of lawyers would lose their job, etc.
@Aurelius_17_6_313 That too. What bothers me more is businesses investing many millions of dollars into "blockchain" storage tech thinking they are going to get amazing security (like that banking consortium that failed) when all they really needed was to "git add" their files (which creates a hash) and then "push" the data to a few other servers. Without the decentralization part, blockchain is basically just a checksum/hash of files (without the really secure decentralization of Bitcoin.)
@pj Exactly. And no economic incentive for anyone outside of X to help secure it.
51% attacks all day, every day.
Bitcoin Maston Instance