Blockchain is Crappy Technology and a Bad Vision for the Future

[ATN.io]

public doesn't need to understand the technology and how it works completely in order to use it.

At this point in time, some degree of knowledge is important to be able to trust it, especially if we're dealing with money.

[Artlee87]

This article seems to be hyperbole for sure; however I think the general sentiment can be deemed valid in some parts. You can't just wave a blockchain at any set of problems, you have to implement it in a way that makes sense for that specific area. There is a lot of sensationalism in ICOs. Still, I don't like this article. 

[pooya87]

public doesn't need to understand the technology and how it works completely in order to use it.

At this point in time, some degree of knowledge is important to be able to trust it, especially if we're dealing with money.

"some degree of knowledge" is only knowing the basics like how to use a wallet and secure it, for example how to buy and use a hardware wallet! the "public" can easily learn that, it is not rocket science at this level. any deeper is not necessary to use it.

[amishmanish]

"some degree of knowledge" is only knowing the basics like how to use a wallet and secure it, for example how to buy and use a hardware wallet! the "public" can easily learn that, it is not rocket science at this level. any deeper is not necessary to use it.

Right. But this works as long as we are only talking about bitcoin. It's code can be deemed trustworthy because of the level of community engagement. It has been proven to work.

Problem arises when you take up more applications of blockchain, like the article argues about smart contracts. Smart contracts have proven themselves to be buggy. The trustlessness feature of smart-contract is dependent on whether you trust the intention and competence of the people who write the code. (My reply above).

What would be your view on the need to make smart-contracts more accessible??

[ATN.io]

public doesn't need to understand the technology and how it works completely in order to use it.

At this point in time, some degree of knowledge is important to be able to trust it, especially if we're dealing with money.

"some degree of knowledge" is only knowing the basics like how to use a wallet and secure it, for example how to buy and use a hardware wallet! the "public" can easily learn that, it is not rocket science at this level. any deeper is not necessary to use it.

It's not rocket science to you. Say that to the people who still think you can only buy one entire bitcoin at a time.

[ATN.io]

"some degree of knowledge" is only knowing the basics like how to use a wallet and secure it, for example how to buy and use a hardware wallet! the "public" can easily learn that, it is not rocket science at this level. any deeper is not necessary to use it.

Right. But this works as long as we are only talking about bitcoin. It's code can be deemed trustworthy because of the level of community engagement. It has been proven to work.

Problem arises when you take up more applications of blockchain, like the article argues about smart contracts. Smart contracts have proven themselves to be buggy. The trustlessness feature of smart-contract is dependent on whether you trust the intention and competence of the people who write the code. (My reply above).

What would be your view on the need to make smart-contracts more accessible??

The idea of smart contracts was brought up at an event on blockchain that I attended recently, and there is still a huge question with smart contracts when it comes to security and making sure the code is reviewed properly. The person who brought up the security in using smart contracts was very adamant that this type of agreement is very unlikely to be accepted by large institutions when issues in coding can costs them up to millions of dollars in funds that will never be able to be brought back. So the response to this from another audience member is that another layer of security would be need to be in place, a higher and centralized authority that would be able to make the call in these types of situations. Is this an idea people would support? Despite it going against the idea of complete decentralization?

[Dudeperfect]

Well, I am not blaming anyone but since we have recently seen that a country can interfere in the presidential election of another country, it would not be a surprise if governments around the globe trying dirty tricks to indirectly defame Bitcoin and blockchain technology and trying to destroy it by that way. We as the users know Blockchain has a potential to replace almost every centralized system and that's threatening to those who don't want to lose control of our lives.