Blockchain study finds 0.00% success rate in 43 cases

[kryptqnick]

The article: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/30/blockchain_study_finds_0_per_cent_success_rate/

My thoughts:

People were telling "Blockchain, not Bitcoin" for so many years, but the reality is the exact opposite. Bitcoin's technology is showing so many progress, we have adopted SegWit, LN is on mainnet for a year, even though it's still in beta, developers are discussing potential features. Bitcoin keeps growing, both in price and in number of users.
Meanwhile, blockchain fails to show any noticeable results during the last 3-4 years, so many talking, so many millions invested in ICO's, so many money spent on test and research and barely anyone actually uses it.

The article is pretty vague. It does not mention the specific cases and issues (apart from scalability) related to blockchain. I agree with dothebeats that we have reasons to look at bitcoin and blockchain separately. Let's start with bitcoin. Is it suitable for transactions in supermarkets or other cases in which a lot of small transactions are performed in a short period of time? Probably not. At the same time, it's awesome for transactions that involve a significant amount of money and should be performed, say, within a day (SWIFT transfers suck). As for blockchain, it has shown to be successful for voting and purchasing tickets, from what I can recall, and I am sure there are many other areas where it can be effective.

[andika2018]

The article: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/30/blockchain_study_finds_0_per_cent_success_rate/

My thoughts:

People were telling "Blockchain, not Bitcoin" for so many years, but the reality is the exact opposite. Bitcoin's technology is showing so many progress, we have adopted SegWit, LN is on mainnet for a year, even though it's still in beta, developers are discussing potential features. Bitcoin keeps growing, both in price and in number of users.
Meanwhile, blockchain fails to show any noticeable results during the last 3-4 years, so many talking, so many millions invested in ICO's, so many money spent on test and research and barely anyone actually uses it.

I think blockchain is not fail technology, its work technology. Blockchain technology will adopted by banks and for bussiness company. Blockchain is different with cryptocurrency or ICOs. Cryptocurrency is long term investment and i think it will work and used for payment in near future

[Huskarls]

In respect to price, we can see that it is not growing (and far from that), so you kinda have to check your sources.

As far as blockchain in general, I don't hear anything in real life about how it's changing the way people do things and I'm not sure if it's going to solve any problems that need solving.  Granted, I'm not an expert in blockchain tech--not even close--but it's been around for 10 years now and you'd think that corporations/governments/individuals would have latched onto it by now if it would be to their advantage.

Haven't read the article OP linked to yet, but I'm going to right now.

Edit:  Read it, and I liked this quote:

As with every bubble, whether it's Tulip Mania or the Californian Gold Rush, most investors lose their shirts while a fortune is being made by associated services – the advisors and marketeers can bank their cash, even if there's no gold in the river.

That's exactly what all these ICO projects are doing, promising that their tech will revolutionize whatever industry they're targeting, and the only ones who make money from them are the devs.  Everyone else loses out when they're stuck with a token that's not even traded on an exchange.  Can anyone show me a successful ICO where the project is actually benefiting something/someone other than the project developers?

even after about 10 years, the blockchain and bitcoin have not had an impressive impact at all, it looks like this will also apply for the next few years? do you agree with that?
so it's more or less just like moving assets from someone to another person and vice versa, and also with some of third party 

[magneto]

The article: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/30/blockchain_study_finds_0_per_cent_success_rate/

My thoughts:

People were telling "Blockchain, not Bitcoin" for so many years, but the reality is the exact opposite. Bitcoin's technology is showing so many progress, we have adopted SegWit, LN is on mainnet for a year, even though it's still in beta, developers are discussing potential features. Bitcoin keeps growing, both in price and in number of users.
Meanwhile, blockchain fails to show any noticeable results during the last 3-4 years, so many talking, so many millions invested in ICO's, so many money spent on test and research and barely anyone actually uses it.

You are absolutely correct.

The article makes it seem like that bitcoin is the problem here, but it's really got nothing to do with bitcoin.

If anything, this should be called an analysis on the success rates blockchain startups which use sort of an IPO structure to raise funds in the beginning. It's not a surprise to me that the success rate is so low even though again, the article may be completely biased with their data collection and wanting to make a sensationalist headline.

Most of these so called blockchain startups have absolutely no substance with their project, and their end goal is raising the money that they need, and not to develop their projects to their fullest extent. Most of these also aren't regulated by anyone. That's the underlying problem here. Not bitcoin.

[yusupjatigumilar]

 I myself see that people currently interested in blockchain are mostly because of the tantalizing price of bitcoin to become an investment commodity not because of the actual function of the blockchain and bitcoin itself, so it's natural that a lot of research says that the successful blockchain project is 0% because most people don't see the function of the ICO blockchain-based application project but from the price offered whether it is profitable or not, and ignores the function of the blockchain application.

[biskitop]

wherever, the product is always the best while supporting technology is only a complement. there is no supporting technology that actually defeats the popularity of the product itself. for example, a credit card from a bank, and the technology, then the conversation is the credit card, not the system or technology behind it. this is a very normal thing.

[Naida_BR]

The article: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/30/blockchain_study_finds_0_per_cent_success_rate/

My thoughts:

People were telling "Blockchain, not Bitcoin" for so many years, but the reality is the exact opposite. Bitcoin's technology is showing so many progress, we have adopted SegWit, LN is on mainnet for a year, even though it's still in beta, developers are discussing potential features. Bitcoin keeps growing, both in price and in number of users.
Meanwhile, blockchain fails to show any noticeable results during the last 3-4 years, so many talking, so many millions invested in ICO's, so many money spent on test and research and barely anyone actually uses it.

Blockchain is what made Bitcoin. Without Blockchain we wouldn't have Bitcoin. Thus, when you say that there is a progress in Bitcoin this is because the blockchain got upgraded.

They have turned the word of Bitcoin to Blockchain because it hears better in Marketing terms. Bitcoin is regulated and it has been attacked from media many times. It is better to state Blockchain for this way.

[hatshepsut93]

Blockchain is what made Bitcoin. Without Blockchain we wouldn't have Bitcoin. Thus, when you say that there is a progress in Bitcoin this is because the blockchain got upgraded.

They have turned the word of Bitcoin to Blockchain because it hears better in Marketing terms. Bitcoin is regulated and it has been attacked from media many times. It is better to state Blockchain for this way.

You can't really equate blockchain and all Bitcoin's technology, because blockchain is only one part of Bitcoin's stack. Using proof of work for timestamping is another important invention of Satoshi that gets overlooked most of the time, and many people even claim that it's inefficient or outdated, while in reality this is what makes Bitcoin truly trustless. The other aspects of Bitcoin are game theoretic approach, open network of nodes, ability for every user to verify everything, valuing security and stability over reckless experiments are all not present in most of the blockchain use cases.

[Huskarls]

It takes years to get a good, finished product. It is possible that in a few years we will see working projects on the blockchain. With ICO, the situation is different. Many projects in due time using HYIP collected money without having either useful ideas or an exact project implementation plan. And many of the ICO just copied the already created projects.

Whether this will improve or deteriorate, it depends on how the Blockchain users currently look. If they use the perspective like 4-5 years ago, it won't give any change within, or even it will get worse. More stuff about getting instant profit will come.