"Blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not" — How do you respond to this?

[MinMan]

They are not "wrong", but if blockchain is "use"ful, but bitcoin is not, then where are they planning on using the blockchain? I guarantee you that they are not going to use it anywhere smarter than bitcoin. That is the point, we are not loving bitcoin for just the love of some digits, we love it because of blockchain, and htere is nothing else in the world using blocchain for anything better than bitcoin, thats why bitcoin reaches trillions of dollars, because we love the way blockchain is used here and we buy it. If you can figure out a better way to use blockchain then I will buy that too, but there is not.

[mohdadeeb]

I understand the argument, but saying “Bitcoin is not useful” ignores its role as the first successful application of blockchain. Bitcoin showed that a decentralized, trustless digital currency can actually work at a global level. Even if blockchain has many other use cases, Bitcoin remains the foundation that gave the entire crypto ecosystem credibility and adoption. Both are connected, but Bitcoin still plays a key role in proving blockchain’s value in real-world finance.

[Satofan44]

Why would that be an issue with big companies, especially those that have several divisions and partnerships?

Of course those big issuers can run an own public blockchain. But they would lack the network effect. See below.

I didn't say public, they don't need a public blockchain. This is a misunderstanding that many people have who have spent too much time in this space.

But then why to use blockchain at all? RWA assets mirror existing assets which can also be sold by these entities. Another reason to adopt blockchain technology could be to facilitate microinvesting into assets like stocks which can't easily be sold in small fractions, but non-blockchain solutions for that exist since several years.

Thus for me the main answers to the question "why does RWA need a blockchain?" are still outsourcing costs (and in this case, an existing chain comes handy) and entering new markets (the "crypto" market isn't that small, in some countries more than 10% hold/trade "crypto").

I don't know if we really disagree -- if the essence of your posts is that "apart from capturing crypto users (often borderline scamming them), RWA are useless" -- then I'm with you.

I think that you fail to remember that this concept of an real-world enterprise materializing on public random shitcoins is not new, RWA is just the latest example. Find me example of pilot projects or ideas that have stayed on public blockchains from the past? There are not more than a handful and tiny concepts that have remained. You can run pilot projects, you do all sorts of things but for the things that a company is usually going to want a blockchain -- it will always be better to run a private blockchain and just do it. There is not a single good reason that is practically important (don't give me theoretic arguments) and past data proves that I am right.  You can argue a case that "this time it is different", but that would be something else. The only real difference is that now a few financial names are doing these pilots and tests, whether that will materialize in different outcomes (staying on a public shitcoin instead of starting their own or using somebody else's private chain) remains to be seen.

Everyone is free to make their own opinions, believe what you want to and I will believe in mine,

Baseless, random, and wrong opinions are meaningless. Truth matters, not opinions. Erase the cancer leftist rot from your brain.

There are many very good direct competitors to Bitcoin like SOL, ETH, XRP, and a few others.

Then there are structural competitors like the stablecoins.

it would be very easy for Trump to coerce Americans to switch from BTC to $TRUMP.

I opened this Topic again after two months to see the new replies totally not expecting to read the dumbest thing of this week.  I would have understood if you compared Bitcoin to a possibly better version of Blockchain or 'Bitcoin' that may appear in the future.  Or such things.  But comparing it to XRP, Stablecoins and finally TRUMP COIN calling it a possible take over is just.. dumb.

The local orange agricultural producer is set to take over Apple as the leading smartphone manufacturer. 

[d5000]

I didn't say public, they don't need a public blockchain. This is a misunderstanding that many people have who have spent too much time in this space.

The last post was about the possibility to finance a public blockchain, including ICO, validator/ecosystem funds and so on. Which is expensive.

The problem with private blockchains is interoperability with the rest of the ecosystem. Of course they can create one, but then they'll face disadvantages, like not being able to trade on most CEXes without some sort of bridge, and lack of access to DEXes. I recommend to read the whole discussion again

I'm here not talking about pilot projects and internal blockchains which do not need access of the general public, see below.

I think that you fail to remember that this concept of an real-world enterprise materializing on public random shitcoins is not new, RWA is just the latest example.

No, where did I "fail" to "remember" that? This is of course common practice. And my point is that it brought these companies advantages. Société Générale (as a big bank that has already issued tokens) has their CoinVertible stablecoins on ETH, Solana, and XRP chains. I think the advantages I've brought up in the last posts and above are the reason why they haven't chosen a private blockchain for that purpose, they even have the resources for a public blockchain of their own.

Find me example of pilot projects or ideas that have stayed on public blockchains from the past? There are not more than a handful and tiny concepts that have remained. You can run pilot projects, you do all sorts of things but for the things that a company is usually going to want a blockchain -- it will always be better to run a private blockchain and just do it.

I think we definitely talk about different things. I didn't talk about pilot projects. Of course for pilot projects which do not need interoperability with the existing token ecosystem a private blockchain can be an option. But the question is what remains from the "blockchain" concept in that case if it's only about securing an internal, completely centralized ledger with some hashes. Blockchains' main feature is to solve the problem of double spending in a public network.

My intention in the past posts was to bring up the advantages for companies to issue RWA tokens on public, existing blockchains to outsource marketing (due to easier presence on CEXes) and consensus costs. IMO this can be a good option if you want to be present on that (crypto) market. But in ideal conditions (when the market has decided finally that centralized solutions are better for centralized tokens than blockchains) RWA tokens should end working better in traditional centralized infrastructures. But they won't be present on crypto exchanges, but instead on Robinhood-style microinvesting platforms. They wouldn't really be RWA tokens anymore. Just microinvesting solutions (and these already exist).

The RWA token idea is basically only a good option while we continue in a "market fallacy" which is the current "crypto" or "shitcoin" boom (which can end at any time).

[BlackHatCoiner]

There was a period when ETH was more valuable than Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin subsequently pulled way ahead, Bitcoin is still only about one half of the total crypto market value, with the other half being spread among the next 6-8 coins down the list.

There has never been a period in history when Ethereum had a greater market cap than Bitcoin. And also, greater market cap does not equate greater value. I can create a memecoin with 10 trillion tokens, sell one token to myself for $1, and it exceeds the market cap of Bitcoin.

"Greater value" is ultimately subjective, of course. The most accurate manner to measure how valuable an asset is, is by looking at liquidity. If there are trillions of dollars in bids and asks in positions, then that is considered very valuable.

I opened this Topic again after two months to see the new replies totally not expecting to read the dumbest thing of this week.

Wait until you read about Trumpcoin replacing the US dollar!

[legiteum]

There was a period when ETH was more valuable than Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin subsequently pulled way ahead, Bitcoin is still only about one half of the total crypto market value, with the other half being spread among the next 6-8 coins down the list.

There has never been a period in history when Ethereum had a greater market cap than Bitcoin.

You're right, it only reached 80% of Bitcoin's value. I don't think this changes my point though.

And also, greater market cap does not equate greater value.

LOL. Okay, sure, my pet rock is more valuable than anything in the world to me. But here in the real world there's a thing called a "free market" and that device determines objective value.

(And we're talking about meme investments here with no intrinsic practical value--all of the things you say Bitcoin does it would still do if the market price was $1 per coin--so it's pretty funny to hear that the value is not the one the market gave it ).

[BlackHatCoiner]

LOL. Okay, sure, my pet rock is more valuable than anything in the world to me. But here in the real world there's a thing called a "free market" and that device determines objective value.

A free market does not determine how valuable bitcoin is to you and me, and there is no such thing as "objective value". A free market is a list of buyers and sellers and their positions on how many dollars they are willing to trade for an amount of bitcoin. Furthermore, a market cap does not reveal how many US dollars people are willing to trade for bitcoin, which is a far more meaningful to measure the market size of Bitcoin.

Please study economics before confidently displaying complete incompetence and moronic reasoning across multiple domains.

https://mises.org/online-book/introduction-austrian-economics/4-subjective-theory-value

[legiteum]

LOL. Okay, sure, my pet rock is more valuable than anything in the world to me. But here in the real world there's a thing called a "free market" and that device determines objective value.

A free market does not determine how valuable bitcoin is to you and me, and there is no such thing as "objective value".

No, it determines its value to the free market. That's why it's called "market cap". Nobody cares what you, or me or some random person thinks of an instrument, the only thing that matters in the real world is what the free market will pay for it.

You can jump up and down all you want and say that NVDA should not be worth $4T, but it won't do anything.

And in the free market, you are absolutely free to pay somebody twice the going rate for their Bitcoin because you love it so much. Nobody will stop you. You aren't free to force somebody else to pay you for that though.

But just to circle back, at one point the market cap for ETH was 80% of Bitcoin's. That fact diminished one aspect of the Bitcoin maxi's idea that it's absolutely impossible that anything will ever be more valuable than BTC.

But to be clear, we're taking about investing in Bitcoin in the public markets. I think many here would absolutely love for BTC to drop to $0.001 in price so they could buy them all because they love to simply have BTC for its own sake. That's an... interesting, um, fetish .

But virtually everybody else buys BTC in order to sell it later for more. If you find yourself not understanding a lot of the discussions here, that difference is probably why.

[Emotional rant deleted]

That you have to make bitcointalk more nasty like that doesn't help your arguments. It actually diminishes them.

[tread93]

Man Jamie Dimon has made so many claims about bitcoin and how bad it is but in the end theyre just saying those things to short the market and make money

[BlackHatCoiner]

You can jump up and down all you want and say that NVDA should not be worth $4T, but it won't do anything.

Nowhere did I state the opposite.

But just to circle back, at one point the market cap for ETH was 80% of Bitcoin's. That fact diminished one aspect of the Bitcoin maxi's idea that it's absolutely impossible that anything will ever be more valuable than BTC.

The Bitcoin maxi's idea is not that "it's absolutely impossible that anything will ever be more valuable". The maxi's idea is that there is simply no asset with better properties than this one as hard money. You can claim that it's "just code" and that another digital currency can theoretically replace it, but it is fundamentally infeasible to recreate another currency with the same network effect and moral fundamentals (i.e., if a "better" digital currency with hard cap was created, whales would accumulate all of it from day one.)

But virtually everybody else buys BTC in order to sell it later for more. If you find yourself not understanding a lot of the discussions here, that difference is probably why.

I have a very good understanding of how everything said in this thread works, thanks.

That you have to make bitcointalk more nasty like that doesn't help your arguments. It actually diminishes them.

My arguments do not need any help, they are very sound. Bullying people who refuse to acknowledge them is a new practice I've adopted and enjoy, however, yes.

[Satofan44]

The problem with private blockchains is interoperability with the rest of the ecosystem. Of course they can create one, but then they'll face disadvantages, like not being able to trade on most CEXes without some sort of bridge, and lack of access to DEXes. I recommend to read the whole discussion again

No, there is no interoperability problem if you do not need interoperability. There are many cases in which it is not needed, including building a private blockchain that is going to act as an infrastructure itself. You don't want to run the whole financial networking including stock exchanges on Ethereum, do you? You probably do not even know how confabulated these existing systems are (both the US and EU), so the chance that they would ever be given away to a public chain is 0.0%. Private companies can do individual projects here and there, but the whole thing is never going into a public non-specialized chain.

I think that you fail to remember that this concept of an real-world enterprise materializing on public random shitcoins is not new, RWA is just the latest example.

No, where did I "fail" to "remember" that? This is of course common practice. And my point is that it brought these companies advantages. Société Générale (as a big bank that has already issued tokens) has their CoinVertible stablecoins on ETH, Solana, and XRP chains. I think the advantages I've brought up in the last posts and above are the reason why they haven't chosen a private blockchain for that purpose, they even have the resources for a public blockchain of their own.

A stablecoin is nothing but a token, I can create a stablecoin backed by my money in less than 5 minutes. While your example is good, it is not an example that goes deep enough to warrant a private blockchain. To create a whole blockchain just to issue a token for any use would not be smart.

Find me example of pilot projects or ideas that have stayed on public blockchains from the past? There are not more than a handful and tiny concepts that have remained. You can run pilot projects, you do all sorts of things but for the things that a company is usually going to want a blockchain -- it will always be better to run a private blockchain and just do it.

I think we definitely talk about different things. I didn't talk about pilot projects. Of course for pilot projects which do not need interoperability with the existing token ecosystem a private blockchain can be an option. But the question is what remains from the "blockchain" concept in that case if it's only about securing an internal, completely centralized ledger with some hashes.
My intention in the past posts was to bring up the advantages for companies to issue RWA tokens on public, existing blockchains to outsource marketing (due to easier presence on CEXes) and consensus costs. IMO this can be a good option if you want to be present on that (crypto) market. But in ideal conditions (when the market has decided finally that centralized solutions are better for centralized tokens than blockchains) RWA tokens should end working better in traditional centralized infrastructures. But they won't be present on crypto exchanges, but instead on Robinhood-style microinvesting platforms. They wouldn't really be RWA tokens anymore. Just microinvesting solutions (and these already exist).

The RWA token idea is basically only a good option while we continue in a "market fallacy" which is the current "crypto" or "shitcoin" boom (which can end at any time).

We got ourselves backwards in the understanding here. I was saying that they are going to run pilot projects on public blockchains in order to test the waters, to see how it performs, what they can actually do with it. They are not going to build a private blockchain copycat (or worse, one from scratch) just to run a pilot that will never materialize. There have been thousands of real world pilot projects of various sorts in ETH and many other chains, they have lead to nothing in most cases. Companies retreated or built their own private chains or joined the private chains of others afterwards. RWA is just the latest "hype" and latest concept being tested, most concepts will fail or retreat. As for marketing claims, yes indeed it sounds like a great benefit to run a project in an environment where 99.99% of projects have been scams and most users have been scammed one way or another.

The best projects will be those that run their own private chains or join other private chains, where the blockchain is not exposed to the user at all. They will be doing RWA and gaining the benefits that come from that as a user without even knowing that it is provided as a blockchain. A federated blockchain or private blockchain is superior to a database, even if it does not come with the features of Bitcoin -- and they do not need to, because they fulfill a different use case.

You need to get this a bit through your head. The future is not public blockchains and big names everywhere, the user does not need to know anything about blockchains for these private and centralized projects such as RWA projects. Most of the humans in the world are part of the financial system in the developed world, and not even 0.01% have any clue how it works and what the infrastructure is. That is the future of these projects. It is basically rebuilding a fragile, old, and messed up system through the blockchain concept. If it is just issuing a token, they can do that on any shitcoin chain as long as they have all the permissions on as it gives them full control over it. If it is more than that and they need additional guarantees against fraud and hacks, they need more power and control than a public blockchain will provide them. The financial system is not going to turn it a "oh well, we got hacked there is nothing we can do about it" system.  

Blockchains' main feature is to solve the problem of double spending in a public network.

No. That is the main feature of public blockchains, not all blockchains.

Man Jamie Dimon has made so many claims about bitcoin and how bad it is but in the end theyre just saying those things to short the market and make money

You can ignore retards like that, just because somebody's name is famous that does not mean that they have more working braincells than a newborn monkey.

[legiteum]

The Bitcoin maxi's idea is not that "it's absolutely impossible that anything will ever be more valuable". The maxi's idea is that there is simply no asset with better properties than this one as hard money.

So why go apoplectic when I suggested that ETH was once almost as valuable as Bitcoin? Maybe ETH will be more valuable than Bitcoin someday, or maybe XRP will, or maybe something that hasn't been invented yet will be.

FWIW, after you've seen a few generations of the "next big thing" in technology come and go over the years, you learn to stop using words like "forever". Just saying...

But virtually everybody else buys BTC in order to sell it later for more. If you find yourself not understanding a lot of the discussions here, that difference is probably why.

I have a very good understanding of how everything said in this thread works, thanks.

The thread maybe, since you are in the bitcointalk echo chamber (I'm going to start harvesting merit soon by just writing successive "bitcoin is going to 1M" threads ).

But if you are interested in the outside world--the world that actually affects the price of Bitcoin--you'd do well to understand how people besides yourself think. Just saying...

That you have to make bitcointalk more nasty like that doesn't help your arguments. It actually diminishes them.

My arguments do not need any help, they are very sound. Bullying people who refuse to acknowledge them is a new practice I've adopted and enjoy, however, yes.

I guess if the mods are okay with it, then you do you. Also in my long travels I've seen too many online forums turn into useless shit shows when personal attacks become the norm. I've always been impressed with bitcointalk, and good moderation is the reason it's still here after all of these years, but nothing lasts forever (there's that theme again).

Blockchains' main feature is to solve the problem of double spending in a public network.

No. That is the main feature of public blockchains, not all blockchains.

The only unique advantage of blockchain is its ability to resist government shutdown. And for that advantage you pay a massive price in efficiency, cost, complexity and security. No private company (or government) is going to fear the government shutting down their currency network.

The idea of implementing a "private blockchain", therefore, is utterly retarded (which is probably why nobody has ever used it for any serious project).

(Oh, and Bitcoin doesn't need this architecture anymore either, as we discussed in this thread).

[d5000]

No, there is no interoperability problem if you do not need interoperability. There are many cases in which it is not needed, including building a private blockchain that is going to act as an infrastructure itself.

That's quite obvious. But let me ask a question to avoid further misunderstanding, because I think the disagreement lies in semantics:

Is a financial database, where a single centralized source of truth / authority (can be of course distributed on various servers, but run by the same company or person) applies a "hash chain" to data entries to improve security, already a "private blockchain" for you?

That's where I guess we differ - this isn't really a blockchain for me, that's what I described as traditional system with blockchain elements in previous posts. And these systems of course can make sense if they improve internal security and transparency. But such systems were described at least 15 years before Bitcoin and I guess such structures could be commonplace in the financial system.

But would I describe an asset, like a microinvesting "version" of a stock, running on such an infrastructure as a "RWA token" or consider it part of the "crypto" ecosystem? For me it would be still traditional (i.e. Robinhood-style) microinvesting.

For me a true "blockchain" is a system where a consensus structure provides some sort of added value, for example because various sources of authority have to agree on the timeline of the transactions. I guess that's also what the OP wants to promote here, albeit I think he's interested in RWA tokens on public blockchains.

There may be some cases where a private/semi-public "true" blockchain with some sort of consensus engine may make sense for me, for example a federated system where several banks interact to run an exchange-like infrastructure with several thousands of RWA tokens on it. I guess that's what you mean according to your last paragraph, and in these cases I sorta agree.

It is however disputable if these systems really need a full blockchain. I've read diverging opinions on that. Because if the "source of truth" is centralized and the double spend problem only is result of possible bugs or temporary network fragmentations while attacks are impossible or extremely unlikely (because all participating entities share the same interest), other faster systems may be able to provide the same security with less resource usage. This is also what I meant when I wrote that a source of truth in a public network is the main benefit of blockchains in general.

A stablecoin is nothing but a token, I can create a stablecoin backed by my money in less than 5 minutes. While your example is good, it is not an example that goes deep enough to warrant a private blockchain. To create a whole blockchain just to issue a token for any use would not be smart.

Fully agree, that's what I was writing all the time ... A RWA token is not much more complex than a stablecoin.

I was saying that they are going to run pilot projects on public blockchains in order to test the waters, to see how it performs, what they can actually do with it. They are not going to build a private blockchain copycat (or worse, one from scratch) just to run a pilot that will never materialize. [..]. RWA is just the latest "hype" and latest concept being tested, most concepts will fail or retreat.

Until here I agree.

As for marketing claims, yes indeed it sounds like a great benefit to run a project in an environment where 99.99% of projects have been scams and most users have been scammed one way or another.

I think it's at least short sighted, because I think the probability is quite high that ecosystems like Ethereum, Solana, Tron etc. had their peak already just because of the scam density you mention (despite of some of them still "scoring" ATHs, and maybe a really strong Bitcoin bull market - e.g. "gold flippening" scenarios - could also bring new capital and new ATHs to these coins if they're not dead already). But my view is probably a minority opinion here, some even believe into Ethereum/Bitcoin flipping scenarios  , and for some entities it still seems to be attractive (see the SG example) to create new tokens on existing public blockchains. I think it may be still a profitable short term strategy while for the long term I'm skeptic.

[kawetsriyanto]

Briefly, it really doesn't matter what anyone says. The fact is, so far, Bitcoin has provided me with the greatest direct benefits from my involvement in the crypto space. So, no doubt. Bitcoin is the best part of blockchain I've ever had than other cryptocurrencies, .

I understand the argument, but saying “Bitcoin is not useful” ignores its role as the first successful application of blockchain.

This is a narrow and closed view of Bitcoin. A view typically expressed by Bitcoin haters. So, whatever the reason, they will continue to consider Bitcoin useless. Let them be.

[UchihaSarada]

Briefly, it really doesn't matter what anyone says. The fact is, so far, Bitcoin has provided me with the greatest direct benefits from my involvement in the crypto space. So, no doubt. Bitcoin is the best part of blockchain I've ever had than other cryptocurrencies, .

This is a narrow and closed view of Bitcoin. A view typically expressed by Bitcoin haters. So, whatever the reason, they will continue to consider Bitcoin useless. Let them be.

There are many works done, projects created before Satoshi Nakamoto launching Bitcoin blockchain with the Bitcoin Genesis block. After Bitcoin blockchain, there are many alternative cryptocurrency blockchains created too so Bitcoin is not the only one here.

The saying "Blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not" is severe wrong because Bitcoin is a first ever successful blockchain. It's not wrong to say Bitcoin project and Bitcoin blockchain actually brought this technology to the world, in a way of massive adoption and initiated a new technological trend.

Bitcoin prehistory.

[savetheFORUM]

I do not think anyone would want to run the whole stock market on blockchain, but at the same time, if you want to ,why not? Not because you should, but because if you ever want to, I do not see anything wrong o n it. Not ethereum, not bitcoin, but a private one, where it's a blockchain they made just for that.

It would be very secure as well because it would be heavily centralized, and they could do whatever they want on it to make improvements in the future if they ever need it. I understand it may not be quick or anything like that, but it is not going to be that bad neither we should be considering this as something that will be very profitable for any stock market if they want to ever build something like that.

[JulBTCTalk]

I would say that blockchain became useful because Bitcoin proved it could work. Without Bitcoin, blockchain is often just a database with extra steps. Bitcoin gives it a real purpose: open money, no central owner, and global settlement. So saying “blockchain is useful but Bitcoin is not” is like saying the engine is useful but the car is not. The technology matters, but Bitcoin is the strongest example of why it matters. 

[Satofan44]

That's quite obvious. But let me ask a question to avoid further misunderstanding, because I think the disagreement lies in semantics:

Is a financial database, where a single centralized source of truth / authority (can be of course distributed on various servers, but run by the same company or person) applies a "hash chain" to data entries to improve security, already a "private blockchain" for you?

That's where I guess we differ - this isn't really a blockchain for me, that's what I described as traditional system with blockchain elements in previous posts. And these systems of course can make sense if they improve internal security and transparency. But such systems were described at least 15 years before Bitcoin and I guess such structures could be commonplace in the financial system.

I would also say no, but there is no reason for personal opinions on this though. It may not be formalized in the exact details similarly as to how it is not defined when an smaller system becomes an complete OS (just one more function or application that tips the scale?).  However, is well established that there public, private, hybrid, consortium/federated blockchain in the scientific literature. To not dwell too much into the details in all differences because it would be too OT here, just think in terms of access. Imagine a Solana where you can't just come, buy some, and stake as a public person. That is all that it is to it. If you run 100 nodes across 100 public people, or across 100 divisions or partners or companies whatever you are still going to get many benefits of the blockchain. It is close to a distributed database, but it differs in technological structure and capabilities. You can't run complex SCs on a distributed database for example.

There may be some cases where a private/semi-public "true" blockchain with some sort of consensus engine may make sense for me, for example a federated system where several banks interact to run an exchange-like infrastructure with several thousands of RWA tokens on it. I guess that's what you mean according to your last paragraph, and in these cases I sorta agree.

Yes, and that is exactly what is going to happen. When I wrote that you are not familiar with the financial structure, I was not trying to be mean but to push you into a direction to check. It is an extremely complicated, broken system with a lot of gatekeeping. This is why the trades over there settle slowly, why fees are high and there is a lot of debt both financial and technical. Both the US and EU would benefit greatly from a complete rebuild into a single infrastructure, and they are definitely not going to be using a public blockchain for that. That was the point, what they are going to build or how is not the point. It could be reduced to: if they had to choose between a public or private blockchain, they will do it in a private one.   The old system does not need a decentralized "source of truth" like Bitcoin does, so neither will its evolution need it.

Seriously look up some information, I remember some pictures circulating a few years ago about these systems in the EU and US regarding clearing houses and stuff like that. It is a complete wreck, it should be razed to the ground and done all over again. If I see them again, I'll send them to you.

It is however disputable if these systems really need a full blockchain. I've read diverging opinions on that. Because if the "source of truth" is centralized and the double spend problem only is result of possible bugs or temporary network fragmentations while attacks are impossible or extremely unlikely (because all participating entities share the same interest), other faster systems may be able to provide the same security with less resource usage. This is also what I meant when I wrote that a source of truth in a public network is the main benefit of blockchains in general.

It is, but it has always been good for building infrastructure of various types. Traditional databases (you could see blockchain as an advanced version or iteration of database technology) and many other frameworks simply do not have the needed features to be able to replace the system. You should focus less on the source of truth, because that is not the only thing that is important about blockchains. In fact, most industry will ignore that completely -- they don't need it and want to retain control. Bitcoin operates in an adversarial system, that is why that benefits is so important -- private blockchains in most cases do not, you just revert what went wrong and lock out the attacker. It is a trust-based system most often, not a trust-less one.

I was saying that they are going to run pilot projects on public blockchains in order to test the waters, to see how it performs, what they can actually do with it. They are not going to build a private blockchain copycat (or worse, one from scratch) just to run a pilot that will never materialize. [..]. RWA is just the latest "hype" and latest concept being tested, most concepts will fail or retreat.

Until here I agree.

Fair enough, we don't have to agree exactly to each detail. I am more a I'll believe it when I see it guy, and experience in this sector shows. I try to not waste memory capabilities on storing all that information, but I remember that the whole world will run on public blockchains. Computing, cloud, DNS, physical infrastructure even such as supply chains. Nothing materialized aside from limited functions. I'll believe this RWA in combination with public blockchains only after it happens.  

As for marketing claims, yes indeed it sounds like a great benefit to run a project in an environment where 99.99% of projects have been scams and most users have been scammed one way or another.

I think it's at least short sighted, because I think the probability is quite high that ecosystems like Ethereum, Solana, Tron etc. had their peak already just because of the scam density you mention (despite of some of them still "scoring" ATHs, and maybe a really strong Bitcoin bull market - e.g. "gold flippening" scenarios - could also bring new capital and new ATHs to these coins if they're not dead already). But my view is probably a minority opinion here, some even believe into Ethereum/Bitcoin flipping scenarios  , and for some entities it still seems to be attractive (see the SG example) to create new tokens on existing public blockchains. I think it may be still a profitable short term strategy while for the long term I'm skeptic.

The delusions from people who believe in random shitcoins go deep, because they are poor and desperate -- and they have no real knowledge of any kind. While I would not guarantee for sure that shitcoins have peaked forever, until economic factors significantly improve they will continue to stay in the dust. Think about Solana as an example, the latest data point a few months ago was something like 4 million meme tokens launched which means that it has a scam rate of 99.99% or a success rate of less than 0.001%.   This is most of the "real utility" of public shitcoin chains.

At least we have Bitcoin, Bitcoin has always been different.  

[alani123]

We don't need BlackRock and company executives settling transactions on tokenised USD on our chain for it to continue to function.

Let them do what they want.

IBM and a bunch of other megacorps have been trying to develop hyper ledger, a chain without coins, for over a decade now. And still, no product shipped, no utility found. Bitcoin is doing great in the meantime.

Let them try it. Let them fail. Continue doing what works with BTC.