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

[BlackHatCoiner]

So why go apoplectic when I suggested that ETH was once almost as valuable as Bitcoin?

I wasn't apologetic. You just stated something that is factually incorrect, and I corrected you.

Maybe ETH will be more valuable than Bitcoin someday, or maybe XRP will, or maybe something that hasn't been invented yet will be.

Maybe. Maybe we return back to the Gold standard. Maybe World War III begins and it renders all assets worthless. Maybe aliens invade the Earth. There are a lot of maybes.

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...

I don't agree that Bitcoin will be the best performing asset forever. It might be the best performing asset in the past decade, and it might be in this decade also, but it will probably stop being the best when it reaches around $20 trillion market cap.

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...

I know well how the world works, and I'm not in an echo chamber. What I write about Bitcoin I have done thorough research.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I always ignore people who say this. It’s just rage baiting, these people have no tech expertise and know nothing about blockchain technology or Bitcoin. They are just purposefully being antagonistic and hating. Don’t give these type of people your time of energy. They can all cry when Bitcoin is at $1,000,000.

[X-ray]

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.

They are trying RGB, Arkade, and others to cater into their stablecoin even going as far as attaching it into the name Bitcoin.

Their previous attempt with no coins chain, ultra centralized blockchain has been all but futile attempt everybody still uses Ethereum and use Bitcoin for investment and self custody.

I wonder why they are so adamant in pushing their stablecoin into places that don't really need them.

[UchihaSarada]

Bitcoin blockchain?  

Did I say something wrong that Bitcoin is a blockchain?

Yep, there were some projects before Bitcoin. eCash, E-Gold, Bit Gold, B-Money, and Hashcash were the older projects.
After Bitcoin was launched, we have many altcoin projects. Until now, there are always new altcoin projects. This may never end in the future.

*Some projects before Bitcoin: https://www.investopedia.com/tech/were-there-cryptocurrencies-bitcoin/

For projects before Bitcoin, I tried to provide link for further reading to Bitcoin prehistory in my post.

After Bitcoin project launched, there are many altcoins as Bitcoin forks were created but they mostly failed or more severely worse, died with time.
How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!
My list of 43(+3) reviewed Bitcoin forks. There actually much more than 43 Bitcoin forks.

[YellowSwap]

That JP Morgan have deceived so many people, some people gave up because they listed to the advice from these people, they compared themselves and said what did they know compared to JP Morgan? He must know better.

In this life, if you can't do your own diligent research you can live your whole life based on lies, this isn't just about Bitcoin but in everything you are been told, always be willing to give research a try, lies don't last they say, that's a big lie too.

Becareful who you choose to listen to, be willing to find answers, if bitcoin isn't useful for some people it can be useful for you, so find that out first, what will I gain if I invest in Bitcoin? Do I really need bitcoin? This questions are important.

[Satofan44]

Blockchain is indeed very useful. Everyone agrees to that and so there's no debate for it anyway. Bitcoin does have room to improve but not doing that is what people believe in.

False, it is the exact opposite. The benefits that Bitcoin has do not derive from the blockchain itself, but the properties of a decentralized and public permissionless network that only Bitcoin is. Blockchain as a technology has various applications in which it can be used, none of which are actually explored properly in the public blockchains  -- launching scam projects is not a utility -- but it is a very small thing compared to what Bitcoin is. The real utility is Bitcoin, most of the rest is smoke and mirrors. Smart contracts that were supposed to revolutionize the world, meanwhile their best use case is automated launching of scam tokens. 

2. Are ETF buyers adoption or just speculation?

Speculation. They all just want to get rich. They are just betting for bitcoin to grow bigger and it will.

Also false. a large portion of ETF buyers are more likely to be long term investors than 99.9% of the 3rd world pajeets that are just in Bitcoin to pillage and be parasites. Unlike smart and forward thinking people who have established the modern world, 3rd world pajeets do not give a single fuck about Bitcoin.

I always ignore people who say this. It’s just rage baiting, these people have no tech expertise and know nothing about blockchain technology or Bitcoin. They are just purposefully being antagonistic and hating. Don’t give these type of people your time of energy. They can all cry when Bitcoin is at $1,000,000.

Depends, you are right sometimes. However, there are many people who are not doing it to "rage bait" they are just that stupid. This very thread is filled with various answers from other individuals that are pure misinformation. The forum is in a sorry state, and the wider world even more so.

[Akbarkoe]

I always ignore people who say this. It’s just rage baiting, these people have no tech expertise and know nothing about blockchain technology or Bitcoin. They are just purposefully being antagonistic and hating. Don’t give these type of people your time of energy. They can all cry when Bitcoin is at $1,000,000.

But even I think the opposite of all this cuteness, Bitcoin is much more useful than the blockchain itself, because I managed to build a house and buy my vehicle because of bitcoin not because of the blockchains. LOL
Just ignore them, that's the right attitude, arguing with people like that is a waste of time!

[SilverCryptoBullet]

But even I think the opposite of all this cuteness, Bitcoin is much more useful than the blockchain itself, because I managed to build a house and buy my vehicle because of bitcoin not because of the blockchains. LOL
Just ignore them, that's the right attitude, arguing with people like that is a waste of time!

But the Bitcoin (the blockchain) and its decentralization, no censorship make value of bitcoin, so that you can have bitcoin price very high and can be helpful for your selling and taking profit. Without a good blockchain, bitcoin would have no or very lower value than what it has now, so its price must be zero or very low too, and if it is like that, you would have not been able to build a house, buy a vehicle with your profit from Bitcoin investment.

Without foundation from a good blockchain, bitcoin would be very different than it has been accepted and exchanged with expensive price now.

[NotATether]

If we look now in 2026, all of the big business people have basically forgotten about blockchain.

AI is the new hype, and everyone wants a piece of it.

Accordingly, people, especially charlatans, will only be interested in talking about building stuff with whatever the current trend is.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

If we look now in 2026, all of the big business people have basically forgotten about blockchain.

AI is the new hype, and everyone wants a piece of it.

Accordingly, people, especially charlatans, will only be interested in talking about building stuff with whatever the current trend is.

Scammers and charlatans are really good with catching hot trends, adapt to a current trend for doing their scam jobs more easily. In blockchain and cryptocurrency industry, scammers and charlatans abused many "hot but scam" trends like ICOs, IEOs, IDOs, DeFi, NFT, Metaverse, Layer 2, RWAs, and AI.

Now AI trend takes the spot light not only in cryptocurrency industry but in all industries. It seems the whole world and societies have been operating around AIs in recent years but there are warnings that it will be like dot-com bubble during late 1990s. In cryptocurrency industry, there are many scam altcoin projects with their white papers, tags, labels related to AI but it's similar to scam projects appeared and died with previous trends, I am pessimistic about AI-projects.

[pawanjain]

Blockchain is indeed very useful. Everyone agrees to that and so there's no debate for it anyway. Bitcoin does have room to improve but not doing that is what people believe in.

False, it is the exact opposite. The benefits that Bitcoin has do not derive from the blockchain itself, but the properties of a decentralized and public permissionless network that only Bitcoin is. Blockchain as a technology has various applications in which it can be used, none of which are actually explored properly in the public blockchains  -- launching scam projects is not a utility -- but it is a very small thing compared to what Bitcoin is. The real utility is Bitcoin, most of the rest is smoke and mirrors. Smart contracts that were supposed to revolutionize the world, meanwhile their best use case is automated launching of scam tokens. 

There's no comparison between blockchain and bitcoin because both are different and both are needed.
Without Blockchain there wouldn't have been bitcoin. So cut the crap. I am not denying the fact that bitcoin is by far the best application on Blockchain.
But bitcoin sure has more room to grow, as it can improve, yet it is the best out of the all applications of the Blockchain.

2. Are ETF buyers adoption or just speculation?

Speculation. They all just want to get rich. They are just betting for bitcoin to grow bigger and it will.

Also false. a large portion of ETF buyers are more likely to be long term investors than 99.9% of the 3rd world pajeets that are just in Bitcoin to pillage and be parasites. Unlike smart and forward thinking people who have established the modern world, 3rd world pajeets do not give a single fuck about Bitcoin.

Lol, you must be kidding. If any of those so called long term investors would have been true bitcoin believers then would have been buying bitcoin directly instead of buying ETFs.
If you are not holding the private keys to your bitcoins then you are just "speculating" that bitcoin price will pump and so you are holding bitcoin ETFs.
There's no adoption happening with bitcoin ETF but just speculation.

[Satofan44]

Without Blockchain there wouldn't have been bitcoin. So cut the crap. I am not denying the fact that bitcoin is by far the best application on Blockchain.

Most application of blockchain technology are shit, you are wrong and there is no discussion here.

Lol, you must be kidding. If any of those so called long term investors would have been true bitcoin believers then would have been buying bitcoin directly instead of buying ETFs.
If you are not holding the private keys to your bitcoins then you are just "speculating" that bitcoin price will pump and so you are holding bitcoin ETFs.
There's no adoption happening with bitcoin ETF but just speculation.

Bullshit. You do not know even the basics of why ETFs need to exist because you live in places that do not even have basic legal systems working properly. Such countries are stuck in the stone age as far as the legal systems are concerned. There are many legal entities that are unable to buy Bitcoin directly, they can only do so through vehicles such as ETFs. Educate yourself about the basics of modern legal systems before you write nonsense.

Furthermore, not even 1% of 3rd world pajeets have adopted Bitcoin or crypto in any real capacity. There are just here to pillage and get fiat out of it. ETF holders, including those that hold pure paper Bitcoin are incomparably bigger Bitcoin adopters than any of these pajeets -- in this forum and outside of this forum. 3rd world savages continue to behave like 3rd world savages, there is nothing surprising about them. A daily poop in the Ganges river after shitposting is not Bitcoin adoption, thank you.

If we look now in 2026, all of the big business people have basically forgotten about blockchain.

AI is the new hype, and everyone wants a piece of it.

Accordingly, people, especially charlatans, will only be interested in talking about building stuff with whatever the current trend is.

That is just temporary, and if you are not involved in business building or trying to gain funding of anything right now you will know the full picture of what is going on now. If you want to get funding to create a new kitchen pan, you will be asked why you are not adding AI to the pan and will be rejected funding without AI. That is how ridiculous it got, while 99.9% of AI applications are shit. The pendulum will swing back in many ways, don't forget that the next hype will be funding quantum computers that are "able" to unlock Satoshi's coins. Charlatans move along these waves, and inevitably as soon as crypto regains some more popularity again so will emerge again "innovative" applications of blockchain.

[tread93]

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.

Hahaha tell me how you really feel about Jamie Dimon lmao 🤣  that is too rich (pun intended) in the end he has his millions and is also one of the many scum of the earth haha