If you are gonna downvote, say something.
I can’t tell if you’re downvoting because you saw the word “blockchain”, or you really love it.
I’m using quotes in the title, because I suspect a major amount of people use the word “blockchain” loosely to refer to other related things. If you are willing to, please provide a definition of what you mean by “blockchain” as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
Blockchain is touted as an immutable ledger of transactions visible to everyone.
The only proper use case I can see for it is audit logs where you never want to loose what transaction happened. That being said, we have existing technologies which provide this at a smaller footprint.
And who wants your ledger open to the public? It’s a pile of oily rags.
I don’t hate it. It’s technically interesting.
But I do see a lot of people applying it to things that really don’t need it. I think a lot of people saw Bitcoin and decided “I’m going to go make something that uses blockchains”. That’s a solution-in-search-of-a-problem, whereas you probably want to start with a problem and then look for technology that solves the problem.
I don’t think that blockchains are a very practical solution for all that many problems.
Yes this is pretty much my take. The technology could be really useful for something dull like ERP systems where you need to keep track of stock across global supply chains but NFTs are not a good use of them.
Because it seems to me that the concept of blockchains, only seems to benefit scammers. Look what’s happened with bitcoin and NFTs. They’re made by scammers.
Don’t hate it.
A blockchain being essentially a public ledger.
It’s a good concept that will doubtlessly have several if not many practical uses. I think any hatred it gets is just because like every new thing hucksters try and brand it as the cure to all ills to make a buck.
About 7 years ago we had some very expensive consultants, hired by clueless management, do a presentation to our marketing team.
When that consultants declared that, “we see the future of the web centered on blockchain”, the two of us who were developers shared a mystified and slightly horrified look.
Fortunately, the consultants went away after extracting their $200k and providing our director with some glossy reports. They did have a few useful suggestions that we implemented, but on the whole they were never mentioned again.
The reason I am generally skeptical of the technology is the same reason I’m not going to try to give you a definition.
I’ve never seen it solve a problem or be proposed as a reasonable solution to a problem. What happens instead is that someone says “could we do BLOCKCHAIN for this, it’ll make it way more modern” and the subset of people that want to look really forward-leaning and cool say “YEAH”. If that subset of people is loud enough, a lot of money gets spent and a bunch of implementers have to figure out how to jam in something they can say is blockchainy… leading to a proliferation of definitions.
The results have been universally more expensive applications with fewer helpful features. I don’t like “blockchain” because everything that touches it gets worse.
A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda.
This is an assumption I made from observing users on Lemmy. I want to further understand their reasoning, and therefore put the assumption in the question.
This would have been way more engaging without the loaded question.
It either sounds like you want to stir controversy through the question or you genuinely think most to all Lemmy users hate blockchain, and both is bad.
Not a fan of this post as it is presented even though the actual question could have been interesting.
I dont trust crypto stuff bc it’s essentially gambling, and any non-crypto use is worse than just an encrypted text file.
Downvoted because of the biased question. Its phrasing is presumptive (that everyone hates blockchain) rather than directed (to people who do hate blockchain).
I think some of the downvotes are from the very biased phrasing of the question. You’ve managed to phrase it in such a way that Blockchain bros and their detractors can both respond strongly in the same direction.
I suspect a more neural phrasing would not illicit such widespread dislike.
The phrasing is intentional. I do just want to see the reasons of hating it, and I think despite the downvotes, it’s working.
Okay, fine, thread. But why do you have such an emotional, lose-your-shit response if you merely think it’s not a very useful technology? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I also think there is more going on that is not acknowledged.
