Agree. Blockchain is good for nothing but crypto (by virtue of the oracle problem, among others), and crypto is good for nothing but crime.

It's funny, people speak as if decentralisation was a good thing, but very few bother to explain why. Typically, if you dig into it, they cite advantages that you can already get from good old permissioned distributed tech. The only thing that decentralisation gets you (at enormous cost) is that it's harder to regulate.

This was already evident 9 years ago: https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-c...

Gambling.

You can do gambling easier without blockchains. (Not that you should do any gambling at all, on neither side, if you ask me.)

Not really, because the government freezes your bank account and takes your money.

Git

Git is nice distributed tech. It's permissioned, though. Good old permissioned distributed tech. Which predates Bitcoin (obviously, as git is older than Bitcoin).

Am I misinterpreting you or are you saying Bitcoin would make a better, faster, cheaper Git?

If you are, I am already laughing.

They're saying git would not have been better or faster or cheaper if implemented in a classical centralized way.

Isn't git most of the time used centralized? And that offers better user experience than doing it some decentralized way? It seems to me like most prefer centralized use of git. Be it private server or some large server.

That's the thing about blockchain/"distributed". They are such vauge terms they can apply or not apply to anything depending on what point you need to make in your argument.

If we compare the traffic of Github vs Bitcoin, Github is likely doing 1,000+ writes per second and Bitcoin is doing what, 5-7 maybe higher with specialized stuff?

Github is nowhere near the world's "central and only" service for Git, so what am I missing to not laugh about?

The downside of a global distributed database (no matter what) is the speed of light, if you need ordering in any transaction you are in trouble, and no classic service requires that for all transactions in its scope, we figured out partitions, row locks, and shards a long time ago.

Yeah, and I always say git with commit signing is a cryptographic block chain in the loosest sense. But in this context I was of course referring to the proof of work/stake BS. In git the proof of work is the work you put into writing the source code. There is actual value in it, not just fictional speculative value.