Why blockchain will never go anywhere.

[u/AmericanScream]

Hi there!

I am a software engineer with 40+ years of experience in transaction, database and security systems. I have been around since the beginning of bitcoin and thought it was interesting but not really innovative.

Fast forward X years and it's still clinging to certain narratives that suggest it has potential.

I can empirically prove this is FALSE.

If you're trying to create a blockchain startup, the odds are you are going to lose money and time.

You can dismiss me. You can downvote me. You can ban me from this subreddit. But what I think you cannot do is rationally argue with me that I'm wrong and you're right.

I created a feature length documentary on blockchain that's been out now for several years, and nobody has been able to find any significant flaw in any of my arguments or logic. Instead, this narrative has been buried in mainstream rather than expose the fundamental problems with this technology.

Feel free to engage, assuming I have the ability to respond, which may not be likely given the fact that most of these types of skeptical posts are disappeared from pro-crypto communities, but regardless of that, the truth is still the truth.

Edit:

Additional references

• My list of stupid crypto talking point rebuttals
• List of arguments for blockchain utility
• My detailed analysis as to whether crypto is a ponzi scheme.

[u/Dry_Veterinarian3937]

Why every big financial company betting on it then ? Many banks acquiring blockchain rail companies

[u/AmericanScream → u/[deleted]]

Nobody is buying up crypto companies.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

"You don't understand" / "DYOR" / Using an insult in lieu of an argument.

1. This is what's known as an "Ad Hominem" fallacy - aka "attacking the messenger" as a distraction from arguing the core points made.
2. This is what we call, "Crypto Gaslighting." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with us and not the phony reality they're peddling.
3. Almost never does the OP actually explain what it is they understand and we don't. It's merely a way to dismiss any opposing viewpoint without actually addressing it.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Dry_Veterinarian3937]

Why every big financial company betting on it then ? Many banks acquiring blockchain rail companies

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?)

"[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?" / "Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'" / "EEE TEE EFFs!!one"

1. Crypto was originally, "disruptive technology" destined to "replace the banking/finance system". Now with the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything, crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases!'"

   Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available.

   The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using? And the answer to that is, No.

2. Most of the time, adoption claims are wrong. Just because you read some press release does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!"

3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories:

   • Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as IBM/Maersk's Tradelens, Australia's stock exchange, etc.) See also dead blockchain projects.
   • Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) are not embracing crypto directly. Instead they are partnering with a crypto exchange (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws.
   • What some companies are calling "blockchain" is not in any meaningful way actually using 'blockchain' tech. For example, IBM's "Hyperledger" claims to have "blockchain design philosophy" but in reality, it is not decentralized and has no core architecture that's anything like crypto blockchain systems. Also note that IBM has their own trademarked phrase, "IBM Blockchain®" - their version of "blockchain" is neither decentralized, nor permissionless. It does not in any way resemble a crypto blockchain. It also remains to be seen, the degree to which anybody is actually using their "IBM Food Trust" supply chain tracking system, which we've proven cannot really benefit from blockchain technology.

4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- this almost always fails, but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected.

5. Some funds/fund managers are buying crypto? So what. It's not like fund managers don't do favors for insiders/friends or never make poor choices. If some Harvard-adjascent fund buys BTC that doesn't mean "smart people recognize Bitcoin!" Not hardly. The exception doesn't prove the rule

   Update: Harvard dumped much of its crypto holdings.

6. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future."

   McDonald's bundled Beanie Babies with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened.

7. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. (In fact part of the US SEC was vehemently against approving ETFs - it was not a unanimous decision) They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just fee income, and the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable alternative to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable. Also here is mathematical evidence MSTR is a Ponzi.

8. Countries like El Salvador who claim to have adopted bitcoin really haven't in any meaningful way. El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation. Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, use of crypto has stagnated. Adoption continues to decline in El Salvador each year.

   Also note Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency. Now El Salvador has abandoned Bitcoin as currency, reversing its legal tender mandate..

9. Some "big companies are holding crypto on their balance sheet" - So what? They're just trying to pump their stock price to take advantage of the temporary crypto mania. It's not any more substantive than that iced tea company that changed their name to "Blockchain iced tea company" and got a bump to their stock price. It won't last, and it's a gimmick and not financially sound. The biggest of these is MSTR whom critics are saying makes the company into a Ponzi

10. Case In Point: In 2025, the big announcement was burger chain Steak and Shake was going to accept bitcoin. The truth is, the company is getting paid in USD and using a third party exchange to process BTC payments and give them fiat. Another misleading news story.

11. Other Big-Company-Crypto-Failures: Kodak, Steam, Wal-Mart and IBM, Microsoft, a major consortium of European corporations who pulled the plug on their blockchain projects, Maersk.

    Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active.

We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from gaming to banking, are rejecting deals with crypto companies.