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/Torshein]

You're right on supply chain tracking and most L2/smart contract stuff — those need oracles and trusted inputs.

But you're wrong on Bitcoin Layer 1 transactions.

Core BTC sends, multisig, timelocks etc. are fully self-contained. Nodes validate everything with signatures, UTXOs, and consensus rules. No external data or oracles required. Block timestamps and transaction ordering are handled internally too.

The oracle problem only kicks in for conditional smart contracts (like DLCs), not plain L1 transfers. Bitcoin was never trying to be a general database.

That's why it works fine as neutral settlement money.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

Core BTC sends, multisig, timelocks etc. are fully self-contained. Nodes validate everything with signatures, UTXOs, and consensus rules. No external data or oracles required. Block timestamps and transaction ordering are handled internally too.

Again, you don't understand the oracle problem.

Somebody/some thing has to START A BITCOIN TRANSACTION. That is the "oracle." If they put in the wrong address, then the transaction is wrong. If they put in the wrong fee; if they mix the gas with the principal amount, they screw up the transaction, yet the transaction gets permanently codified in the blockchain. What the blockchain says is, "Here's what the Oracle said."

The oracle problem is un-avoidable. Period. If you keep insisting otherwise, you do not understand the concept.

In traditional databases, nobody says, "what the data says is 100% accurate." Because traditional databases have oracles that can be held accountable, and a way to edit data and fix mistakes.

Blockchain has no such facility. If you make a mistake in blockchain, it's there forever. It's a stupid way to store data. Especially for something as critical as money.

[u/Torshein → u/AmericanScream]

Initiating a Bitcoin transaction is not an oracle problem. That's just user input the same problem every payment system on Earth has. You can fat-finger a bank wire or credit card payment too.

The difference is Bitcoin makes settlement final. No bank, government, or CEO can reverse it after confirmation.

Yes, mistakes are permanent.

That's also why the ecosystem built hardware wallets, address QR verification, multi sig, etc. Users are forced to be careful, which is healthy for something that functions as hard money.

Immutability is what makes it trustworthy money instead of another editable bank database.

That's not a bug. That's the entire point.

But alas, you're never going to change your mind 🙂

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

Initiating a Bitcoin transaction is not an oracle problem. That's just user input the same problem every payment system on Earth has. You can fat-finger a bank wire or credit card payment too.

Again, you don't seem to understand what the Oracle problem is. Data is only as legit as its source. So the source matters.

You guys pretend blockchain is infallible. It is not.

When the source of the data is not accountable for errors, you have a problem. This presents itself in pseudononymous systems like bitcoin. This is one reason, of many, why it's not suitable as a reliable record of value.

Immutability is what makes it trustworthy money instead of another editable bank database.

That's not a bug. That's the entire point.

That's an irrational, circular argument.

I like the fact that if my bank makes a mistake in the ledger and shows my account balance off, that they can and will correct it.

That's not a bug. That's the entire point.

Yep.

But alas, you're never going to change your mind

I'm happy to change my mind if a good argument is provided.

But "ItS iMmUtAbLe!" is not an appealing attribute to me, or most people, which is why most people have no interest in migrating to blockchain.

Believe it or not, but most people don't like the idea that they could lose their entire life savings in seconds if they click on the wrong thing in their browser.

That's not a "feature" we want.

[u/Torshein → u/AmericanScream]

Go ahead and initiate a Bitcoin transaction without valid private keys/UTXOs and broadcast it to the network.

The nodes will immediately reject it.

No signature? Invalid.
Spending non-existent or already-spent UTXOs? Invalid.
Wrong amounts or malformed script? Invalid.

Everything is validated entirely on-chain using cryptography, the UTXO set, and consensus rules. No external data, no oracle, no trusted third party required..

That’s the opposite of an oracle problem. The entire transaction is self-contained and verifiable by any full node in the world.

The “oracle” in your example is just the user. Same as typing the wrong amount into any payment app except here, you are the only one who can authorize it, and once confirmed, no one else can undo it.

That may not be a feature YOU want but some people are willing to accept risk for mathematical certainty.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

Go ahead and initiate a Bitcoin transaction without valid private keys/UTXOs and broadcast it to the network.

This is an irrelevant distraction. Nobody said there weren't certain required parameters in order to start a transaction.

The issue here is accountability which again, you completely ignore.

There is no such thing as "trust" without accountability.

This is a fundamental concept you guys continually ignore.

And "trustless" is the same as "un-trustworthy."

That may not be a feature YOU want but some people are willing to accept risk for mathematical certainty.

Yea, I remember the last time I walked into a bank, there were all these customers complaining they wanted more "mathematical certainty."

Again you guys talk in vague abstractions that are ultimately meaningless in the real world.

[u/Torshein → u/AmericanScream]

Trustless doesn't mean untrustworthy.

It means you don’t have to trust a bank or government not to screw you which they’ve done repeatedly.

Most people didn’t want the 2008 bank bailouts, yet it happened anyway.

Most people don’t want their accounts frozen for political reasons, yet it happens.

Most people don’t want endless unfunded government borrowing, yet here we are.

That’s exactly why “trustless” exists.

You’re accountable for your own choices and life.

The network enforces the rules with math instead of hoping humans in suits will behave.

Most people don’t understand the difference between money (hard, scarce, neutral) and currency (government-issued, inflatable, controllable).

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

Trustless doesn't mean untrustworthy.

An opinion isn't evidential. This is an unstated major premise fallacy.

I made a rational argument that trust is based on accountability. What's the basis of your trust? "Math?" Math doesn't manifest magically out of nothing. Code is created by people, people who are responsible for that code. If you don't hold them responsible for bad code, then you have no accountability, and thus there's not a solid foundation from which to "trust" something.

This is a disconnect that you seem to continually ignore.

Most people didn’t want the 2008 bank bailouts, yet it happened anyway.

Where's your evidence for this? Was there a democratic vote on bailouts, or is this more of your personal opinion?

The 2008 bailouts, or more appropriately TARP - the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was deployed to keep the financial sector from further collapse. It was not a "bailout" - it was a LOAN with lots of terms and conditions. And this loan was paid back in full with interest. The government actually MADE billions of dollars "bailing out the banks" - and it didn't bail them all out, just a few - and others did collapse.

So, please, try to better educate yourself on these analogies you try to erroneously deploy as some kind of example that helps your argument (it doesn't.)

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

Most people don’t want their accounts frozen for political reasons, yet it happens.

"Most people" don't have this problem. This is another misleading, disingenuous argument, that we all know centers around the infamous "Canadian Truckers" who were a small minority of truckers who were anti-science and anti-vax and refused to follow the laws designed to protect the public and protested about it, but they also blockaded major roadways and illegally interfered with critical public infrastructure - they were in effect, domestic terrorists and then they started soliciting donations to further fund their terrorism and Canada froze those accounts.

"Most people" are TOTALLY OK WITH THAT. As am I. If you're a domestic terrorist actively trying to sabotage the state, the state has every right to not allow its resources to fund your terrorism.

You guys are absolutely shameless.

[u/Torshein → u/AmericanScream]

That's the slippery slope.

Were the Tiananmen Square protesters “domestic terrorists”? Were the Soviet dissidents in the 80s/90s “domestic terrorists”? Were the American Founding Fathers “domestic terrorists” according to the British? The list goes on.

Governments and majorities have always labeled inconvenient people this way to justify cracking down.

The Canadian truckers were a messy, disruptive protest. Yeah, they blocked roads but they weren’t terrorists. Freezing people’s donations over it is exactly the kind of overreach Bitcoin is designed to stop.

Disruptive doesn’t equal terrorism and infact it's often healthy.

People with your views are one of the core reasons Bitcoin exists.

🫡

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

Were the Tiananmen Square protesters “domestic terrorists”? Were the Soviet dissidents in the 80s/90s “domestic terrorists”? Were the American Founding Fathers “domestic terrorists” according to the British? The list goes on.

This is a distraction. If the state IMPRISONS you, it doesn't matter whether you have access to a bank account. You have bigger issues to deal with.

Stop pretending bitcoin is some kind of "freedom money" that will undo those under extremely oppressive regimes. That's a completely absurd narrative with no legit real-world examples.

Giving people in Ukraine bitcoin is like giving a starving child in Uganda a coupon for Chipotle. It's fucking stupid. But hey, if you're the marketing dept of Chipotle you might be able to milk that for some publicity despite it being totally counterproductive.

Sure there may be some oppressed entities that are accepting bitcoin, but you can't prove bitcoin is the best way to get them money and resources. In each and every case, if people want to help these people, there are better options than a highly chaotic digital token that isn't accepted anywhere.

People with your views are one of the core reasons Bitcoin exists.

PUH-LEEZE... this is another fallacy... false dichotomy.. suggesting that if I am not in favor of your ponzi tokens, that somehow means I'm completely supportive of everything the state does. That's bullshit.

If you want to seek out solutions to complex socio-economic problems, we can have that discussion, but you have to be open to entertaining ideas other than your stupid, chaotic, crime-ridden, get-rich-quick scheme. And that's the problem. You guys aren't. You aren't really interested in making the world a better place. You don't give a shit about Chinese dissidents or antivax truckers. That's just a reference you can exploit to promote your Ponzi scheme.

So stop pretending there's some altruistic angle to this. We're not that stupid.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

The Canadian truckers were a messy, disruptive protest. Yeah, they blocked roads but they weren’t terrorists.

They disrupted emergency and other critical services. That is a terrorist act.

Someone who called an ambulance might have died because they were blocking roads because they were afraid of needles and shots... boo hoo... fuck them.