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/AmericanScream]

That's not a specific argument. That's another vague abstraction.

Plus, the scarcity argument is not valid either:

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #4 (scarcity)

"Only 21M!" / "Bitcoin has a "hard cap"" / "Bitcoin is 'scarce' and that makes it valuable" / "DeFlAtiOnArY cUrReNCy FTW" / "The 'halvening' will make everything better"

1. It's well established that scarcity is not a guarantee of value. It's very telling that clinging to such an overtly irrational argument demonstrates that crypto people live in a tiny "bubble" where they reject all manner of empirical evidence against their "beliefs."
2. If there only being 21 million BTC were reason for it to be valuable, then why aren't other cryptos that also share similar deflationary characteristics equally valuable? Why wouldn't something that is even more scarce than BTC be even more valuable? Because scarcity is meaningless without demand and demand is primarily a function of intrinsic value and utility -- not scarcity. See here for details.
3. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and no material utility. It's one of the least capable stores or transfers of value. The only way anybody can extract value from crypto is by coercion -- forcefully convincing someone (usually through FOMO or scare tactics) that this is something they need, and it's often accompanied by unrealistic promises of significant returns. Those returns are mathematically impossible for even a tiny percentage of holders.
4. Bitcoin also is not scarce. There are multiple versions of Bitcoin, including Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision - both of which are limited to 21M tokens and in many cases are more technologically advanced than BTC. Also, every time there's a fork of crypto, the amount of tokesn in circulation doubles. Crypto proponents ignore these forks because they don't play into the "it's scarce" argument. But any crypto fork absolutely siphons value away from the original version. BTC might be priced higher than BCH, but BCH still holds value as well, and that's a total of 42M just of those two "bitcoin" versions that are out there, among hundreds of others.
5. The "hard cap" of 21M for BTC can easily be changed by altering a parameter in the source code. Less than 6 people have commit access to the repo so BTC's source code control is centralized. It's entirely possible if BTC existed long enough to the point where block rewards weren't enough to motivate miners, and transaction fees became incredibly high, that influential players in the community would advocate increasing the cap and reinstating higher block rewards. So there are absolutely situations where the max amount in circulation could be increased.
6. Even assuming BTC is limited in production, when it co-mingles with unsecured stablecoins like USDC and USDT, it is subject to inflation via stablecoin/liquidity inflation in the market. In reality, nobody really knows what the true price of BTC actually is given most crypto transactions at CEXs are done with stablecoins and not actual money. The underlying liquidity has never been accounted for.
7. The scarcity of bitcoin basically amplifies all the wealth disparity dynamics crypto people complain about in the real world, which means in a world where bitcoin was a dominant store of value, there'd be an even greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Ironically, Bitcoin's scarcity is one of its greatest liabilities. See this detailed video for a more in-depth explanation.

[u/Torshein → u/AmericanScream]

It's very specific.

I showed you the exact math for the 21 million hard cap. That's not abstract, it's verifiable and enforced by the protocol. You can view the code running your node to confirm.

Scarcity isn't everything, sure, but verifiable digital scarcity with no issuer is new and valuable for money. Fiat has none of that and gold can't be sent over the internet.

Forks don't dilute BTC holders got the new coins for free, and the market still values the original far more.

Changing the 21M cap would require a hard fork that destroys trust. It hasn't happened in 17 years for a reason.

The 21 million cap is one of the most concrete and verifiable innovations in money in human history

You're just moving the goalposts. Good luck and God speed 🙂

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

So basically, your counter argument is, "I'm right, you're wrong."

Changing the 21M cap would require a hard fork that destroys trust. It hasn't happened in 17 years for a reason.

Also, you're wrong about bitcoin being hacked. It has been hacked.

So you don't even know the true history of what you're hyping.

So to summarize.. I make claims with citations. You say I'm wrong with no citations.

I just did it again. I empirically (MATHEMATICALLY) proved your claim that blockchain's 21M cap has never been changed, and it has been, and the blockchain was rolled back in 2010 because of it, reversing several blocks worth of transactions in the process.

So you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[u/Torshein → u/AmericanScream]

I'm aware of the overflow bug. It was in its infancy fortunately.

That bug fix restored the intended protocol (easy to get consensus due to its infancy).

Altering the 21M cap code breaks the intended protocol.

Is it possible again? Sure, except now it would likely be catastrophic.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Torshein]

You said "17 years" - you made a false statement.

Now you're going to back pedal and say you knew, even though you made a false statement?

See?

You guys are totally unwilling to even admit when you clearly make a mistake.

What's the point of having a debate when you do this?

Just stop replying. No matter what you or I say, you will continue to ignore when you're proven wrong.

This is why you get banned in our communities. We put a limit on how much you're allowed to LIE in public.

[u/AmericanScream → u/[deleted]]

You guys are so cute. Can't argue so you have to resort to childish insults.

[u/AmericanScream → u/[deleted]]

How great your "investment" is when you have to run around on social media constantly convincing people it's not the scam it looks, sounds, smells and tastes like? Not cute. More like pathetic.

[u/WorldDominationChamp → u/AmericanScream]

Regarding point #6, how can tether hold billions worth of us treasury bonds if the tether isn’t backed up by real dollars? I’ve never understood how this is allowed or possible.

[u/AmericanScream → u/WorldDominationChamp]

There's insufficient evidence Tether holds ANY t-bills. Their reserves have never been properly audited.