You're missing the point of what a blockchain is good at vs what it's not. Blockchains are good for assigning ownership. For networks which don't need to track ownership, of course you shouldn't use a blockchain. Bittorrent, Freenet, etc do not track ownership as infinite copies of something is not a problem, but a feature.

But for networks which do, you may want to. For example, only one person may control this name, this domain, this tradeable asset, etc.

Blockchains are an addon to distributed models because they allow a distributed way to prove ownership of something. Say I want to look someone up by name instead of by cryptographic hash, how do I do it? You can't register a name in a Freenet or Bittorrent model.

Beyond ownership, an important class of use cases is promises. Without blockchains, it's hard to determine how well a potential trade partner follows through on their promises without a third party that maintains a reputation history. With blockchains, people can provide cryptographically signed promises that give their trade partner the ability to publish their satisfaction or lack thereof. You can retrieve a complete reputation history without a middleman, which is a brand new thing.

People are using blockchains for too many things, but that's healthy. It's the only way we can find all the things they're useful for.

'Blockchain' is a meaningless buzzword at this point. The innovation of Bitcoin was proof of work and/or the calibrations involved in securing Bitcoin with energy.

When bitcoin became an unfundable space, the VC's and such moved into "Blockchain", which was marketed as the good parts of bitcoin, without the bad.

Unfortunately, the space has seemingly gone on to only emulate the worst parts of bitcoin. Scams, ignorance, and get rich quick schemes. Currently, "blockchain" appears to be targeting centralized, decentralized, mutable, immutable applications. The blockchain movement is meaningless, and appears to be merely the exhaust gas from the bitcoin funding hype.

'Blockchain' isn't a meaningless buzzword, it's a database protocol. Its market positioning aside, there's a very real value that immutable databases offer from both a technological and a commercial perspective.

The blockchain protocol isn't going to 'save the world' - but once a little air gets let out of the balloon, it's going to see a lot of adoption in both financial institutions and back offices in a wide, wide, range of industries. For a world with lots of data and lots of shady actors, it just makes sense.

I agree they make sense for some interbank and business transactions where you have counterparty risk, and it looks like several banks are interested in developing their own ledger with the Linux Foundation - https://www.hyperledger.org/.

But I wonder what would drive mass adoption for every day users - aside from a collapse of the current financial system.

For general public it doesn't really matter if AirBnb or Uber or Whatsapp are decentralised or not - we use them because they have reached a point through network effects where they have a ton of users/liquidity, are reliable and have smooth UX.

Also, I'm not sure storage issues are a solved problem for immutable decentralised databases.

Fast global microtransactions could be a useful consumer app but so far there is little need for those. And the UX for fiat->crypto->fiat transactions and wallets is far from what it needs to be for general public.

Blockchains won't save the world all on their own, but developers who believe our world is in peril because of avoidable issues of economic and social organization should definitely try to use blockchains to save the world. Blockchains are the raw material of social coordination. They can absolutely be used to solve social problems.

Overzealousness is unfashionable. Be unfashionable until you're convinced that you're actually wrong.

I agree that "blockchain" is essentially a database protocol for a special kind of database, but I'm fairly sure there's no standard, agreed-upon, single "blockchain protocol."

Bitcoin may be the best-known blockchain protocol, but there many others in active use.

IpPFS

You're entirely missing the point. Proof of work was old hat long before the bitcoin whitepaper was published. Bitcoin's innovation is using compounded proof of work to form a trustless immutable distributed database. Blockchain is the name of this particular data structure, not a buzzword.

The blockchain could just contain the .torrent file and not the actual content.

Precisely. People imagine the entire data related to all aspects of a process executing on Blockchain, will be resident on the Blockchain.

On the contrary, it would be as lightweight as possible. And the transactions in a Block, could point to trusted Oracles outside the Blockchain. And usecase involving streaming content like Movies (the example given by GP) would definitely NOT have the content on the Blockchain.

Rather, just the urls to trusted oracles, in the txn. With the hash of the txn, present in the Merkle Tree in the Block, for verification purposes, so that other parties can quickly verify the block is not fraudulent or tampered with.

There seems to be a pretty big leap in logic from 'using a blockchain' to 'infeasible for anyone except google'. You do realize that an internationally roaming cell phone data plan can sync with the blockchain right?

At ludicrous cost, yes.

Is $70 ludicrous because that is what T-Mobile's US plan with international roaming costs. They did that 2 years ago, I don't know what is available now.

Does that include unlimited transfer at no extra cost while roaming internationally? The blockchain is huge.

Yeah it does, which is why I said the blockchain can be synced with it.