The main use case for block chains is quite obviously to skirt government regulation: black markets, unregulated securities and quasi-securities, etc. A secondary and related use case is to avoid the hassle and complexity of old fashioned equity and other fund raising constructs and to make easier international wire transfers.

Putting ethical concerns aside: these are very large market segments. Cryptocurrencies may be overvalued but there's definitely a real use case. It's just not a use case that governments, banks, or conventional VCs like.

I feel like all the claims to the effect that cryptocurrencies have no use case are ignoring the obvious.

I thought the main use case was gambling. Specifically volatility trading.

the main argument of Blockchain since its a public ledger is totally the opposite. total transparency in government, voting, public expenses etc.

It need not be a public ledger. I'd think it'd be simple enough to limit access to an intranet.

you mean people should trust the intranet of Putin during the elections something like that?

Also, don't forget countries with draconian currency controls, like Venezuela, produce demand for money transfers even if difficult and expensive.

And I think the hidden story of the "war against terrorism" has probably been a sustained effort to crack down on informal money transfers, and something like cryptocurrency is an inevitable response to the decline of traditional methods.

Ignoring tax evasion and other white collar crimes, selling drugs alone is a $36 trillion dollar a year industry.

I think maybe you mean billion. The Gross World Product is around 78T USD.

We're probably entering an era when enforcement of these kinds of laws will be either impossible or will require draconian surveillance and extreme penalties. Anything short of "iron fist" enforcement will be skirted easily using cryptography, darknets, etc.

I've definitely transferred assets to someone anonymously (not for anything illicit, it was strictly a non quid-pro-quo charitable act) using Bitcoin. I did not want this person to know who I was because I didn't want them to feel like they owed me anything.

How common is this use case? How is it competitive to other methods, i.e. mailing a money order?

I have no data on it and it depended on both me and the other person being Bitcoin enthusiasts... It was way more convenient to find the person's btc address than their physical address.

The traditional method I thought was wiring cash through Western Union.

> How long do we have to wait to find a valid use case for blockchains? It's been 10 years now and we're still asking the same question.

Here are some use cases that I think are potentially legit:

  - Value transfer
  - Prediction markets
  - Asset trading/custody (not just cryptoassets, I mean, potentially real estate, equities, etc. can be tokenized)
  - Venture capital that is more transparent and open (the ICO space is obviously not there yet, but I think it can move in that direction)

Eventually people are going to realize that

(1) all of these can essentially require transparency + encryption (i.e. git + signatures), not the whole blockchain,

(2) hence can be had without the huge energy losses (that come from many nodes (re-)computing the same result over and over, and

(3) centralisation is a feature most people want, because it helps resolve conflicts (à la Vitalik's centralised resolution of the DAO conflict).

> all of these can essentially require transparency + encryption (i.e. git + signatures), not the whole blockchain,

That's just empirically not true. You need to timestamp transactions in a BFT way for all those examples. No way around it.

> hence can be had without the huge energy losses (that come from many nodes (re-)computing the same result over and over, and

You can get this with Proof of Stake. But you do need a BFT timestamping mechanism.

> centralisation is a feature most people want, because it helps resolve conflicts (à la Vitalik's centralised resolution of the DAO conflict).

Citation needed. Centralization has upsides and downsides. It will take time to figure out how to do decentralization well.

> You need to timestamp transactions

No, for most things what you really need is a happens before relationship. Git does that better, since it supports multiple timelines (branches) that can be resolved (merged) cleanly if there are no conflicts (double spends).

> if there are no conflicts (double spends).

What about when there are, though?

Then let the person that everyone agrees to be an authority (the project owner) decide, not the person who happens to own the most GPUs.

That's a model that's totally great for open source projects. Not so much for currencies, or stock trading.

How is this any different from a government or central bank?

Merge doesn't happen, participants resolve the issue or raise a conflict with the central authority. Same as with Ethereum :D

> It will take time to figure out how to do decentralization well.

How long do we have to wait to find how to do decentralization well? It's been 10 years now and we're still asking the same question.

all of this makes sense to be but what happens when someone hacks your grandmas cellphone then they own her house title and she cant open the front door?

I guess you could have a 3rd party that has to verify everything ( government ) but then you are basically back to just doing it with a paper deed at the courthouse.

These are open questions. And it may be that blockchain will be an underlying infrastructure that is mostly used by large, centralized entities to settle between each other. But if that's the equilibrium into which we settle, individuals will still have the option to control their own assets in a true sense, even if most people choose not to.

The question is why would large, centralised entities use a blockchain to settle between each other? Large, centralised entities generally can and do trust each other to the extent required, so won't ever need a blockchain because they can use a more efficient system...

It may unfortunately be path-dependent, and the large entities that exist now will not choose to convert. However, if you imagine a parallel universe in which blockchain was invented before large institutions formed, then those institutions may have formed around Blockchains, because then they wouldn't have to trust each other.

Right now, getting into the 'trusted financial institution' list is extremely difficult. It's a slow, incremental process that takes decades of good behavior and careful stewardship. Part of the reason it's so difficult and so heavily regulated is because of how much trust we place in these institutions. If we did not have to trust them so much, it would be easier to become one. It would have less need for regulation. Incumbents would be weaker, and the industry as a whole would therefore be healthier. This is sort of an abstract point, but I think it's the truest sense in which blockchain may change the world: by commoditizing trust.

it would be really cool to be able to verify the ownership of any property on earth by checking Bitcoin or Eth block chain, but there would have to be a way to have authority unanimously change the record.

Beyond curiosity, what practical purpose would such a tool serve vs other methods of verifying assets?

by signing with a keypair you could prove to anyone online you owned something. to list a house or get a loan or mortgage you could use this.

a really neat case for this would be lost items. if each cellphone had its IMEI and your keypair associated you could prove you owned something lost. or if found someone could look you up to return it. you could buy a game or software once and never have to worry about a serial key.

You can do this now, by having centralized state based repository with API. Estonia might have something like this already.

I haven't worried about serial keys in years. Didn't need blockchain for that.

So how many copies of this enormous blockchain would there be in the world?

Perhaps a solution to that might be to give the government the authority to relabel a token. That is, every property is represented by a unique transferable token. However, the ledger that says which token represents which property is maintained by the government, centrally. Under ordinary circumstances, this ledger is not consulted/used but when say, someone has their property seized by a court, it might be.

This guy has done a great write-up of that question:

https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-...

you should try to send someone in venezuela money from your mobile phone. the you will understand

Transcript of text exchange with my sister just yesterday:

SISTER: Any interest in learning blockchain development? I'm getting into that world and will need someone reliable. Plus, I'll be able to expose you to projects and get you consulting gigs. I know you have your new job and all it's demands. Timing prob isn't good but figured I'd check in anyway.

ME: No thanks. I know the blockchain technologically is a thing but every application of it I've read about (e.g cryptocurrencies) looks like a scam perpetrated by people who think the problem with society is being social, misunderstand the history and purpose of the Federal Reserve system, and/or believe the idle rich deserve to be richer. I understand there's a lot of stupid money washing around in those circles. Just make sure you're playing with somebody else's money.

SISTER: I have no interest in the ICO crypto currency application. I'm more into the smart contracts. Id like to apply it to healthcare (help end the opioid crisis). Or the credit reporting agencies...get rid of them and allow individuals to control access to and use of that information. So many applications that are just beginning to scratch the surface. My MBA thesis project is using blockchain to help end the opioid epidemic through better diagnosis of individuals more prone to addiction or just getting it to sell on the streets.

ME: I've seen some discussions of using blockchains for things like certifications or logistics. They've all seemed kinda hand-wavey to me. Like yes there may be some minor efficiencies to be gained by moving to a new tracking/trust system. But the real issues will still be the humans at the ends of the transactions. I'm not sure how the blockchain fixes that. But maybe you can persuade me. Fortunately, the technology itself is over my head. I've seen some python tutorials I could probably dig up for you. But I don't have time myself to try to pick it up.

SISTER: The ledger platform we are currently planning to use (hyperledger by IBM) has some free training but apparently you need a basic understanding so I'm sure it will be way over my head.

ME: I hate to be cynical (j/k I love it) but I'm sure that's the point. IBM would love to convince the next generation of MBAs they need Hype(r)ledger™ and its attendant battalion of IBM consultants to reimplement a table or two that someone in the org already has working like a charm in a simple spreadsheet.

SISTER: Well duh...they're for profit public businesses. I would be worried if that wasn't their reason. That doesn't mean that the applications hosted on their platform aren't practical or solve a problem that prior technology couldn't. 90 people die every day from opioid overdoses ... what if your technology could reduce that number to even 80? Profits are secondary. Check out blockmedx.com when you have a second.

So there you have it I guess: blockmedx.com

> Patients can securely share access to their prescription records with interested parties and be compensated with MDX.

So patients are encouraged to sell their prescription records to "interested parties" in exchange for chits they can use to buy prescription drugs. Sounds altruistic to me!

What's the advantage, re: opioids, over a simple database?

What's a cancer patient going to do when they lose their crypto-opioid wallet password?