Exactly my question. I have yet to see real use cases for blockchains beyond speculation and some light crime. And I think true self-driving cars (SAE Level 5 in specific) are 10-30 years out. But I think there's enough value to be had in lower, more achieveable levels that I expect some of the companies investing in those technologies now will be long-term financial winners.

There's probably a profitable use case in there somewhere for level 4 cars. I'm thinking office parks and corporate campuses. But I share this belief that self driving cars are way over-hyped and aren't going to be here any time soon.

That's what university research and small self driving cars people always say - "it'll be used at airports and campuses" - but in reality there are very few campuses that would benefit, and airports mostly already have internal transit solutions.

Why do you say that few campuses would benefit? In San Francisco alone, USF, UCSF, SFSU, AAU, and CCA all have shuttles. And that's in a city with good public transit.

As best I can tell, Waymo's upcoming service is Level 4 with a remote backup driver for times when the software can't cope.

Venture beyond the top 100 on coinmarketcap and you'll see some products that benefit from using a blockchain than not.

I've tried that and didn't find anything.care to share some examples?

Bernstein.io [1] is using it for patent and trade secrets verification. I've also seen an internal system with Merkle-tree-structures to verify digital safety inspections (e.g. that all devices can check the integretity of those checks and no supervisor can "modify" the database)

Light crime, as in buying drugs, is one hell of a market. I don't have solid data, but it seems that 90-95% of all drug-related transactions go through bitcoin nowdays, at least on the consumer level.

It's a good market in some sense, but it's a bad market for businesses that want to do things like IPO. It's also not a great market for people who want to stay alive in that many existing competitors are known for their violence, and if they come after you calling the police is not a great idea.

I'd assume a large part of drug consumers still buys from their dealer in person, and why would you use Bitcoin then?

Among drug consumers I know personally or follow in social media, there's not a single one who buys in person. Compared to picking up a ziplock in designated location, it's unsafe to a ridiculous degree.

This sentiment on blockchain is posted very often. Have the authors studied all startups in the top 100 on CoinMarketCap? How about top 500?

Yes, we've all met people who read about Bitcoin and Ethereum in the WSJ and felt incredibly smart when both declined from their highs.

But what about the ICO money raised in 2018? It's likely over 5 billion at this point.

Ah, the "there has to be a pony in there somewhere" [1] theory.

Am I going to look at every MLM scheme or perpetual motion machine to explain in detail why this new one is just as bad as the rest? No. I looked at a bunch, formed a general impression and a reasonable theory as to why they're all bunk, and have stopped wasting my time.

If somebody has a specific one that they'd like to argue is different I'm willing to listen. But I'm not going to look at 500 supposed startups and figure out the flaws one by one.

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/13/pony-somewhere/

You put zero effort into your comments. That is insulting.

You asked for an example and I wasted my time giving you one.

If you want to make a case for blockchains, maybe you shouldn't lead with the proven pyramid schemes that are ICOs?

"They ripped off over 5 billion dollars in cash, that means it's not a bubble." Well, doesn't that actually tell you the opposite? That people threw money at obvious scams just because the scams used fancy technology and a buzzword?

And maybe you shouldn't lead with a generalization. Not all of them were scams.

Like perpetual motion machines, some are scams and some are just run by sincere fools. And it's entirely possible that there are some real businesses run by smart people who needed funding and the blockchain bits are just window dressing. So not scams, exactly, but more the kind of marketing fraud that, in the marketing world, barely counts as fraud at all.

If you have proof that one of them is a) a real business, b) is likely to succeed, and c) is using a blockchain in some way where it's both necessary to the business and superior to other ways to store and verify data, then please share it. Otherwise you're the one making hazy, unsupported general statements.

The only proven use of blockchain is to transfer value from one person to another over the internet without relying on a central bank account. Doesn’t that validate the tech to some degree?

Not to me, as that's not an actual user need. Legitimate money transfer needs are things like, "send money to my cousin back home" or "buy a thing". Despite Bitcoin being around for a decade, it has made approximately zero inroads into those markets.

I'll grant Bitcoin has some utility for light crime, like buying drugs or evading capital controls. And it's the technology of choice for ransomware and some kinds of electronic fraud. (It's bad for serious crime as it leaves too much of an audit trail.) But I don't think crime is a very good domain for running real businesses, so that doesn't count for me either.

I'm attacking the part of your argument that it's a scam based on your own limited knowledge.

You then respond by asking me to present proof to you as if your own ignorance is somehow compelling.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't understand. Are you saying Eich's startup meets all three of those criteria?

As I said, I'm not saying all of them are scams. Indeed, I specifically mentioned two other possible classes they could fall into. And as I think is clear from my initial comment, I'm open to the possibility that someone will find a use for blockchain that enables some sort of viable business that couldn't be done with other tech.

You of course don't owe me any explanations. But you're the one who jumped in with a variety of handwaving contradictions to my comments. So if you want to to be taken seriously, backing you agitation with evidence would be a good step.