> We had fax machines before we had email. You could have said that sending digital communications to one another could "be done and is being done by hundreds of companies without the use of bullshit tech"

No. No, I couldn't. The value of email was immediately evident and apparent. One of the major reasons fax survived for as long as it had is the lack of good/accepted digital signatures.

> and yet email is still better.

You said it yourself: email is better.

Is "run-esotheric-programming-language-on-worlds-most-innefecient-computer" better? While keeping literally every other part of the process either the same (litigation, proceding, money etc. are handled through the same old channels) or worse (everyone has to get onto this particular coin)

> it doesn't have to be brand new to be useful. If it eliminates some inefficiencies in some part of the process, that's useful.

Does it? Where's the proof it does? And "by eliminating some inefficiencies, how many new inefficiencies does it introduce"?

> Enough people think there is an advantage in implementing these things that require coordination using public blockchains to make me think there might be

No. Enough people are enamoured with the idea of getting rich quick that we are witnessing a never ending (for now) rat race to develop with and come up with justifications for the tech.

> But I don't think knee jerk dismissal is the right stance to take.

I literally provided reasons why this is bullshit. There's nothing knee-jerk about my reaction.

However, crypto-peddlers have the same knee-jerk reaction to any criticism: "crypto will magically solve all the issues because crypto" and "crypto is the next email/world-wide-web/fairy-pixel-dust/cure-for-cancer, you just have to believe it".