You're attacking a straw man here. The author doesn't argue for eliminating the blockchain or crypto assets.
His thesis is that blockchain hasn't gained significant traction (for anything other than speculation, especially as people panic about USD inflation) because people don't want to decentralize trust. They inherently like institutions and want institutions they can trust.
> in a form more useful than physical cash
Literally the whole point of the article is to argue that Bitcoin (and other crypto "currency") is less useful than cash and less appealing to consumers. He is also arguing that this is inherent to the technology itself and will never change.
Nothing is ever going to replace fiat if it's deflationary, and no one is going to "invest" (i.e. buy and keep) a digital fiat replacement unless it's deflationary. It's a catch-22 that digital assets can't solve.
Can as example coinbase do the same?
> want a return to serfdom
From my point of view serfdom is the (block)chain. Only people with enough stake or those who pays are in control.
I disagree with this but even if one assumes this to be the case, I'd much rather prefer a monetary system subject to the control of free market forces rather than the modern monetary system which is subject to a small group of unelected and unaccountable technocrats operating under the feeble assumption of central bank independence and whose power is extended through coercion and not voluntary association.
Lots more examples in the article.
Also they regularly kick off sex workers [1]
[0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/leticiamiranda/people-a...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/paypal-and-venmo-are-...
If you think taking your wallet (the key) and running away with it is an option, then how is it better than using cash?
Cryptocurrency also solves the problem of charge-backs. Venmo and PayPal gives a sense of finality, but it actually takes days to transfer the funds. That's why there are so many paypal scams on craigslist
Charge-backs aren't there to purely annoy/scam sellers, you know.
> difficulty getting a payment provider
Because there are too many money laundering attempts via transactions in that industry. If you want to deal with the stuff Paypal/Venmo/etc doesn't want to deal with, go ahead.
Ironic thing to state given the reality of hash power distribution and supply of bitcoin that actually moves compared to the total
>in a form more useful than physical cash.
Something that is never used equivalently to physical cash cannot be more useful than it. Basically nothing is priced in bitcoin or crypto
Perhaps there is no other reason you can (or are willing to) conceive, but that does not make it fact.
A major issue with cryptocurrency and blockchain discussions is that vocal proponents speak as if they’re arbiters of truth with perfect knowledge of the the world and everyone who doesn’t subscribe to their view is an envious dunce. They speak in insults and talking points and seem to be more interested in sounding superior than having a conversation.
Humility and openness to be wrong are sorely lacking, but both are needed for a good-faith dialogue.
So yes, I maintain people opposed to blockchain on principle - as opposed to problematic elements within the contemporary blockchain space - oppose individual liberty, which I characterize as desiring for the population to be under a technocratic form of serfdom.
The problems are impossible to decouple from "blockchain on principle" because the problems are intrinsic to the data structure itself, not "contemporary" approaches to the data structure implementation.
I am probably aligned with you politically (if not more radical in my libertarian sentiments), and I can sympathize with the stated goals of the crypto space/bitcoin whitepaper. The problem is that the technology and computer science behind it fails completely to deliver on these goals from both an abstract and practical perspective.
If that is indeed the belief, then I concede that is an example of someone opposed to blockchains in principle, for a reason that is not an illiberal political agenda.
In any case, I like to think I am pretty well informed on blockchain technology, and I can't think of a single problem that currently afflicts the space, that cannot be solved through engineering a solution that does not involve moving away from the general blockchain architecture, or more generally, a solution that does not involve moving away from autonomous ledgers that use cryptoeconomics to maintain consensus.
What are your proposed solutions to identified problems then?
In the case of layered solutions, you're no longer using blockchain. If we want to count uncomitted transactions on a second layer as "reversible", that comes with a host of its own issues, and points out another intrinsic flaw of blockchain: incapable of fulfilling its philosophical purpose, and requires secondary solutions that violate the very core philosophy of the data structure in hopes of overcoming just one of its many issues.
https://cryptowhale.medium.com/why-the-bitcoin-lightning-net...
You can have a smart contract that writes reversible transactions to the blockchain. This would mean that the smart contract imposes a delay for withdrawals, to allow time for any possible requests for reversals. There could optionally be an expedited wirhdrawal upon some set of authorities deeming the balance as finalized and not subject to any reversals.
>>requires secondary solutions that violate the very core philosophy of the data structure in hopes of overcoming just one of its many issues.
Even when you lose some of the benefits of blockchains, via secondary solutions like a reversible transaction smart contract, you retain some benefits, like:
* optionality, e.g. those who are fine with irreversible transactions are free to use them,
* permissionless market entry, e.g. any party is free to deploy their own 'reversible transaction' smart contract, giving payment consumers maximum choice
* stronger guarantees of the integrity of transaction processing, with transparency into any tampering, given the code that executes the transactions, along with the transaction itself, is publicly auditible
* debundling the provision of the different services that are required for transaction processing, by allowing transactions to be processed by immutably open smart contracts that no third party can later close off access to.
No you can't. Once a smart contract is included in a block, it has finished executing and is irreversible. The transaction is irreversible, again, by definition.
>>Even when you lose some of the benefits of blockchains
So you're no longer using a blockchain.
I'm not interested in endless goalpost shifting.
The transaction is irreversible, in the sense that it can't be removed from the blockchain, but the transfer from person A to person B can be made reversible, via a smart contract that doesn't allow person B to withdraw from the smart contract for a duration, during which time person A can effect a reversal transaction that would effectively undo the transfer.
>>So you're no longer using a blockchain.
In my example, you are using the blockchain in all cases. You are just using smart contracts in a way that reduces some of disadvantages of naive blockchain use (e.g. allowing a consumer to dispute a fraudulent charge) while giving up some of its advantages (e.g. reduced risk of charge backs for honest merchants).
yet suddenly because of the actions of a couple private companies, we're going to suddenly go back to serfdom? This makes no sense.
it's impossible to go back to serfdom - the economy is too large and diverse and people are too literate.
sorry, but this is just a doomer fantasy at best
The institutions created since the creation of the Federal Reserve, like a vast regulatory apparatus that closes off economic opportunities for the masses, and income taxation that abolishes privacy rights while seriously diminishing private property rights, have taken society toward serfdom.
Both can be resolved without blockchain.
No, it isn't: https://web.archive.org/web/20160221002005/http://minifree.o....
Is the author really unaware of the horror stories of Venmo and PayPal freezing customer accounts?
Articles like this want a return to serfdom, under the control of officialdom. There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own money, in a form more useful than physical cash.