>>Let’s start with this: Venmo is a free service to transfer dollars, and bitcoin transfers are not free.
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.
> There is no other conceivable reason why
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.
The only fundamental difference inherent to the respective designs of blockchains and traditional banking, is censorship resistance through genuine self-custody. The former is designed to provide this quality, and the latter is not.
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.
>blockchain on principle - as opposed to problematic elements within the contemporary blockchain space
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.
>>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.
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.
>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?
Can you give me an example of a problem with blockchain, that you think is intractable, because it's inherent to the data structure?
Irreversible transactions
A reversible layer on top is possible through smart contracts.
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...