You Probably Don't Need a Blockchain
Okay, I don&#x27;t want to come down too hard on this article, but I think it&#x27;s nearsighted. Sure, it&#x27;s true that _today&#x27;s_ blockchains have many downsides the article brings up, but it&#x27;s written as if those won&#x27;t change or improve.<p>It feels to me a bit like claiming in the 90&#x27;s that the internet isn&#x27;t the future because you can&#x27;t download that much stuff at 56k speeds.<p>They mention &quot;immutability&quot; being a problem - so much so that it somehow disallows typos or undos. That&#x27;s just not true - you just represent the updates as changes in their own right (which better reflects reality than literally altering history). There&#x27;s nothing about &quot;the blockchain&quot; that can&#x27;t record human error or corrections.<p>They go on to talk about how proof of stake doesn&#x27;t solve all problems by mentioning, &quot;The Bitcoin blockchain is currently 157GB in size, and that’s at a very low transaction speed. The idea of everyone mining on their phone is just laughable.&quot;<p>Once again, they are talking about current implementations - I don&#x27;t see how this is inherently a restriction in the technology, and there are (reputable) companies working on this exact thing.<p>The amount of money I have in cryptocurrencies can basically be rounded to zero, so I don&#x27;t have much skin in this game - I just think blog posts like these aren&#x27;t really making compelling points other than &quot;the current technology today has many flaws&quot;, which I think is uninteresting to most.