I produced a matter-of-fact documentary film that exposes blockchain (and all its derivative schemes from NFTs to DeFi) as a giant unadulterated scam, AMA

I’d like to hear how distributed ledger (blockchain) itself is a “giant fraud”. How can a technology be a fraud?

I’m struggling to understand because to my way of thinking technology itself can’t be fraudulent. It’s just… technology. It’s simply math.

It CAN and HAS been widely misrepresented and misused by proponents in a fraudulent manner. No argument there. At all. But a technology is just a technology. It has no moral compass.

Note: Before downvoting, note that I’m talking specifically about blockchain and distributed ledger technology not Bitcoin, another coin, it’s ecosystem, it’s supporters, or anything else. The issue I have with the claim is one of calling a technology fraudulent.

And no, saying “it doesn’t do what it’s proponents claim” does not make the technology fraudulent even if it does make its proponents fraudulent.

The blockchain is a distributed database. It works, but is slow and inefficient compared to centralized databases. It wastes enormous amounts of energy by comparison. I thought early on there would be some cool applications related to logistics or something, but 15 years later, there are almost no applications that are better than existing tech. It was a nothingburger. Bitcoin will never be useful as a currency. It is too slow. I don't know why people think it will be a good store of value because it has no use.

There is Proof of Work and Proof of Stake. PoW needs to do work in order to process transactions and produce new blocks, hence energy usage. PoS on the other hand relies on native coins being staked (locked) on validator nodes, and has minimal energy usage.

PoW concept predates Bitcoin by about 15 years, as a deterrent to denial of service attacks.

It is slow, but it is also decentralized. People don't use it for it speed, but because as long as you own the keys you and only you owns assets in your wallet.

You missed the core of what he was saying: "but is slow and inefficient compared to centralized databases". PoS being nowhere near as awful than PoW doesn't change the fact that it's laughably inefficient compared to the centralized or even distributed databases.

It's not meant to replace relational databases. Apples and oranges.

Blockchain's purpose is decentralized, public, immutable ledger, which also guarantees ownership of assets on blockchain via self custody. No central authority can manipulate transactions that have already been processed.

1. I'm not talking about relational databases
2. Blockchain is a type of a distributed immutable database. It's immutability is a huge issue and one of the prime reasons (along with a laughably bad performance) for why it's not used outside of the crypto world or people trying to profit off VC funds being blindly thrown at anything-blockchain. There's a reason why immutable databases are such a rarity in the IT world, and blockchain makes immutability only more computationally expensive, slower to query (not to mention that it makes some queries infeasible) and slower to write. But ultimately it's just yet another data store (see: JSON that Ethereum blockchain stores) with built-in features that are as much of a strength as they are a weakness. It's a compromise built on top of a compromise.

You argued that "PoS on the other hand relies on native coins being staked (locked) on validator nodes, and has minimal energy usage" - but it's simply not true. It has a huge energy overhead compared to the (non-relational) non-blockchain databases.

The databases you’re talking about.. how are they relevant in solving a problem that needs a decentralised database? .. i’m not sure i understand your angle where yes, its properties make it slow, but they’re necessary when solving problems that need a decentralised immutable database by the problems nature…

how are they relevant in solving a problem that needs a decentralised database?

What problem needs a decentralized database?

I address this in my documentary when I debunk the myth Does de-centralizing things really solve problems?

One of the "scammy" aspects of blockchain tech is its dependence upon a naked assertion that "de-centralizing something makes it better." When you analyze that claim, it doesn't jive.

There are plenty of advantages of creating distributed systems for fault tolerance, performance and robustness. But de-centralizing something is different. That involves removing points of authority -- but even that is misleading. There's still authority but instead of it being an accountable central entity, it's some ambiguous computer code, possibly written and administered by random, anonymous people. It remains to be seen if such a setup produces any unique benefit.

And here we are fifteen years later still saying, "It's early" because nobody has found a clear benefit to "de-centralizing" something.

I’d like to hear how distributed ledger (blockchain) itself is a “giant fraud”. How can a technology be a fraud?

The tech isn't a fraud. But in the case of blockchain, it's not merely tech. It's "tech with a mission" per se.

Even in Satoshi's original whitepaper, he cited the tech as a way to deal with what he perceived were certain social/financial problems. He felt that a deflationary currency would be better than what most countries use now. In making that claim, he either dismissed or was ignorant of hundreds, if not thousands of years of the evolution of finance and monetary systems. We know now, based on overwhelming data, there are many more advantages to using a monetary system that supports quantitative easing. He mistakenly thought he could solve a socio-political problem with technology.

He was wrong, and his proponents are also wrong: The tech can't do that.

Blockchain as a technological prototype is totally inert.

But, blockchain as a tool that claims to be able to ward against inflation, guarantee the authenticity of things in the real world, be immune to censorship, or even perpetually increase in value.... that is a scam. That's not true.

Literally any technology is "tech with a mission," PeR sE

Technology doesn't just spontaneously appear, you know. That doesn't mean its usage must remain the same for eternity. People work to make it happen, and there's always some sort of mission involved. At every stage.

Do you think electricity was harnessed with the goal of everybody having little computers the size of their hand that could connect them to anybody anywhere else on the planet at any time? Do you think computers were invented to play video games? Do you think the internet was created to watch porn and like social media posts?

We know now, based on overwhelming data, there are many more advantages to using a monetary system that supports quantitative easing.

What overwhelming data? If it is overwhelming, it should be extremely easy to provide irrefutable evidence of your claim. Without requiring us to watch your "documentary." You're making the claims here. So provide your proof.

He was wrong, and his proponents are also wrong: The tech can't do that.

You literally don't know that and have said absolutely nothing to back it up, besides pointing to magical "overwhelming data"

Blockchain as a technological prototype is totally inert.

How so?

But, blockchain as a tool that claims to be able to ward against inflation, guarantee the authenticity of things in the real world, be immune to censorship, or even perpetually increase in value.... that is a scam. That's not true.

You seem to be using "blockchain" and "cryptocurrency" interchangeably based on what is convenient for your current gripe. Which, you cycle through a lot of gripes in each of your comments without ever actually answering or expanding on anything. It seems obvious to me that you don't like "cryptobros" and have decided that Blockchain is evil.

Pro tip: if you're going to make an AMA to promote a "documentary," you should be able to give a lot of interesting information and answers that compel people to want to learn more and watch your project. Instead, you give vague answers that amount to nothing more than "BLOCKCHAIN EVIL AND I AM VERY SMART 🤓" in every single response. I'm sure you got a couple thousand more views though, like you hoped, so congrats

/u/AmericanScream responds:

You seem to be wanting to create distractions instead of talk specifics.

Is that so? I haven't seen you talk specifics anywhere in this post.

Pick one. Pick Blockchain or crypto. Pick a specific crypto. Pick a specific Blockchain.

I want you to talk about Blockchain technology. You know, like your documentary is supposedly about? Pretty damn obvious that's what I want you to talk about. Yet, you seem to want to create distractions instead of talk specifics....

I'm prepared to talk specifics if you'd like

Is that why you blocked me immediately after making this comment? To ensure that you don't actually have to answer anything and make it look like you "won" here?

Again, all these criticisms are vague personal attacks

Sure, that's probably fair to say for the most part. But you brought it on yourself when you came here to promo your documentary and have REPEATEDLY shown how clueless you are on the topic. You're dodging questions and giving non-answers left and right. Your documentary is literally titled "Blockchain: " and whatever the rest of the title is. Your title of this post literally says "I produced a matter-of-fact documentary film that exposes Blockchain" and you make this response as if I am the one who needs to specify what we're talking about? Your film is about BLOCKCHAIN so talk about BLOCKCHAIN not CRYPTOCURRENCY

You're presumably over 60 and spend your days as a fucking reddit mod. For /r/buttcoin. And you blocked me after claiming that you're "prepared to talk specifics" as if you hadn't had that opportunity throughout this entire post to a hundred other comments. Clown. < There's your insult.

You seem to be using "blockchain" and "cryptocurrency" interchangeably based on what is convenient for your current gripe.

You seem to be wanting to create distractions instead of talk specifics.

Pick one. Pick blockchain or crypto. Pick a specific crypto. Pick a specific blockchain. I'm prepared to talk about specifics if you'd like.

Again, all these criticisms are vague personal attacks

Your point is fair but slightly pedantic. Blockchain, almost uniquely, has been positioned to solve many of the technology world's ills due to its privacy, immutability and distributed nature. Yes, it's just a technology but almost everything it does fails when one considers what a full payments technology system needs to support. For a technologist to say that it can solve any other problem than the small scale crypto ledger is blatant misrepresentation let alone what the shysters and grifters have been saying about it.

I agree completely.

There is definitely a "scam" aspect to the technology itself. If you read Satoshi's whitepaper the design of the currency is predicated on the notion that "scarcity guarantees increased value." Which makes no logical sense for a commodity that has no intrinsic value and is a negative sum game because of its power consumption.

Have you seen "Line Goes Up"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

Yes, that is an excellent video, and to be honest it was one of the inspirations for me producing my documentary. Actually it didn't start out as a documentary - it just started out as a series of videos answering common questions I would field about crypto, and then I saw "Line Goes Up" and I thought if he can do a 2+ hour video just about NFTs, maybe there's an interest for a comprehensive expose of blockchain?

I generally dislike crypto, but when a token has a use-case and working infrastructure, I get it. So calling the entire industry a scam feels like a wild generalization.

For example: I don't use it, but it seems like BAT and the Brave browser are legit, working crypto that is not a scam. Thoughts?

Just because something has a "use-case" doesn't mean it's worthwhile.

I can use a pair of scissors to cut my lawn, but it's incredibly inefficient.

So is the notion that using a proprietary browser that's riddled with sketchy plugins and vulnerabilities as a way to "create passive income."

Not everything in the world needs to be monetized, especially some obscure browser with its own token system.

I would love to honestly talk with someone who is actually using something like the Brave browser and the BAT token and "do the numbers" on how much time they've spent and how much they've earned? Every P2E crypto project I've seen is so incredibly bad on its ROI that even people in third world countries aren't interested.

[deleted]

I'm more concerned about the notion of buying drugs anonymously online from shady sources.

Monero is a whole other thing to discuss. First off, the notion that it's actually private and anonymous has been proven false due to recently discovered vulnerabilities that have the chance to affect virtually all historical transactions... I don't believe for a second that many Monero nodes and/or on/offramps aren't actually monitored, if not managed by law enforcement.

EDIT: additional articles about Monero's insecurities:

https://decrypt.co/76938/monero-developers-disclose-significant-bug-privacy-algorithm

https://crypto.news/monero-privacy-bug-decreased-anonymity-for-3-years/

As opposed to buying drugs anonymously in person from shady sources?

A lot of people get their drugs from non-anonymous people. But I wouldn't condone either because that's against the rules to promote illegal activity.

I use brave without the BAT crypto shit and love it. Have you ever actually used it before? Seems like the best out of the box browser for privacy.

I prefer Firefox. I don't have to watch any ads. It's an open source, foundation-based project. I put a few plugins to whitelist javascript and I'm good to go. Whatever Brave does is going to be several iterations technologically behind the other mainstream browsers IMO.

That's partly it's strength. It's more like clean Chromium which is super thin to run and easy to dev on top of. It's not designed to be feature packed but simple, secure/privacy focused, and lighter than other browsers.

I am not confident it will be around very long. I am not an expert on it however, but just being "lean" isn't enough. If you have enough memory and you don't crap up your system, everything runs fine.

What I do know is that there's more people working on Chrome and Firefox and there's a more substantive commitment to their support than Brave.

I’ve been using Brave for 3 years exclusively and have earned like $600 in BAT. Feel free to ask me questions.

I can understand the premise that most crypto is a scam but the idea that “blockchain” is a scam is very poorly worded.

Blockchain is a technology. A technology in and of itself is just a tool. Sure it can be used for scams but it’s pretty ingenious and borderline nonsensical to call blockchain a scam.

You’re a software engineer. If I said “all RDBMS are a giant unadulterated scam”, you would probably be pretty confused by that statement.

Blockchain is a technology. A technology in and of itself is just a tool. Sure it can be used for scams but it’s pretty ingenious and borderline nonsensical to call blockchain a scam.

The reason it's a scam is because There's not a single real world application for which blockchain is a superior solution - the only exception to that are as solutions to problems that blockchain itself creates.

The scam is thinking: blockchain is innovative and does anything regular society needs.

The scam is thinking that bitcoin solves any real world problems.

As long as you talk in vagarities like "blockchain has use cases" it's hard to prove how misleading the deceptive the tech is. But if you get specific with anything, then we can test whether blockchain is a solution, and prove that it isn't. This is where the scam is... people like yourself carefully avoid mentioning anything so specific that it could be tested true/false.

You’re a software engineer. If I said “all RDBMS are a giant unadulterated scam”, you would probably be pretty confused by that statement.

Blockchain is a much more specific technology. Its only use for the most part is in crypto currencies, and in that context it's incredibly inefficient by every meaningful metric. Yet people still try to pretend it's "the future." I'd call that pretty scammy.

From what I understand the problem that the blockchain tries to solve is that of a decentralized distributed ledger that doesn't allow corrections, even if it's used left and right for applications that don't need one.

So you think there's a better solution for the problem that doesn't involve Blockchain?

EDIT: Replaced "use case" with problem, as it may have been the wrong language.

What I'm thinking is that the blockchain technology itself cannot be a "scam", unless there isn't a single possible use case for the problem blockchain solves. It could be the case that blockchain is still not the best solution to that problem.

EDIT 2: "Problem" is the right word you illiterates; words have multiple meanings.

The tech itself is inert.

But the problem is the tech is bundled with a lot of promises which are deceptive. These fake promises are even in the Bitcoin whitepaper.

One of the big "scams" is the idea that "decentralization is better." I have an entire chapter of my documentary on this.

The whole concept behind blockchain is that if you de-centralize the database this makes everything better.

There's no actual evidence that's the case. Here's that section

Scam just isn't the right word. If it has a use case, whether efficient or not, it has it's own uses.

You have a point. My title is a bit inflammatory.

But, I contend that it is a scam to suggest blockchain tech really solves any of society's problems, and that's a constant talking point about the technology.

How did you weather (or plan to weather) the onslaught by "true believers" in blockchain technology likely caused by the release of your documentary? From what I've read, the "true believers" don't like being challenged on their core premises and often brook no dissent in their circles.

By the way, have you already posted a link to your documentary on crypto-satire subreddits like r/Buttcoin? I would think the users there would enjoy it.

Thanks, actually I'm a mod of /r/buttcoin which is one of the places where I cut my teeth debating with pro and anti-crypto people. That community isn't as vibrant as it once was, mainly due to the pro-crypto subreddits claiming we've been "harassing" them by speaking the truth about their posts - now we're prohibited from even referencing any other subreddit.

As far as the "true believers" I am under no illusion that I can change anybody's mind.

I think in a general sense, nobody should ever expect to present data and have people admit, "Oh wow, I didn't think of that, you're right and I'm wrong." I think that's a tough thing to expect even if it might be true.

At best, all I can do is put the info out there and hope it plants a seed in peoples' minds.

On top of that, I am of the belief there are a lot of people in the crypto industry that know full well none of it makes sense and it's all a scheme to profit from "greater fools" coming in later. But they don't care about the ethics as long as it benefits them. I can't do much for those people I don't think.

But there are others out there who may not know enough -- or as I would say, they do know enough but they've been "gaslit" into thinking their doubts aren't legitimate. I wanted to put together a film that provides all the evidence most people need to justify their hunches: yes, it doesn't really make that much sense.

You seems to mix blockchain or distributed ledger with crypto

I’ll go watch your video but need clarification; are you referring DL, crypto or both ?

I think DL/DLT is a buzzword that was fabricated to try and give blockchain tech "credibility by association."

DLT is ambiguous... it can mean just about anything. Any database operating in the cloud is technically "DLT", so proponents claim that "blockchain is DLT" and "DLT is used everywhere" to try and lend credibility to the argument that blockchain has legit use-cases, which is misleading.

In some cases, DLT is bleeding edge tech, like AWS/Amazon RDS or other types of database sharding/distributed tech. In no cases is blockchain bleeding edge anything.

I was a private chain developer at the height of the hype. I was always ready to debate critical serior developers because we thought they were stuck in their old ways, until I didn't believe in it anymore and asked for a transfer. Have you ever been "accused" of that, and if so, how did you deal with it?

For me, the breaking point was when we worked with a logistics company that generated so much data that they came with 4 letter acronyms for literally everything and still had terrabytes per hour. Their performance requirements rivaled that of credit card companies. Their national lead architect know exactly what he was talking about. After half an hour one-on-one, he said, "It's a nice poc, but this will most likely be our downfall"

I was a private chain developer at the height of the hype. I was always ready to debate critical serior developers because we thought they were stuck in their old ways, until I didn't believe in it anymore and asked for a transfer. Have you ever been "accused" of that, and if so, how did you deal with it?

I deal with it every day. You can see a bunch of responses in this thread from people making those claims.

I made a short video clip of those kinds of comments we like to reference for fun - that's how often it happens...

I just try to continue on... I know some people are "unreachable"... or maybe later on after they lose a certain amount, they may finally admit to reality... or not.

For me, the breaking point was when we worked with a logistics company that generated so much data that they came with 4 letter acronyms for literally everything and still had terrabytes per hour. Their performance requirements rivaled that of credit card companies. Their national lead architect know exactly what he was talking about. After half an hour one-on-one, he said, "It's a nice poc, but this will most likely be our downfall"

I grew up in the early days of computing and as such there weren't a ton of big corporations. We were little guys going out solving problems without crazy middle managers screwing things up. I feel sorry for people now who can clearly see there are serious problems but nobody listens to them.

One reason why I waste my time even though it seems like a lot of people aren't listening is that when things do collapse, I want to be on record noting there was plenty of evidence. Because a lot of people are going to complain and pretend they were innocent victims, when in reality, they willingly walked into the flaming dumpster.

Would you say that Bitcoin is Beanie Babies for Tech Bros?

Only half way

Exactly how far back in your head do your eyes roll any time you read one of the following?

• A corporation announcing they're spinning up a division to incorporate blockchain into (insert product here, such as sandwich bags or mortgages)
• A Redditor confidently announcing that blockchain will bring about the end of the banking industry by 2021
• A crypto enthusiast explaining that (insert new crypto here) is basically "just nextgen defi with systemic blockchain deliberation via AI to undermine conventional financial manifolds using fluid yet established free market principles"

A corporation announcing they're spinning up a division to incorporate blockchain into (insert product here, such as sandwich bags or mortgages)

Berkely CSCI professor Nicholas Weaver has a great comment to this. He believes the one "use-case" for blockchain is to get corporate IT departments more money. They tell middle management something-something-blockchain and it unlocks money they need to upgrade their equipment. I find that hilarious.

A Redditor confidently announcing that blockchain will bring about the end of the banking industry by 2021

That same redditor will be the first one to complain when he loses all his money and ask for "central authorities" to bail him out.

A crypto enthusiast explaining that (insert new crypto here) is basically "just nextgen defi with systemic blockchain deliberation via AI to undermine conventional financial manifolds using fluid yet established free market principles"

Yea... ok, my eyes rolled quite far back...

Hey, hope you are still around. After reading your intro and skimming the questions asked in this thread, there was one thing that came to mind. I heard this some years ago, but apparently Estonia introduced a system of digital ID which would make use of blockchain tech. What do you know about this or what is your opinion on this use case scenario of blockchain?

PWC -Estonia – the Digital Republic Secured by Blockchain

So you've shared with us a marketing brochure, advertising an array of "E-services" that are supposedly "secured with blockchain."

I can't find any service in that brochure that isn't also done with non-blockchain technology and has been in use many years prior to the implementation of blockchain.

Digital IDs, shared databases, distributed databases, keeping public records in a cloud, putting citizen information online, etc. None of that is new, and there's nothing here that indicates blockchain does anything better than existing tech.

Data never leaves the system; only hash is sent to blockchain service. As no data is stored on the KSI Blockchain, it can scale to provide immutability for petabytes of data, every second. The lesson learned from Estonia is that speed is essential for citizen experience.

This "tech" they're talking about pre-dates blockchain. It's called, "cryptographic signing" and it's been in use for many decades as a valid way to validate data.

I would argue 99.9% of this system has nothing to do with blockchain technology. It's just a buzzword used by one of their contractors.

What led you to choose to, as you put it, "expose blockchain" specifically? I am asking because the same technology powers git and other modern version control systems, and because people can happily use Ethereum or whatever to buy something online while being less exposed to certain risks, without treating it as an investment.

What led you to choose to, as you put it, "expose blockchain" specifically?

Well, as a software engineer, I've designed decentralized databases, online systems, financial systems, transaction systems, cryptographic systems, etc... so I know what does and doesn't work. So I chose blockchain because it's something I feel I'm qualified to talk about.

What motivated me to publish something critical about it is the fact that I've had several friends and associates lose money in this scheme, thinking there was more legitimacy to the technology than there really was. I felt like there's more hype than facts about crypto and blockchain and wanted to even that out.

I am asking because the same technology powers git and other modern version control systems

It's not the same technology any more than humans and apes are the same species.

What you're referring to is that both crypto and github are derived from some earlier core technology called, Merkle Trees. Merkle Trees are not Blockchain. Merkle Trees are not decentralized. They don't involve a token system. They don't implement Proof-of-work which wastes tremendous amounts of energy. Let's not pretend Github is an example of "blockchain" - it's not.

Github's version control system uses a form of the precursor technology that blockchain also uses. And it does so in a much better manner.

Note that my documentary critiques blockchain, not Merkle trees (although I do discuss them in the film).

However, if you ask me, Github's use of Merkle Trees is incredibly inefficient. I think a more modern database version control technology could replace its implementation of Merkle trees and result in a more space-efficient way of storing past versions of data. Either way, Github is not blockchain.

people can happily use Ethereum or whatever to buy something online while being less exposed to certain risks, without treating it as an investment.

It's hard to validate such an ambiguous claim. I don't doubt people can use crypto to buy stuff. But whether that process is easier or less risky than using traditional methods, I would contest and if you want to talk specifics, we can validate such claims.

What about narrow uses like tracking transportation?

There's a section in my doc that addresses this specific claim Can blockchain verify authenticity and I use supply chain tracking as the example.

The problem with this application is that blockchain adds nothing to it. All blockchain does is tell you "here's what someone along the way entered into my database." If the person recording the thing being tracked enters improper data, then there's bad data on the blockchain. So the tech doesn't fix the problem. This is called "The Oracle Problem."

I can see it doesn't help with did you put real data in. But presumably it does help with once it's in, you can't change it?

Yes, but note that in that case, a standard cryptographically signed piece of data can do the same thing. No blockchain needed.

Not true, because a centralized database can be altered by whoever holds access to that encrypted data.

A blockchain can be altered too by someone who has access to it.

And in both the centralized and the blockchain database, the cryptographic hash achieves the same purpose: alerting the user that the data failed validation.

The difference being the non-blockchain database doesn't waste the energy consumption of Norway in the process.

So it could help with fraud but not ordinary human stupidity ? For most data it would not matter but for the $ amount fields, knowing what everyone did sounds useful?

Thanks for doing this btw. I’ve always had a vague feeling that you have researched and documented

So it could help with fraud but not ordinary human stupidity ?

It's not merely "human stupidity"... it's the assumption that "nobody is trustworthy" therefore "code is law."

In the world of crypto, the mantra is, "Don't trust, verify." But the reality is, you're swapping trusting accountable central authorities for anonymous un-accountable coders and data entry clerks.

You are downplaying the value in having an immutable ledger.

In classic databases, you have to deal with both issues of input and malicious mutability.

In blockchain, once the data is inputted, you don’t have to worry about malicious mutability

Please see my section on Verifying Authenticity in the documentary. The immutability of the ledger is moot when Oracles can put false information on it and there's no way to tell the data put on blockchain is bad.

Oh I get it. Instead of actual blockchains, you just talk about PoS systems, and then you can ignore how secure distributed consensus is obviously useful.

Did you actually watch the video? It has nothing to do with what you claim.

and then you can ignore how secure distributed consensus is obviously useful.

This is also moving the goalpost.

Are we talking about supply chain tracking or distributed consensus systems? You changed the subject, but if you want to know whether DAOs are worth a flip, I have a section in my documentary on that too.

This is what happens when you spend years arguing with crypto bros. I'm fully prepared not with merely a rebuttal, but a complete animated feature video specifically debunking what you claim.

Are you currently taking a financial position against cryptocurrency/bitcoin? Shorting any of the ETF's or having money in inverse ETF's?

Seems that there would be some easy money to be made if it's all going to zero.

I don't think this is as easy as people think.

The big problem with the crypto market is that it's highly manipulated.

While I may be confident eventually it will collapse, I have no idea when that will be, so trying to short something is extremely risky.

Plus, I'm not really interested in profiting in this way. I'm semi-retired now... I own a reasonable amount of real estate and did well with my tech businesses and just want to help others. I find the whole industry to be predatory and just because there may be ways to make money, doesn't mean it's a good idea for me. Making money in crypto is like gambling. It doesn't really create equity you can rely on later. I'd rather go the slow-and-steady route myself.

What's your take on Dan Olson's "Line Goes Up"?

And thanks for your research. :)

I answered that here

As a crypto-critic and software engineer of 40+ years ...

As a crypto-critic and software engineer of 50+ years, I salute you!

I haven't watched your video (yet), but given your intro to this post I wonder: How much time do you spend talking to them about the "currency" part of crypto-currency?

Backstory: I ask since I've mostly given up trying to explain / talk about the crypto aspects (blockchain, hashing, public/private key, etc.) because most peoples' eyes glaze over in about 2 minutes (or less). For those who actually understand some of these things, I find they don't tend to be crypto-anything enthusiasts.

Having been a Finance major in a previous life, I find it more fun, and more productive, to get people to tell me, "What is a currency?" Some think they know, but when I press for details a shocking number of people don't have any real idea what one is. For those that sort of do, I ask, "What is a reserve currency and why does it matter?" More fails.

Then I ask "What features of crypto-currency as a currency do you like that aren't already part of the global credit card system?" Mostly they name things that are of interest to criminals and conspiracy freaks. (sorry, but it's true.)

The True Believers^® still walk away thinking they are right, but I've planted a Seed of Doubt that may, someday, grow into understanding.

How much time do you spend talking to them about the "currency" part of crypto-currency?

If you notice, there's not as much talk now about the "currency" part of crypto currency.

I believe that function of bitcoin and other cryptos died a long time ago, which necessitated morphing the tech into something new and different: an investment, a store of value, aka "digital gold."

We both know treating something like both a currency and an investment does not jive, so usually I'm talking with someone about one or the other, and in either case, bitcoin doesn't do a very good job.

I think talking about bitcoin the currency is a lot easier, because currencies need to be stable and it's pretty easy to recognize the price of bitcoin is not stable. Same thing as it applies to efficiency and scalability. Bitcoin's blockchain cannot handle enough transactions to make it useful as a payment medium -- it's at that point where the distraction of the "lightning network" is introduced. That's a rabbit hole I went down as well and am qualified to talk about in great detail as to why that doesn't actually solve any problems either.

But usually things don't go that far. I just get called a "hater" and told, "have fun staying poor", and that's the end of the conversation.

Pyramid scheme you say? Kidding,but not. But I have to say if I dont understand it,or it doesnt make any sense to me,I am not putting my money into it. On a side note..if I knew which "lab grown" meats to invest in I would be all over it.

In my doc, one of the points I make is: Any truly useful technology should be obvious.

If someone is trying to sell you something and it doesn't make sense to you, believe your hunch. It doesn't make sense.

Lab grown meat is a good example. You don't have to understand the nature of protein synthesis to recognize the benefits of being able to produce a product like that.

What would you propose to be able to purchase things anonymously online?

A pre-paid gift card.

Do you believe the behaviour of the Internet is changing every decade and it's making lives harder now? Like how we think the fossil fuels are making our lives harder or will make it harder. Do you believe the internet will change in such a drastic way that what we see relevant now will not matter at all?

As long as the current state of the internet stays relevant, I believe that Bitcoin as a collectible at least, will stay relevant and since it is divisible, it can very easily be used as a medium of exchange. Like how Gold in the Physical world is rare and can't be formed artificially (yet) without spending almost equal amounts of wealth in the process.

Sure there may be ways in future to manufacture gold in the lab making other gold less valuable immediately. Similarly, the threat to Bitcoin, as I see it, is a super fast computer, which is fast enough to break the encryption. The day it happens, Bitcoin will be irrelevant. Like the day humans learn how to fuse atoms together and emulate sun and supernovae till it forms Gold. Till that day, I will hold.

Do you believe the behaviour of the Internet is changing every decade and it's making lives harder now? Like how we think the fossil fuels are making our lives harder or will make it harder. Do you believe the internet will change in such a drastic way that what we see relevant now will not matter at all?

Wow, yea that's a pretty deep question... and I have thought about it.

So I'm relatively old - I was around before the Internet and before PCs and I got into all that from the very beginning, and the way the industry is now is much different from the way it was, and the way we thought it would be.

The "information age" was supposed to usher in a period of great knowledge and wisdom. With so much data at our fingertips, how could be not progress faster and better as a species?

I had no idea it would backfire so horribly, that now, because there's so much information, everybody seems to have the luxury of picking-and-choosing which "evidence" they want to believe. It's pretty disconcerting.

As long as the current state of the internet stays relevant, I believe that Bitcoin as a collectible at least, will stay relevant and since it is divisible, it can very easily be used as a medium of exchange. Like how Gold in the Physical world is rare and can't be formed artificially (yet) without spending almost equal amounts of wealth in the process.

I don't see how bitcoin is relevant.

It's nothing like gold. I elaborate on that in this part of my documentary.

Gold has intrinsic, material value, and utility. Bitcoin does not. It may be collectable as a speculative commodity, but there's no good reason for why it would continue to hold value once people stop obsessively promoting it (and unfortunately part of that promotion involves spreading a bunch of lies).

Sure there may be ways in future to manufacture gold in the lab making other gold less valuable immediately. Similarly, the threat to Bitcoin, as I see it, is a super fast computer, which is fast enough to break the encryption. The day it happens, Bitcoin will be irrelevant. Like the day humans learn how to fuse atoms together and emulate sun and supernovae till it forms Gold. I do believe that it's just a matter of time until bitcoin's encryption is broken, but I don't think by the time that happens, the value of bitcoin will be high enough to matter cracking it.

The real elephant in the room is: liquidity. We have no idea how much real money is in the crypto market. So the idea that ANY bitcoin holds value is pretty sketchy.

Any number you hear about "price of bitcoin" comes from a handful of crypto exchanges, none of which are transparent or regulated anywhere near the same as traditional banks and brokerage houses, and since they all co-mingle tokens, unless you can audit every major exchange, there's numerous ways to inject inflation into the market.

Till that day, I will hold.

You do you.

But note there's a very likely possibility what you're holding will be worth literally zero. Technically speaking it's already intrinsically valueless. So this "HODL" move you're pulling requires that people constantly hype BTC forever. That's quite a high degree of wishful thinking.

Think about it like this:

I land my boat on an isolated island whose natives know nothing of the modern world. I have both gold and bitcoin with me.

Which "asset" am I more likely to be able to trade with the locals for anything of value?

I would love to have a consensus myinstant button or the mp3 file so i could spam in discord to everyone i know who saw your video, is that possible? That audio clip in the 51% attack part of the video caught me totally off guard and i laughed so hard LOL

Amazing video, it consolidated plenty of my thoughts i had wondered but never actually go to search for it to know better, and much more stuff that i didn't even imagined

Someone's A.I. just had a seizure.

What about something like long-range wireless internet for use/sale like this - https://www.helium.com/?

Do you think that's a waste or good use?

I like the idea of mesh networks.

I don't see why it has to be tokenized and morphed into a scheme where early adopters can buy Lambos, though.

If the application has merit, it can stand on its own without integrating crypto.

So if you were going to design a distributed data storage system which guarantees availability indefinitely for one upfront price, how would you do it?

Sure many things in the cryptocurrency space are scams but utility tokens like BTC and ETH are the tickets required to put bytes into that datastore. They couldn't just accept credit cards to pay for this service because there's no way to implement that in a decentralized manner.

So if you were going to design a distributed data storage system which guarantees availability indefinitely for one upfront price, how would you do it?

You can't do that.

"Indefinite availability" is not something that can be guaranteed, least of all for a single price.

There's no guarantee the bitcoin blockchain will be operable in 10 years. If the price of BTC drops below a certain level, there will be no incentive for anybody to operate the nodes.

There are already 30,000 cryptocurrencies that are dead, not because they're technologically inferior to BTC - in many cases they're actually superior, but simply because the hype died down and so did the operation of their blockchain.

Out of curiosity, how much money would you estimate is locked in these dead unspendable 'currencies'?

The bigger question is: How much real liquidity is in the crypto market?

I suspect of those who have access to their crypto right now, if more than 3% tried to liquidate their crypto, the price would drop close to zero.