Having said all this, we just want to say that there is only one simple truth in the development of science and technology: "Everything depends on human effort", and blockchain is definitely the same.

 

A recent Cross-Shore article "Blockchain is the solution to a problem it doesn't know how to solve" suddenly went viral. But first let me introduce to you, the main source of this article comes from the correspondent of Base International Independent Media Netherlands and USA, writer Jesse Frederik. He is a financial reporter who focuses on the financial and economic issues of the underprivileged in society.

 

This article sparked both positive and negative discussion yesterday, especially on my wall. Many of my friends who appreciated the article are mostly mobile internet entrepreneurs or practitioners who started their businesses in 2010. Many of them are very successful entrepreneurs. The industry has flourished with huge revenues.

 

Emotionally, we can totally understand why they agree 100% with this article. Because the costs of "legal compliance" for Internet entrepreneurs have been very, very troublesome in the past few years. Such as selling paid apps in the App Store that require the opening of invoices, which the industry and lawmakers have spent several years.

 

Then it's a big project to get cross-border e-commerce invoices from Facebook and Google to deduct taxes properly. It took the industry five or six years to finally get the finance ministry to calculate a reasonable ratio. Entrepreneurs are overwhelmed and intimidated by the law every day before the situation normalizes.

 

As industry reporters, whenever we write about shipment issues, we sigh again. Naturally, we know the heartache of these entrepreneurs - and then look at the coin circle. In reality, many simply ran away. rat feces that are difficult to catch by law. Of course, there are many internet entrepreneurs who later became blockchain entrepreneurs. Just collect the big bucks, and maybe run away after doing so. Do you think you are too stupid to obey the law and "forced" to obey the law too tightly? From their point of view, this is already a problem.

 

But is blockchain useful? 

This topic has been discussed frantically since the ICO trend three years ago. But as little white nanometers aka technology researchers in coin circles, we've witnessed some coin exchanges on the front lines over the past three years. Wind and rain in circles and chains, some of these experiences have been reported for a long time, but some are not newsworthy or can't be published... so we want to synthesize some of these experiences and share our views.

 

Blockchain’s “Trust” Problem

To talk about the inevitability of blockchain, we still have to start with Satoshi Nakamoto's paper. We know this is a book bag for many people. Satoshi Nakamoto's invention of Bitcoin was originally intended to focus on replacing traditional third-party institutions with encrypted certificates. A digital payment system that avoids double-spending. But since he clearly states in the paper that Bitcoin avoids central authorities, mints, and banks, he also writes "At this time 03/Jan/2009 the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is being forced to consider a second shot at getting out of banking crisis.", and Blockchain is thus widely considered a powerful anti-government character.

 

After several years of development, Bitcoin and many other large-scale public chains have become a very stable value transmission system. Sending mainstream virtual currencies to wallets on the other side of the world takes minutes or seconds. . From a technical perspective, many PoS chains process transactions at a rate of hundreds of thousands of tx/s per second. But today, not from a technology perspective, but from a "social level", blockchain still has three major trust issues:

 

1.     Just admit it, ICO losses are really deep, it's a bad debt. Too low a threshold makes ICOs too superficial and fraud too high, which ultimately leaves a strong negative impression on virtual currencies for the global public who do not understand blockchain well. It is most realistic and brutal.

 

2.     Blockchain people believe that algorithms and miners do their best to avoid problems due to profit-driven security measures. But common people still believe that the country founded by them pays huge amounts of taxes. The Judiciary, when they have disputes, intervenes forcibly as a last resort according to law. Whether to cooperate with blockchain to gain public trust (or you can say consensus) is a very traditional but constantly debated, very complicated old topic, but even Facebook is not sure about it. what do you say?

 

3.     Blockchain cannot currently solve the garbage in and garbage out problem. The original text also states, "This is not a system that can itself verify the accuracy of the data." Previous blockchain impositions in Taiwan were considered such problems. What can be solved by adding SSL to MySQL, why not use it?

 

Except for the last point, these three points are all trust issues that have nothing to do with the technology in the eyes of blockchain professionals. But in the eyes of the common man, they are very important. We can carefully negotiate with each other the technological stratosphere where smart contracts can stabilize. But after all, it is difficult for the general public to immediately understand that "Blockchain is as safe as a bank" in a matter of seconds.

 

But you can't just say "Blockchain is useless". 

But, we don't think blockchain's useless theory is correct and we don't agree that "blockchain is a solution to a problem it doesn't know how to solve".

 

But we also refute the "Blockchain must be the Internet 3.0 Bala of the future..." "Blockchain will directly replace the whole bowl of stocks. It's foolish not to buy now. Now we must exchange which chain and which currency. Cars... etc." (Two years ago, some foreign exchange trader tried to rob me.) We scoffed at this statement.

 

That's not how the development of science and technology works, there's no contradiction. Scientists will break away from the original idea and establish a new idea. The theoretical system, and form a new paradigm to replace the old standards.

 

Even the laws of science are no longer linear, incremental, and incremental developments. Science and technology development is similar to science but more complex. The bulk of each technological iteration is not a natural process but depends on engineers and entrepreneurs. Constantly communicating with the public, the market clash.

 

Of course, blockchain is the same, until the killer product is built and successfully distributed to everyone, it's not easily predictable. In the words of Perpetual Contract founder Tempo, it's now "a good way to think about (blockchain) to see new ways to use it and to think about why it should be used."

 

DeFi has that sparky smell. Although the harmful exit at the moment will scare many people for a while, aside from liquidity mining, in fact, DeFi has many infrastructures, already has many functions, and digital financial services can be compared to traditional money.

 

That's about it. Having said all that, it doesn't matter if you feel like there's no real nourishment or motivation in the end. But remember the last sentence: As we've seen in the past three years of blockchain litigation, be aware of blockchain projects that give you too much hype at the start and repeat promises. There are many tricks in the coin circle and nothing usually ends well.