He is NOT saying Bitcoin is useless. He states in the first sentence that Bitcoin is full of potential use cases. Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
He's criticizing blockchain for it's touted ability to facilitate the Transfer of ownership of something. This is what happens in a supply chain, ownership of goods changes hands from the manufacturer to the shipper to the retailer.
There are people of the opinion that blockchain makes this transfer of ownership (of the goods) completely transparent and truthful. That is not the case.
In the article, he's talking about transferring a physical item (like art) by using a transaction on the blockchain. He gives an example why this doesn't offer truth of ownership. It offers truth of the transaction.
Blockchain enthusiasts would love the blockchain to be the source of truth for so many things but this is exactly where you run in silly problems as I described before (essentially the French state having to give up ownership of the Mona Lisa because the blockchain says so).
The mistake is in thinking blockchain is a "source of truth". You have to add context. What is it a source of truth for? Transaction validity.
He is NOT saying Bitcoin is useless. He states in the first sentence that Bitcoin is full of potential use cases. Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
No, he said "supposedly". If you read the article that he links to, it is actually a rebuttal of using Bitcoin to handle the problems of logistics. If you see where he wrote something to the contrary, please link it. As far as I can tell, he is saying Bitcoin does not solve any problems.
Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
Establishing ownership is the sole purpose of the blockchain.
There are people of the opinion that blockchain makes this transfer of ownership (of the goods) completely transparent and truthful. That is not the case.
In the article, he's talking about transferring a physical item (like art) by using a transaction on the blockchain. He gives an example why this doesn't offer truth of ownership. It offers truth of the transaction.
This is just playing word games. How does the court or a centralized database offer truth of ownership?
The mistake is in thinking blockchain is a "source of truth". You have to add context. What is it a source of truth for? Transaction validity.
And what is the purpose of validating transactions? Just to consume CPU cycles? No, it's to establish ownership.
Seems like you got it all figured out champ. We should delete this whole post, and ban that dumb author who hates Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin good, and author doesn't think good.
The author is making a logical error in his thinking, which results in a poor grasp of the technology and a poor quality article as a result.
There is no such thing as a “source of truth” in the real world, other than God. Tools like ledgers and databases just help us humans organize information to minimize errors, with the blockchain being the solution to a distributed decentralized ledger that does not require a central authority. (minimizing corruption of more than one kind)
That does not mean it will replace a central authority. A human is always going to be involved in the process. No technology can change that.
He is NOT saying Bitcoin is useless. He states in the first sentence that Bitcoin is full of potential use cases. Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
He's criticizing blockchain for it's touted ability to facilitate the Transfer of ownership of something. This is what happens in a supply chain, ownership of goods changes hands from the manufacturer to the shipper to the retailer.
There are people of the opinion that blockchain makes this transfer of ownership (of the goods) completely transparent and truthful. That is not the case.
In the article, he's talking about transferring a physical item (like art) by using a transaction on the blockchain. He gives an example why this doesn't offer truth of ownership. It offers truth of the transaction.
The mistake is in thinking blockchain is a "source of truth". You have to add context. What is it a source of truth for? Transaction validity.
No, he said "supposedly". If you read the article that he links to, it is actually a rebuttal of using Bitcoin to handle the problems of logistics. If you see where he wrote something to the contrary, please link it. As far as I can tell, he is saying Bitcoin does not solve any problems.
Establishing ownership is the sole purpose of the blockchain.
This is just playing word games. How does the court or a centralized database offer truth of ownership?
And what is the purpose of validating transactions? Just to consume CPU cycles? No, it's to establish ownership.
Seems like you got it all figured out champ. We should delete this whole post, and ban that dumb author who hates Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin good, and author doesn't think good.
The author is making a logical error in his thinking, which results in a poor grasp of the technology and a poor quality article as a result.
There is no such thing as a “source of truth” in the real world, other than God. Tools like ledgers and databases just help us humans organize information to minimize errors, with the blockchain being the solution to a distributed decentralized ledger that does not require a central authority. (minimizing corruption of more than one kind)
That does not mean it will replace a central authority. A human is always going to be involved in the process. No technology can change that.