blockchain-scourge-comments.org

Is “blockchain technology a scourge on society”?

Emile Silvis recently shared an article he wrote on a pro-cryptocurrency forum, and asked for feedback.

This was brave, given that his title is “Blockchain technology is a scourge on society” :-)

But because he is a friendly guy and geniunely seemed to want feedback from pro-cryptocurrency people, I took part in the discussion.

I like that he highlighted his background and some of his assumptions at the start (and throughout) the article.

I agree with many of the points he makes - yes there are many bad actors in the space. A lot of blockchain projects and use cases will probably not work out as the creators hoped. There are many problems facing the industry.

However, I disagree with the conclusion that the entire technology is a scourge on society. Here I evaluate the claims made.

How I aproach this evaluation

I will comment and rate each claim on:

1. The strength, logical consistency etc of the argument made in this claim, independent of other claims
2. How well the specific claim contributes to the overall claim (blockchain as a scourge on society)

Evaluation

Claim 1: Blockchain technology is a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist (yet)

Claim evaluation

Some of the listed assumptions are interesting and probably deserves some more discussion, e.g. those that touch on trust. However, I could not clearly see how those assumptions connect to the “solution in search of a problem” claim.

Just looking at the heading though: it is a universal statement covering all of blockchain technology. To disprove such a statement we just need to provide one counter-example. Any example where some person or group of people have found a solution in this technology would suffice. It doesn’t have to be a “good” case or anything you happen to agree or disagree with. Literally any use case will do. There are many such examples.

Contribution to “Blockchain as a scourge on society”

Given any counter-example the point is moot, and then cannot contribute to the main claim.

If we assume the claim is true: I can’t see why “a solution in search of a problem” should be labeled as a “scourge on society”.

Maybe we can then say that such technology is not very useful, similar to how a lot of hobby projects aren’t very useful.

Or that it takes away the brain power of many smart people that then work on useless projects. But in saying that you’ve admitted that the people are very smart, so maybe they are also smart enough to know what is useful and what not.

Claim 2: Blockchain technology enables bad actors to exploit vulnerable people disproportionately more than it enables good actors to do good

Claim evaluation

In this argument a few bad things are listed - and I agree that most if not all of those things are bad.

There aren’t any good things listed, which then comes across to me as if the author didn’t do enough homework, or didn’t want to list anything good which could undermine the article.

Contribution to “Blockchain as a scourge on society”

This claim, if true, would definitely contribute to the claim that blockchain tech is a scourge on society.

To refute it we’ll have to list some use cases, and unlike in the first claim, this time we need to show that it improved people’s lives.

We can also list some bad things that are happening in traditional finance and governance.

And then there must be a subjective evaluation:

• are the bad things in the blockchain space worse than the bad things that came before it?
• are the good things in the blockchain space enough of a redemption for the bad things?
• are the good things in the traditional space enough of a redemption for the bad things in the traditional world?

The answer here would probably depend on your own pre-held values, opinions and beliefs. It would therefore be valuable to make those core values explicit when answering (and sharing) your conclusion.

Claim 3: Cryptocurrency is bad for the environment

Claim evaluation

To summarise the claim: All cryptocurrency is bad for the environment, because Bitcoin (and other proof of work systems by implication) uses a lot of energy for little to no benefit.

It is easier to see that the argument is invalid if we re-write it a bit: All X is bad because subset-of-X is bad.

The primary way people have been addressing wasteful energy usage in blockchains is with Proof of Stake systems. To dismiss it out of hand does not seem like an argument made in good faith.

Furthermore, the usage of energy is a complex topic. It is implied that energy usage per definition is always bad for the environment. This ignores many nuances - which we luckily don’t have to go into, because the argument is invalid.

Contribution to “Blockchain as a scourge on society”

Any claims on a subset of blockchain technology cannot contribute to the main claim on all of blockchain technology.

To make this claim work the overall claim would need to be changed to “Proof of work blockchains is a scourge on society”, which would probably result in a different article entirely.

Claim 4: Cryptocurrency is not really decentralised yet

Claim evaluation

Here an article by Moxie Marlinspike is used that discusses the decentralisation of web3 dApps.

This is another example of ”All X is bad because subset-of-X is bad”, where the subset in this case is web3.

On the topic of decentralisation, some projects have more of it and some less.

Balaji Srinivasan and Leland Lee wrote an article trying to quantify decentralisation.

Contribution to “Blockchain as a scourge on society”

Are things that aren’t “decentralised yet” a scourge on society? Probably not, so no contribution to the overall point.

Claim 5: People that I trust as reliable sources of information tend to be anti-cryptocurrency

Claim evaluation

As far as arguments go, this looks like an appeal to authority, mostly considered to be a logical fallacy.

However, this section probably does some good in highlighting the pre-held values and beliefs of the author. Maybe it can be listed at the beginning of the article as such.

Contribution to “Blockchain as a scourge on society”

No contribution.

Claim 6: Blockchain-related topics are polarising and often lead to unproductive conversations

Claim evaluation

By this logic politics, sport, religion and a host of other topics are also a scourge on society.

Contribution to “Blockchain as a scourge on society”

No contribution.

My experience in the banking system as a developer, shows me that a lot of the promises that crypto bro are selling us aren't really the actual experience of people's life.

I mean, a minimal experience in the banking system shows that "human make mistakes and expect a way to correct them". Totally opposite of the Blockchain

So using a Blockchain to log transactions is not so different than what we actually implement in the banking systems, using Softdelete in our databases because our clients (Human) often make mistakes and want to revert that... Problem with Blockchain is that it's "public immutable ledger". No clients (human?) wants that his/her transaction history be publicly published and not alterable. (Famously demonstrated by Molly White take on that).

From my experience, Blockchain usability is way less human-friendly than a private PostgreSQL database 😂.

I live in Africa and have seen bright minds spending their rare and precious coding skills to invent crypto scams and quick enrichment schemes that are not helping anyhow our continent. It's a really pity😔.

A scourge on the society.

I remember a comment where the author said that Silicon valley tech entrepreneurs are vilified for their platforms(e.g Fcbk) and the privacy practices they have been implementing, they are scared to solve real tech problems (they won't get recognition anyway) of this world and instead try to solve virtual ones such as virtual reality and crypto currencies (a solution in search of a problem 😁).

I concur with that.

Thanks for taking the time to write this!

Right off the bat: my conclusion that the etirety of the technology is a scourge on society is misplaced. Of course it's more nuanced than that. I chose to frame it in absolutist terms to make the title of my blog post pop. I realise that this is not a noble strategy per se, but it is effective in getting the gist of my position across.

I loved the way you rated each claim on the strength and logical consistency of the argument. I can't refute any of your statements there.

Here's a question: how would your sentiment change if I renamed the title of the article to "Blockchain technology is often harmful to society"? I feel that this preserves my position, whilst making less of an absolutist and general claim about the technology itself. Would that change the general feeling for you?

@emilesilvis About the "often harmful" change, I definitely agree with that sentiment 😄

Such a change then also acknowledges that the technology has some good in it - which allows the conversation to move in a more constructive direction, e.g. "What can we do to maximize the (potential) good parts, and minimize the (potential) bad parts?"

And we can apply the same criticism to established players in this space - governments have often harmed the citizens they're supposed to protect, banks have often used their power to profit at the expense of their customers, and have participated in crimes like money laundering. Scammers have been scamming before blockchains were invented.

"And we can apply the same criticism to established players in this space".

Indeed, and once we're in a position to compare apples with apples, we can start forming an idea of the magnitude of the damage. But this is a herculean task beyond my interest and abilities :)