That's the problem - the only functioning use for public blockchains after 10 years is for crypto assets, i.e. for money making schemes, so will there be anything left at all if the people interested in making money move on? In contrast, when the dot-com bubble burst and the get-rich-quick folks moved on, there were clear established use cases for the technology beyond simply making money, and as a result mass adoption was well underway. Pretty much all other so-called blockchain projects at the moment are either using it where they don't need to (i.e. they have no need for decentralised trust) or aren't using blockchains in the original sense at all (i.e. they're using some centralised version of it, which defeats the point).
back
1 comments
The blockchain offers:
1. for the CEO/manager in a big company - a very high security mechanism, verified by the billions of $ in bitcoin. Great quality assurance, and politically, that's a good choice to make for something as risky as computer security.
Nobody got fired for choosing blockchain.
2. Trust in needed when you want many companies to collaborate.
Nobody like centralized trust(a-la banks). They charge a lot of money, they usually end up as a monopoly, and they have power over you. nobody likes to give up power.
IBM's blockchain, i.e. Hyperledger, is open-source, governed by many companies, so i assume the money/power situation is far better. You could probably leave IBM's hosting if you really wanted.