Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm on the hype train That’s the intellectual blind spot which is making this so hard to understand: you’re invested in the technology and want to see it succeed, which means you’re inclined to minimize every downside and boost every possible use without asking whether something is better in addition to being possible. Being old enough to remember when the internet was starting to go mainstream, there were op-eds l…
>>In contrast, we have a ton of blockchain hype without a single legal use which solves a problem normal people care about better than existing, well-tested technology. Maybe this is your blind spot? You assume it has to be legal to be useful. But in any case, there are legal use cases that work today: sending money with very little friction, including no need to provide a trusted third party or the payee your person…
I'm looking at what it takes to go mainstream — if it's predominately used for illegal activity, that'll deter normal people and legitimate businesses from adopting it and increases the likelihood of government regulation. As a simple example, how many people would use a tumbler if that started being seen as probable cause for a money laundering investigation?
> But in any case, there are legal use cases that work today: sending money with very little friction and with no need to provide a trusted third party or the payee your personally identifiable information.
How many people care enough about removing the trusted third party that they will use this instead of Google Wallet, Square, Venmo, etc. (and, soon, Apple Pay)? Some people value that but it seems unlikely that it's enough to make up for the smaller network, processing delays, and exchange fees.