To find out if there is a way to make the change toward Blockchain usage last, the key question is, whether the technology Blockchain itself will last. It will not be possible to keep change to Blockchain usage and keep the status quo, if the technology used is not going to last.
“The technology ‘Blockchain’ only exists since 10 years, but I personally think, Blockchain came here to stay. I think in future, the terms like blockchain, coin and crypto will get commodity business terms.”
This means that maybe the word Blockchain might disappear in far future, as non-chain based verification methods might become common.
Currently, there are some threats to the blockchain technology:
- The current banking system works even without a larger blockchain adaption and it will continue working perfectly like this in future. Question is, whether running the verifications by using a blockchain tech really saves money when including development, governance and verification cost (= mining cost).
- The verfication calculations in theory can be broken by a quantum cpu. A quantum cpu can possibly calculate any past or future hashrate within seconds which woul kill the entire blockchain security foundation in seconds…(in theory) https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/intels-49qubit-chip-aims-for-quantum-supremacy
- It’s here sind 10 years and the broad adaption is still extremely low. A lot of people know the term “Bitcoin” but would never use it (I live in Europe and not in Japan). This antipathy in my opinion is much stronger than many enthusiasts think.
- In the past 3 monthy, I have seen around 300 – 400 ICOs (which means, that a new crypto currency is being introduced by using and “Initial Coin Offering). Although there are some rare good projects, most of them are so-called sh*tcoins (excuse me) which kill the reputation and trust toward this kind of technology. Additionally in the community I see around 95% brokers and maybe 5% real tech guys. Most of the community is trying to make money rather than to pushing the technology which in my opinion is a weak and small technical foundation.
- There are very few scenarios I can think of, where an 100% secure verification method is needed outside fintech (“Finacial Technology”) and Healthcare (Health data & Research)
- Logistics – If a package is delivered, the information about it can be deleted, it’s not needed anymore. (Try deleting something on a blockchain)
- Retail – Sold items can be deleted. See above.
- Gaming / Gambling – It’s all fun and games, no need for 100% security.
- Energy – Blockchain tech only COSTS energy so far.
- Government – I personally see a TON of opportunities here (population management, voting, etc..) but I also have one major concern which leads me to point 6:
- Distributed crypto systems are by definition not controllable by one single government. Thus any single government might not like crypto systems and most probably might try to defeat those systems. Althought this might be a very hard fight, it is not an entirely impossible fight. A ban from (for example) USA and EU together would severely damage the crypto world.
- The lack of scalability makes a lot of platforms and currencies not entirely future-proof. The Ethereum blockchain size is currently 663 GB large and only 3 years old (first block 2015-07-30). Monero currently counts 52.19 GB after 4 years (first block 2014-04-18). Ethereum is a platform whilst Monero is a privacy coin and I will not compare those. I just want to show, that those 2 relatively new cryptos are already too large to store on a normal smartphone. What happens in 10 years with 100x growth in usage? Telecommunication providers will not be able to 100x our bandwidthts in 10 years…
I think it is a nice challenge to prove those 7 reasons wrong.