Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Financial Times hasn't really been keen on it for quite some time. It is way out of my league, but there seem to be some major security risks associated with blockchain.
|
There is.
It's in an infancy stage, and I believe in the lifecycle of new "technologies" (there is a good article about it that I had included in some research earlier this year, but I can't remember where I found it) it is, or has recently been, at the "peak" level of hype-over-value. It's now entering/is currently in the phase where problems emerge as the real-world application of it gets tested, and is probably 5-10 years away from emerging as something that could start to really be adopted by the market.
It's by no means perfect or in any way suitable for mass adoption right now, it's still something that needs to be figured out.
Things like blockchain, in my mind, are like medical treatments that worked in the lab. It's exciting and IF it works in real-world applications like it does in it's infancy stage, then it's going to be fantastic. The next part is the hardest though, which involves adapting it to the incredibly complex real world applications on a mass scale, finding the pressure points, and finding ways to strengthen those areas.
My proclamation on blockchain would be:
Is it exciting? Yes.
Should you care (yet)? No.
You could also compare it to something like Uber, which is probably destined to fail in it's current iteration. Even if it ends up failing, the lessons learned from it and the positive elements can (and will) be incorporated into more society-advancing things in the future. Innovation becomes the new standard, etc.