941
A quick reminder, 2025 update should include AI in the diagram
(eviltoast.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
941 points (97.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
26693 readers
2089 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I hate this so much because it's absolutely false. Nobody needs cryptocurrency. But Blockchain has very real value that has nothing to do with currency, grift, or "proof of work". Blockchain is NOT synonymous with crypto and the fact that everyone believes it is shows exactly how much damage the grifters have done :(
EDIT: Haters gonna hate. Hope everyone who down-votes reads the replies too.
EDIT 2: Here you go,, everybody. I did the research for you....
I see this kind of comment on pretty much every thread about Blockchain, and yet those commenters aren't ever able to share a use case where Blockchain solves a problem better than the existing technology. Maybe you have one though?
Sure do! Quoting my other reply:
EDIT: Took the liberty of adding a bunch of examples to my original reply ๐
I don't see how a blockchain is necessary there. Couldn't they just use transaction databases and simple messaging between banks? Also, what is your definition of blockchain? Just a distributed linked list? Proof of work (the part I don't understand the need for)?
It's certainly not necessary, it just provides specific advantages in terms of tamper resistance, validation, etc. If you're not working in a system where the integrity and authenticity is paramount and doing that validation over the wire constantly is prohibitive then there's no significant benefit. But there are lots of scenarios where those are EXACTLY what you want to prioritize. Several of the examples I added to my initial reply offer clear use cases that benefit.
As for my definition, I'll defer to the literal definition:
Note that proof of work is NOT part of the definition. Proof of work is very specifically related to cryptocurrency, and exists only as a mechanism to prevent the arbitrary creation of additional currency (blocks). There is nothing about blockchain that requires proof of work. Often you use proof of stake instead of proof of work, but even that isn't strictly necessary
P.s. this is exactly what I mean when I talk about how grifters have ruined a perfectly good technology by poisoning the public awareness of it. The fact that you considered proof of work to be a core element of blockchain is because of cryptocurrency, and the notoriety it has received because of the grift. Other examples of this phenomenon include Tesla and their impact on the perception of autonomous vehicles (which Teslas are not, but try very hard to make you think they are), and LLMs and "AI" and their impact on the perception of real AI projects and other forms of machine learning.
Okay, so it's just a distributed linked list where earlier entries can't be changed without changing everything up to the head? I guess I can see a few niche uses for that. In my head I was just thinking "surely that can't be it" because it's so simple, hence thinking the proof-of-[x] thing would also have to be part of it.
Yup, that's pretty much it.
And you're exactly correct: it is a niche solution to a very specific problem.
And that makes the OP meme wrong and ignorant; an overly broad generalization that fails to educate, instead perpetuating a "crypto bad" mentality projected onto a useful piece of tech.
It's like saying "when do you need nuclear fission? Never" ignoring the fact that nuclear power is the perfect solution for some very specific use cases (like powering rovers on Mars) and a good solution to a few others (large scale terrestrial power generation)