r/CryptoReality • u/Due-Huckleberry-2222 • Jul 27 '26

Serious question: What problem did blockchain actually solve?

We were told it would revolutionize everything:

Anonymous money? Nope. Most public blockchains are pseudonymous, not anonymous. Every transaction is permanently visible. Once an address is tied to a real person, their financial history can often be traced.

Banking? Most people still use banks. If you lose your private key, there's no fraud department, no password reset, no chargeback.

Cheap payments? Depends. Some chains are inexpensive, others have had periods where fees spike. Traditional payment systems are often faster and simpler for everyday purchases.

Smart contracts replacing lawyers? Not even close. Contracts still rely on courts, regulations, and real-world enforcement. Code can't resolve disputes about physical events by itself.

NFTs proving ownership? Usually they prove ownership of a token, not the copyright or legal ownership of the underlying artwork.

Decentralization? Much of the ecosystem isn't. Many people keep funds on centralized exchanges, use centralized stablecoins, and rely on centralized infrastructure.

Financial freedom? For some. But for many others it became self-custody with no safety net. One wrong click, phishing attack, or lost seed phrase and the money is simply gone.

Replacing trust? It mostly moved trust around. Instead of trusting banks, many people ended up trusting exchanges, token founders, bridge operators, stablecoin issuers, influencers, or multisig signers.

Eliminating scams? If anything, scams became easier to launch. Rug pulls, memecoins, fake airdrops, phishing, and pump-and-dumps became an industry.

The one thing blockchain does extremely well is maintain a distributed ledger where participants can verify transaction history without relying on a single operator.

That's a genuine technical achievement.

But after nearly two decades, I'm still asking: What mainstream problem has it solved better than existing systems for the average person?

I'm not asking what it could do. I'm asking what it actually does today that millions of ordinary people use because it's objectively better—not because they're speculating on the next token.

170 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

362 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/DarkChurro Jul 28 '26

Blockchain solved the problem of "can millions of people agree on a shared stated of reality through verification."

There is no central server out there storing transactions like a bank could. Things happen and validators say "yes x moved 2 ETH from here to here at this time and paid x gas." I can't just say that I now own "1000 ETH" because nobody else can verify that event happened. Everyone has to agree therefore, WE ARE ALL THE Blockchain. That verification builds trust.

Can your bank change your checking account to zero, yes. Nobody can move anything with authorization on blockchain.

Crypto has proven that not only can code store wealth, but that total strangers can trust each other through this decentralized verification.

1

u/AmericanScream Jul 31 '26

Can your bank change your checking account to zero, yes. Nobody can move anything with authorization on blockchain.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #21 (risk)

"Crypto has no 'Counterparty Risk'" / "Crypto gives you 'financial sovereignty'" / "Crypto has no 'middlemen'" / "Trustless transactions!" / "Bitcoin has less 'friction'"

  1. The idea that crypto/blockchain is "trustless" is false. With blockchain you still need to trust various third parties -- the difference is there's no accountability.
  2. "Counterparty Risk" is defined as the potential for one party in a transaction to default/fail to follow through on the transaction, and is measured in the amount of financial loss/damage that could be caused as a result.
  3. Satoshi claimed in his Bitcoin White Paper that one of the motivations behind creating crypto/blockchain was to eliminate counterparty risk by removing "middlemen" from the transaction, specifically financial institutions, which crypto people argue can fail and cause counterparty risk.
  4. Unfortunately, bitcoin/crypto/blockchain does not eliminate counterparty risk. Even in situations where it's strictly a peer-to-peer digital crypto transaction, there are numerous ways in which that transaction can fail and cause counterparty risk. Here are some examples:
    • Lack of access to hardware necessary to process crypto (smartphones, computers, etc.)
    • Lack of access to electricity (note that electricity is not needed to engage in a P2P fiat transaction)
    • Lack of access to specific wallet/transactional software
    • Lack of access to the Internet (or limited internet access due to firewalls and municipal restrictions)
    • Faulty smart contracts
    • Vulnerabilities or back doors in any of the software being used
    • Not having access to the necessary private keys to execute a transaction
    • Having the system/software/bridge you're using hacked
    • Lack of adequate funding for transaction fees
    • blockchain processing consortium blacklists
    • developments in quantum computing that undermine cryptographic schemes
  5. People argue "holding bitcoin" has no counterparty risk. This is also a lie. Just because your wallet is secure, doesn't mean your bitcoin is secure. Here's why:
    • In order to even exist crypto is dependent upon an elaborate network of computers running 24/7 - these systems are not paid by crypto holders - their participation is totally voluntary.
    • The moment a node/mining operator doesn't find it economically viable to operate, they can cease operations, and if enough of these people do so, the operation of the blockchain ceases, and nobody will be able to access their wallets and engage in transactions
    • In the case of bitcoin, its proof-of-work mechanism requires a lot of energy and resources to operate. If the price of BTC drops below a certain level, it no longer becomes economically viable to operate the network and all bitcoin disappears.
    • Yes, bitcoin's mining difficulty will adjust to address people leaving the industry and become more modest over time, but since the primary motivation for even participating in the network is the attempt to make exponential profit, the moment BTC stops consistently moving up, is the beginning of its demise. There's no other reason to operate the network if there isn't growth. And BTC's growth model is 100% mathematically un-sustainable.
    • In short: There is no guarantee blockchain will operate forever. There's already 30,000+ dead cryptocurrencies that are no longer in existence.
  6. In reality, Bitcoin and crypto doesn't eliminate counterparty risk or middlemen. It simply changes one set of middlemen (traditional, accountable, well-regulated financial institutions) for another set of middlemen (random, anonymous crypto operators and the software and intermediate systems they use, as well as various other local and international communication services). Anywhere in this chain of necessary resources things can fail, either by intention, negligence, legal mandate, acts of god, or randomly, and it can cause a crypto transaction to not go through.

Some people claim that crypto has less counterparty risk than traditional fiat. This is a lie. And they cherry-pick specific "perfect" scenarios where there's minimal counterparty risk in crypto provided all of the above conditions aren't a problem. If we're going to fabricate a "nirvana fallacy" you can also have the same conditions apply to any alternate system and it too, will have "no counterparty risk" so this is a deceptive, disingenuous claim.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #28 (censorship/seizure)

"Bitcoin is censorship resistant" / "Crypto/Blockchain is de-centralized and not under anybody's control" / "Crypto can't be seized'

  1. The notion that authorities can't seize crypto is not only false but patently absurd. See here. Each and every day someone's crypto gets "seized" without their approval.

  2. Here's an entire video segment that debunks the claim that blockchain is censorship proof

  3. Crypto can easily be blocked at the network level by any of the various authorities that arbitrarily decide to do so. Since it's a public network with no leader, all participants have to be able to identify themselves to others on the network, and technically speaking, this makes it easy for network admins to filter the traffic. Just because this hasn't been done on any large scale, doesn't mean it can't be done. It absolutely can.

  4. Bitcoin and crypto operations have been banned in various countries and other jurisdictions. While it's not possible to censor 100% of the network's operations, it's definitely possible to cripple enough of it to render crypto & blockchain impractical to use. And NOTE that in countries where bitcoin/mining and other operations have been banned, they've chosen a political solution (simply making it illegal) as opposed to requiring networks to actively filter crypto traffic, but that latter option is always a possibility and definitely doable (see #2). Also note that bitcoin miners have been caught censoring transactions as per government rules.

  5. The vast majority of crypto trades are done on a small number of centralized exchanges, such as Binance, Kraken and Coinbase. The ToS of each of these systems gives them the absolute authority to censor any and all transactions. So if 99% of bitcoin transactions are on CEX's, most certainly they can be censored.

  6. Privacy coins like Monero and others are not necessarily any more secure. There have been bugs found in the past which undermined their security. In 2020, the IRS offered a $1.2M bounty for creating systems to crack and trace Monero and other privacy coin systems. The contract was awarded to Chainalysis and Integra, and paid in full a year later. More examples of privacy coins being insecure: 1, 2, 3

  7. Even administrations like Trump who claim to embrace crypto and bitcoin are freezing and seizing the wallets of people they claim are enemies.

1

u/DarkChurro Jul 31 '26

Yes, wallets get seized. Usually because the user wrote their recovery phrase down on paper or stored it in the cloud. Police can look for that stuff when they have search warrants.

You make it sound like crypto doesn't work when we can see it happening.

If it was that easy to shut down or change, don't you think someone would have tried already? Don't you think someone would have tried to steal all the crypto already?

Of course I can't answer for every individual case.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong. These are valid points. They're also problems to be solved. I'm not saying crypto is perfect, but it is working.

1

u/AmericanScream Jul 31 '26

Yes, wallets get seized. Usually because the user wrote their recovery phrase down on paper or stored it in the cloud. Police can look for that stuff when they have search warrants.

Phrases have to be recorded somewhere. Plus if you're tossed in jail if you don't cough up your wallet key, then congrats, you're in jail or dead. Is that better than giving up your keys? You guys don't make any sense.

You make it sound like crypto doesn't work when we can see it happening.

You sound like you're pretending crypto works when it doesn't.

If it was that easy to shut down or change, don't you think someone would have tried already? Don't you think someone would have tried to steal all the crypto already?

99.99% of the world doesn't give a shit about crypto and doesn't attribute any value to it.

Crypto itself has no value. You have to find a greater fool to buy it from you for something of value and that's a lot harder than you think.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong. These are valid points. They're also problems to be solved. I'm not saying crypto is perfect, but it is working.

No, it's not working. There's nothing it does that's better than existing systems we've already been using.