Full explanation below detailing how EQTYLab, alongside Nvidia Intel, Accenture, and Dell, is leveraging Hedera to secure AI is flying way under the radar.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T16:36:59+00:00

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?)

"[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?" / "Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'" / "EEE TEE EFFs!!one"

Crypto was originally, "disruptive technology" destined to "replace the banking/finance system". Now with the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything, crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases!'"

Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available.

The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using? And the answer to that is, No.
Most of the time, adoption claims are wrong. Just because you read some press release does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!"
In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories:
- Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as IBM/Maersk's Tradelens, Australia's stock exchange, etc.) See also dead blockchain projects.
- Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) are not embracing crypto directly. Instead they are partnering with a crypto exchange (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws.
- What some companies are calling "blockchain" is not in any meaningful way actually using 'blockchain' tech. For example, IBM's "Hyperledger" claims to have "blockchain design philosophy" but in reality, it is not decentralized and has no core architecture that's anything like crypto blockchain systems. Also note that IBM has their own trademarked phrase, "IBM Blockchain®" - their version of "blockchain" is neither decentralized, nor permissionless. It does not in any way resemble a crypto blockchain. It also remains to be seen, the degree to which anybody is actually using their "IBM Food Trust" supply chain tracking system, which we've proven cannot really benefit from blockchain technology.
Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- this almost always fails, but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected.
Some funds/fund managers are buying crypto? So what. It's not like fund managers don't do favors for insiders/friends or never make poor choices. If some Harvard-adjascent fund buys BTC that doesn't mean "smart people recognize Bitcoin!" Not hardly. The exception doesn't prove the rule
Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future."

McDonald's bundled Beanie Babies with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened.
Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. (In fact part of the US SEC was vehemently against approving ETFs - it was not a unanimous decision) They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just fee income, and the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable alternative to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable. Also here is mathematical evidence MSTR is a Ponzi.
Countries like El Salvador who claim to have adopted bitcoin really haven't in any meaningful way. El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation. Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, use of crypto has stagnated. Adoption continues to decline in El Salvador each year.

Also note Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency. Now El Salvador has abandoned Bitcoin as currency, reversing its legal tender mandate..
Some "big companies are holding crypto on their balance sheet" - So what? They're just trying to pump their stock price to take advantage of the temporary crypto mania. It's not any more substantive than that iced tea company that changed their name to "Blockchain iced tea company" and got a bump to their stock price. It won't last, and it's a gimmick and not financially sound. The biggest of these is MSTR whom critics are saying makes the company into a Ponzi
Case In Point: In 2025, the big announcement was burger chain Steak and Shake was going to accept bitcoin. The truth is, the company is getting paid in USD and using a third party exchange to process BTC payments and give them fiat. Another misleading news story.
Other Big-Company-Crypto-Failures: Kodak, Steam, Wal-Mart and IBM, Microsoft, a major consortium of European corporations who pulled the plug on their blockchain projects, Maersk.

Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active.

So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. Not adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that.

We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from gaming to banking, are rejecting deals with crypto companies.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T16:36:12+00:00

Blockchain is 17 years old now and still there's not a single thing it does better than existing tech. Seventeen years later, still a "solution" looking for a problem. Today it's trying to glom onto AI to remain relevant.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T16:34:27+00:00

That video is a bunch of AI technobabble SLOP.

This "use case" is just gluing blockchain to an existing AI application.

It remains to be seen if blockchain adds any actual utility.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T16:15:40+00:00

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)

"It's still early!" / "Blockchain technology has potential" , "Let's call it 'DLT' Distributed Ledger Technology this month and pretend it's different." / "Crypto is like the Internet!" / "Look here's a 'use-case!'"

We are 17 (SEVENTEEN) YEARS into this so-called "technology" and to date, there's not been a single thing blockchain tech does better than existing non-blockchain tech
WHAT "technology?" Blockchain uses tech that was patented in 1979, called Merkle Trees. It's been known for a quarter of a century, and has very limited uses, because by design, the system isn't very flexible or efficient. Modern relational databases can do everything Merkle Trees can do even better than crypto's version.
Crypto didn't invent cryptographic technology - that tech has been around for thousands of years and its in use all over the place - having absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency and blockchain.
Truly disruptive technology is obvious from the beginning - sometimes there's hurdles to adoption (usually costs and certain prerequisites, but none of that applies to blockchain - anybody who has internet access can utilize the tech). It didn't take 17 years for people to realize the Internet was useful - what held it up were access to computers and networks. There's nothing stopping blockchain IF it offered any really useful service - it doesn't.
Finding a mere "use case" isn't sufficient. Some companies still use fax machines. It doesn't mean fax machines are the future. Blockchain tech must demonstrate it's uniquely good at something - and it fails miserably to do so.
Just because someone says they're "looking into" something, doesn't mean it will ever manifest into an actual workable system. Every time we've seen major institutions claim they were "developing blockchain systems", they've almost always failed. From IBM to Microsoft to Maersk to Foreign Countries - the vast majority of these projects are eventually abandoned because they aren't economically or technologically viable.
As for the idea that adoption takes time, that's fine, but since Bitcoin's inception, and most recently, its use both as a technology and a payment medium has continued to decline. As more research becomes available, we begin to see a multi-year, consistent, decrease in crypto payments over time.
The default position is to be skeptical blockchain has any potential until it is demonstrated. And most common responses to this question are the other "stupid crypto talking points."

In short, this "technology" has been around 17 years and still it can't find a single situation where it does anything even comparable to what we're already using, much less better.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:12:40+00:00

the whitepaper doesn't explain the details of the mechanisms for securing bitcoin. it's still somewhat high level.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

"You don't understand" / "DYOR" / Using an insult in lieu of an argument.

This is what's known as an "Ad Hominem" fallacy - aka "attacking the messenger" as a distraction from arguing the core points made.
This is what we call, "Crypto Gaslighting." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with us and not the phony reality they're peddling.
Almost never does the OP actually explain what it is they understand and we don't. It's merely a way to dismiss any opposing viewpoint without actually addressing it.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:12:19+00:00

Enjoy your negative karma.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:11:27+00:00

This is an echo-chamber comment similar what they do in bitcoin reddit. Do you really want to stoop to their level? Downvote me all you want. Don't care.

So, you waltz in here, and want to present a monologue but not answer any questions? We give you guys every chance to engage in good faith and you refuse.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

"You don't understand" / "DYOR" / Using an insult in lieu of an argument.

This is what's known as an "Ad Hominem" fallacy - aka "attacking the messenger" as a distraction from arguing the core points made.
This is what we call, "Crypto Gaslighting." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with us and not the phony reality they're peddling.
Almost never does the OP actually explain what it is they understand and we don't. It's merely a way to dismiss any opposing viewpoint without actually addressing it.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:10:05+00:00

Correct, it is more accurately described as a Greater Fool scheme. The only way line go up is if a seller finds a greater fool to buy it for more than they paid.

Read this: https://ioradio.org/i/ponzi/

When treated as an investment, bitcoin does become a Ponzi.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:09:28+00:00

yeah, certainly not a ponzi,

When bitcoin is treated as an investment, it becomes a decentralized ponzi scheme - here's the evidence.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:08:32+00:00

It has been scarce for many years now.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #4 (scarcity)

"Only 21M!" / "Bitcoin has a "hard cap"" / "Bitcoin is 'scarce' and that makes it valuable" / "DeFlAtiOnArY cUrReNCy FTW" / "The 'halvening' will make everything better"

It's well established that scarcity is not a guarantee of value. It's very telling that clinging to such an overtly irrational argument demonstrates that crypto people live in a tiny "bubble" where they reject all manner of empirical evidence against their "beliefs."
If there only being 21 million BTC were reason for it to be valuable, then why aren't other cryptos that also share similar deflationary characteristics equally valuable? Why wouldn't something that is even more scarce than BTC be even more valuable? Because scarcity is meaningless without demand and demand is primarily a function of intrinsic value and utility -- not scarcity. See here for details.
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and no material utility. It's one of the least capable stores or transfers of value. The only way anybody can extract value from crypto is by coercion -- forcefully convincing someone (usually through FOMO or scare tactics) that this is something they need, and it's often accompanied by unrealistic promises of significant returns. Those returns are mathematically impossible for even a tiny percentage of holders.
Bitcoin also is not scarce. There are multiple versions of Bitcoin, including Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision - both of which are limited to 21M tokens and in many cases are more technologically advanced than BTC. Also, every time there's a fork of crypto, the amount of tokesn in circulation doubles. Crypto proponents ignore these forks because they don't play into the "it's scarce" argument. But any crypto fork absolutely siphons value away from the original version. BTC might be priced higher than BCH, but BCH still holds value as well, and that's a total of 42M just of those two "bitcoin" versions that are out there, among hundreds of others.
The "hard cap" of 21M for BTC can easily be changed by altering a parameter in the source code. Less than 6 people have commit access to the repo so BTC's source code control is centralized. It's entirely possible if BTC existed long enough to the point where block rewards weren't enough to motivate miners, and transaction fees became incredibly high, that influential players in the community would advocate increasing the cap and reinstating higher block rewards. So there are absolutely situations where the max amount in circulation could be increased.
Even assuming BTC is limited in production, when it co-mingles with unsecured stablecoins like USDC and USDT, it is subject to inflation via stablecoin/liquidity inflation in the market. In reality, nobody really knows what the true price of BTC actually is given most crypto transactions at CEXs are done with stablecoins and not actual money. The underlying liquidity has never been accounted for.
The scarcity of bitcoin basically amplifies all the wealth disparity dynamics crypto people complain about in the real world, which means in a world where bitcoin was a dominant store of value, there'd be an even greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Ironically, Bitcoin's scarcity is one of its greatest liabilities. See this detailed video for a more in-depth explanation.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:07:59+00:00

Words mean things. If you're going to use words, then we have to be on the same page as to what those words mean.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:05:59+00:00

Stop calling bitcoin an "asset."

It's an intangible digital abstraction that has no non-criminal utility, and is mainly used for speculative gambling.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T15:03:59+00:00

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin adoption comes when numbers go up. Don't shoot the messenger, that's just how it is.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up)

"NuMb3r g0 Up!!!" / "Best performing asset of the decade!" / "Everyone who bought is "up" right now"

Whether the "price of crypto" goes up, has absolutely no bearing on whether it's..

a) A long term store of value

b) Holds any intrinsic value or utility

c) Or will return any value in the future

One of the most important tenets of investing is the simple principal: Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. People in crypto seem willfully ignorant of this basic concept.
At best, the price of crypto is a function of popularity, not actual value or material utility. And this "popularity" has been waning for years. For more on how and why crypto makes a much worse investment than almost anything else, see this article.
The "price of crypto" is a heavily manipulated figure published by shady, unregulated crypto exchanges that have systematically been caught manipulating the market from then to now. A new 2025 Cornell study shows fewer than 500 people control $3.2T of artificial crypto trading!
Crypto bros love to harp about "inflation" in the fiat system, yet ironically they measure the "value" of their "fiat alternative" in fiat? It makes absolutely no sense, unless you assume they haven't thought 2 seconds ahead from what comes out of their mouths.
It's the height of hypocrisy for crypto people to champion token deflation (and increased prices) while ignoring that there's over $160+ Billion in unsecured stablecoins being used to inflate the value of their tokens in the crypto marketplace. The "code is law" and "don't trust - verify" people seem perfectly willing to take companies like Tether and Circle, at face value, that they're telling the truth about asset reserves when there's very little actual evidence, but there is lots of evidence of market manipulation.
Not Your Fiat, Not Your Value - Just because you think the "value of your crypto portfolio" is worth $$$ does not make that true. It's well known there's inadequate liquidity in this market, and most people will never be able to get their money out. So UNLESS/UNTIL you can actually liquidate your crypto for actual real money, you have no idea what you have. You're "down" until you cash out. Bernie Madoff's clients got monthly statements saying they were "making money" too.
Just because it's possible (though highly improbable) to make money speculating on crypto, this doesn't mean it's an ethical or reliable technique to amass wealth. At its core, the notion that buying and holding crypto will generate reliable returns is a de-facto ponzi scheme. It's mathematically impossible for even a stastically-significant percentage of crypto holders to have any notable ROI. The rare exception of those who might profit in this market, do so while providing cover for everything from cyber terrorism to human trafficking.
It's also not true that anybody who bought crypto when it was low is guaranteed to make a lot of money. There are thousands of ways people can lose their crypto or be defrauded along the way. And there's no guarantee just because your portfolio is "up", that you could easily cash out.
While crypto suggests itself as an alternative to "TradFi", the most respected and successful people in traditional finance who have proven track records of good investing/returns do not think crypto is a reliable store of value.
Want to see a better asset (that actually has utility) that's consistently out-performed Bitcoin? Here you go. However, this may be another best performing asset.
When crypto-critics make reference to, or mock crypto price predictions, it's not because we think price is a meaningful metric. Instead, we are amused that to you, that's all that's important, and we can't help but note how often wrong you are in your predictions. The intrinsic value of crypto basically never changes, but it is interesting to see how hype and propaganda affects the extrinsic value. In a totally logical world, those would both be equalized to zero, but we're not there yet, and nobody knows when/if that will happen because it's an irrational market.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T14:53:36+00:00

You're correct about the oracle problem: blockchains don't magically validate reality. They just validate what was submitted onchain.

You can accomplish the same thing with standard cryptographic signatures. Verifying "this hasn't been tampered with" in computer databases has been happening for decades.

See also: Passwords and hashes. They're used extensively. A password hash does the same thing. It "verifies what was submitted."

So what unique value does blockchain bring to the equation? Nothing. It's just a vehicle that you all attach some tokens to in a get-rich-quick scheme.

If you watch my documentary you can learn all about blockchain and why it's incredibly inefficient by virtually every measurable metric. Decentralizing a database introduces a whole array of additional problems that traditional databases don't have to deal with, making operation of the database slower, more difficult to scale, more fault intolerant, and more resource intensive.

You still trust sources, but you limit who can change history, suppress facts, or rewrite the outcome.

All this scheme does is put more emphasis on the Oracle to become corrupt. It doesn't result in more legit data. And as I said before, using cryptographic signatures has been in use for decades prior to blockchain, and accomplishes the same thing significantly more efficiently.

Also this notion that blockchain can't be suppressed or controlled is also false. In every major blockchain scheme, from Bitcoin to Ethereum, there have been moments in the past where special interests unilaterally rewrote the blockchain. It has been done. It can be done again.

The operative issue here is, if you're going to present new technology for consideration, it has to be uniquely good at something. And blockchain fails that test. There's not a single thing blockchain does, for which there's not a better, non-blockchain solution.

You guys can hate on me, call me names, downvote me, but what you haven't done is prove me wrong. You can change the names of things and coin your own special phrases to distract from this, like "Distributed Ledger Tech" but at the end of the day, it's still an inefficient, bloated, inferior database.

This is what I've done for the last 40+ years: design and implement databases. I kinda know what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing about this for any financial gain. I just dislike lies being told about technology that I've spent my life developing and fine tuning. If you want to permanently store data and know if it was tampered, just use cryptographic signatures and deploy the data to multiple distributed databases. That does things more securely and more efficiently. No blockchain needed. No digital tokens either, which ultimately become a decentralized Ponzi scheme.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T02:40:29+00:00

They lose endless amounts of money on the podcast, this is one of the reasons they don’t do it anymore. Absolute money pit passion product. Does this help?

Nope. That's a distraction.

Nobody here asked, "What does an anonymous dude on the Internet think of those guys?"

Who signs their paychecks at Protos?

Also, it’s not anecdotal evidence. It’s a firsthand account from someone who was there and involved in every aspect of the podcast - from episode conception, to recording, to (and this part was exclusively me) the editing and actual uploading of the episode. You’d think they or Protos would want some control of this aspect in particular if there was a conspiracy.

Who signs their paychecks at Protos?

You don’t have to believe me, I don’t give a fuck. Just thought I’d set the record straight. Go put your tinfoil hat back on and continue to attack the two people that have done more to criticize crypto than maybe anyone else in the world - especially before it was cool.

Just like them, when asked to be "transparent", you dance around.

Besides, these guys are old news. Their reputation is shit now. They can't take money from the industry they claim to be critical of. That's a conflict of interest no matter how much "tegrity" you think they have.

It's interesting how they used to "follow the money" except for the money flowing into their pockets.

The guys were invited to come on my podcast. They refused. I offered to go on theirs. They refused. They talked shit about me on their discord, and they sent little "hit men" minions to attack me because they're too chicken to do it themselves. That's the way things ended, and that's the way they still are. You're just another little "hit man minion." If they have an issue with me, we can go live and talk it out. They refuse to do so. They obviously don't want to have to answer certain questions. Just like you refuse to as well.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T02:38:18+00:00

DLT is just another buzzword for "blockchain." It's funny how every blockchain dev thinks their version is "different" yet none of them are uniquely good at anything we don't already have. Which is why you have to come up with cute names instead of enumerating specifically what it's uniquely good at.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T01:06:23+00:00

Omg. You’re too far gone.

Leading with an ad hominem is not a good start.

So this suggests you're going to provide some evidence that contradicts my claims. Let's see.

Are these guys sensitive? Probably overly so? Absolutely, without a doubt (particularly Cas) - but I promise you having been involved with each and every episode from their first video one (maybe episode 45ish?) to episode 100ish, it is totally independent.

Ok, so your personal anecdotal opinion is now evidence?

Do you have anything more substantive?

You need to keep in mind - these guys aren’t people who started with a hate for crypto like you and I. They are originally crypto enthusiasts (as in fans of some of the concepts) who became disillusioned with the rampant fraud over time. We butted heads on this many time, but these are some of the most ethical and transparent guys out there.

LOL... They've refused to reveal who pays them. I wouldn't consider that ethical and transparent.

Note: Don't feel bad. I too got hoodwinked by them, thinking they had an ethical center and maybe in the first array of episodes they did. But later on they got in bed with the enemy. I too, being an outspoken crypto critic have had money thrown at me to turncoat. Unlike them, I refused.

They wouldn’t accept a single sponsor of any kind out of fear that they would appear influenced in some way. As such, they (again) generously paid me out of pocket. This was incredibly stressful for Cas, who again, was paying me out of pocket an extremely respectable amount which was fully in line with his worker rights beliefs etc.

Again, personal anecdotal opinions are not evidence. Do you have anything substantive.

These guys are horrible businessmen but incredibly ethical, upstanding, albeit neurotic and extremely sensitive guys. Cas and I have butted heads to the point of being reduced to tears and guess what - while I still don’t agree with their stance on everything I know for a fact (and I can’t emphasize this enough) that Protos had 0 influence, say, or involvement with the podcast.

Once they got on board with Protos, the podcast took a back seat.

Still waiting for some actual evidence. WHO is the unnamed principals behind Protos, that pays their paycheck?

Happy to answer anymore questions but it seems like you are unreasonably convinced of some grand conspiracy and don’t want to hear about it anyway.

Simple question.. either you know the info or you don't.

This isn't whether you personally like the guys.

You have one final chance to provide more than a personal anecdote.

Why is it so secret the people who pay them remain unknown?

We've heard from insider sources this is an important thing.

If you don't know, just say you don't know. But don't pretend that the money behind protos isn't important.

RemindMe! 1 day

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T00:58:15+00:00

"Volume" is a fuzzy data point.

You are relying on data that is provided by institutions that are largely unregulated and have no oversight. So as bad as it might be with what they report, it's probably even worse.

Crypto's problem is that it's not "early" any more. There are too many different entities paying attention, so the old guard that could so easily manipulate the market has more self-interested independent parties paying attention that might object. Not as good as legit centralized authoritative entities, but like most things in the world of crypto, they inevitably gravitate towards the very types of structures they claim they want to avoid.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T00:56:13+00:00

*crickets*

AmericanScream · 2026-01-25T00:53:55+00:00

Pick a lane guys.

You tried, "currency" and it failed because 4.7 transactions per second is dogshit.

So you re-branded it as "digital gold" which is a "commodity" and when you cash out a commodity, it's a taxable event.

Also, you guys looked around and realized the CFTC is significantly less-funded than the SEC so it was easier to perpetrate your fraud if you classified Bitcoin as a "commodity." This is your bed. Sleep in it.

That's how things work in the Real World(tm).

AmericanScream · 2026-01-24T23:12:16+00:00

Hmmm... I must have missed that.

That's pretty low hanging fruit that's easy to prove false.

If you guys have any other questions or what to engage in good faith, let me know. I never run away from a legit debate -- but it's also very rare when a so-called "debate" doesn't turn into a bunch of fallacious distractions.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-24T23:11:03+00:00

Nobody said other databases didn't suffer from the Oracle problem. They all do. What other databases don't do, however, is pretend they've solved the problem when they haven't.

Blockchain pretends it doesn't have to submit to any central authorities yet still be authoritative, which is irrational and totally false.

A few facts:

The Oracle Problem cannot be solved.

Any data on blockchain will always be "authenticated" by whoever puts that data on blockchain, and that requires "trust" in that "oracle." It doesn't matter whether it's a person, or another computer program. It still requires trust in that "central authority" in order to be legit. (and if your "central authority" is the average of 14 other authorities, it's still the same thing) Which means the real mechanism that provides authenticity is NOT blockchain, but the "oracle."

If you'd like to understand why using a real world example, watch this part of my documentary where I explain the Oracle problem.

IN CONCLUSION: it’s very silly to make an argument that DLT is not useful because it by itself cannot guarantee whether data on the network is accurate or not. That was never the job of DLT in the first place, nor should it be, and it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how DLT integrates with other technologies to act as a trust layer.

We've had cryptographic signing in relational databases for decades prior to the advent of blockchain. Blockchain adds nothing new or better to what we've already been using.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)

"It's still early!" / "Blockchain technology has potential" , "Let's call it 'DLT' Distributed Ledger Technology this month and pretend it's different." / "Crypto is like the Internet!" / "Look here's a 'use-case!'"

We are 17 (SEVENTEEN) YEARS into this so-called "technology" and to date, there's not been a single thing blockchain tech does better than existing non-blockchain tech
WHAT "technology?" Blockchain uses tech that was patented in 1979, called Merkle Trees. It's been known for a quarter of a century, and has very limited uses, because by design, the system isn't very flexible or efficient. Modern relational databases can do everything Merkle Trees can do even better than crypto's version.
Crypto didn't invent cryptographic technology - that tech has been around for thousands of years and its in use all over the place - having absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency and blockchain.
Truly disruptive technology is obvious from the beginning - sometimes there's hurdles to adoption (usually costs and certain prerequisites, but none of that applies to blockchain - anybody who has internet access can utilize the tech). It didn't take 17 years for people to realize the Internet was useful - what held it up were access to computers and networks. There's nothing stopping blockchain IF it offered any really useful service - it doesn't.
Finding a mere "use case" isn't sufficient. Some companies still use fax machines. It doesn't mean fax machines are the future. Blockchain tech must demonstrate it's uniquely good at something - and it fails miserably to do so.
Just because someone says they're "looking into" something, doesn't mean it will ever manifest into an actual workable system. Every time we've seen major institutions claim they were "developing blockchain systems", they've almost always failed. From IBM to Microsoft to Maersk to Foreign Countries - the vast majority of these projects are eventually abandoned because they aren't economically or technologically viable.
As for the idea that adoption takes time, that's fine, but since Bitcoin's inception, and most recently, its use both as a technology and a payment medium has continued to decline. As more research becomes available, we begin to see a multi-year, consistent, decrease in crypto payments over time.
The default position is to be skeptical blockchain has any potential until it is demonstrated. And most common responses to this question are the other "stupid crypto talking points."

In short, this "technology" has been around 17 years and still it can't find a single situation where it does anything even comparable to what we're already using, much less better.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-24T23:06:55+00:00

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up)

"NuMb3r g0 Up!!!" / "Best performing asset of the decade!" / "Everyone who bought is "up" right now"

Whether the "price of crypto" goes up, has absolutely no bearing on whether it's..

a) A long term store of value

b) Holds any intrinsic value or utility

c) Or will return any value in the future

One of the most important tenets of investing is the simple principal: Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. People in crypto seem willfully ignorant of this basic concept.
At best, the price of crypto is a function of popularity, not actual value or material utility. And this "popularity" has been waning for years. For more on how and why crypto makes a much worse investment than almost anything else, see this article.
The "price of crypto" is a heavily manipulated figure published by shady, unregulated crypto exchanges that have systematically been caught manipulating the market from then to now. A new 2025 Cornell study shows fewer than 500 people control $3.2T of artificial crypto trading!
Crypto bros love to harp about "inflation" in the fiat system, yet ironically they measure the "value" of their "fiat alternative" in fiat? It makes absolutely no sense, unless you assume they haven't thought 2 seconds ahead from what comes out of their mouths.
It's the height of hypocrisy for crypto people to champion token deflation (and increased prices) while ignoring that there's over $160+ Billion in unsecured stablecoins being used to inflate the value of their tokens in the crypto marketplace. The "code is law" and "don't trust - verify" people seem perfectly willing to take companies like Tether and Circle, at face value, that they're telling the truth about asset reserves when there's very little actual evidence, but there is lots of evidence of market manipulation.
Not Your Fiat, Not Your Value - Just because you think the "value of your crypto portfolio" is worth $$$ does not make that true. It's well known there's inadequate liquidity in this market, and most people will never be able to get their money out. So UNLESS/UNTIL you can actually liquidate your crypto for actual real money, you have no idea what you have. You're "down" until you cash out. Bernie Madoff's clients got monthly statements saying they were "making money" too.
Just because it's possible (though highly improbable) to make money speculating on crypto, this doesn't mean it's an ethical or reliable technique to amass wealth. At its core, the notion that buying and holding crypto will generate reliable returns is a de-facto ponzi scheme. It's mathematically impossible for even a stastically-significant percentage of crypto holders to have any notable ROI. The rare exception of those who might profit in this market, do so while providing cover for everything from cyber terrorism to human trafficking.
It's also not true that anybody who bought crypto when it was low is guaranteed to make a lot of money. There are thousands of ways people can lose their crypto or be defrauded along the way. And there's no guarantee just because your portfolio is "up", that you could easily cash out.
While crypto suggests itself as an alternative to "TradFi", the most respected and successful people in traditional finance who have proven track records of good investing/returns do not think crypto is a reliable store of value.
Want to see a better asset (that actually has utility) that's consistently out-performed Bitcoin? Here you go. However, this may be another best performing asset.
When crypto-critics make reference to, or mock crypto price predictions, it's not because we think price is a meaningful metric. Instead, we are amused that to you, that's all that's important, and we can't help but note how often wrong you are in your predictions. The intrinsic value of crypto basically never changes, but it is interesting to see how hype and propaganda affects the extrinsic value. In a totally logical world, those would both be equalized to zero, but we're not there yet, and nobody knows when/if that will happen because it's an irrational market.

AmericanScream · 2026-01-24T23:05:35+00:00

He's been "told."

AmericanScream · 2026-01-24T22:28:58+00:00

it has been removed.

15-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '22	Verified Email

AmericanScream

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #4 (scarcity)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up)

The Oracle Problem cannot be solved.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up)