Blockchain as a service: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{A|g|[[File:Bullshit.jpeg|thumb|center|450px|[[Blockchain as a service]]. Also known as “BS”.]]}}One of those beautiful logical oxymorons, [[blockchain as a service]] — “'''B.S.''' | {{A|g|[[File:Bullshit.jpeg|thumb|center|450px|[[Blockchain as a service]]. Also known as “BS”.]]}}One of those beautiful logical oxymorons, [[blockchain as a service]] — “'''B.S.'''” to those of us who admire at least its staggering chutzpah — as the instant solution for people who, one one hand, so distrust financial intermediaries that they would cast their ledger into monstrously slow, inflexible and environment-massacring gears of a [[blockchain]] but, on the other, so lack resources or expertise in [[distributed ledger technology]] to do so, that they would hand the entire implementation over to a random startup, who will charge them handsomely, and in perpetuity, to implement an [[open-source software]] solution for them. | ||
If [[blockchain]] itself is to all intents a bust — beyond the sovereign wallet (and, ahhh, discreetly financing drug trafficking and terrorism) no-one has come up with a plausible use case yet, in ten years of trying — then combining it with the boneheaded [[rentier]] carry-on of [[software as a service]] is ''essence'' of extra-virgin, first-pressing snake oil. | If [[blockchain]] itself is to all intents a bust — beyond the sovereign wallet (and, ahhh, discreetly financing drug trafficking and terrorism) no-one has come up with a plausible use case yet, in ten years of trying — then combining it with the boneheaded [[rentier]] carry-on of [[software as a service]] is ''essence'' of extra-virgin, first-pressing snake oil. | ||
Revision as of 23:03, 17 March 2020
|
One of those beautiful logical oxymorons, blockchain as a service — “B.S.” to those of us who admire at least its staggering chutzpah — as the instant solution for people who, one one hand, so distrust financial intermediaries that they would cast their ledger into monstrously slow, inflexible and environment-massacring gears of a blockchain but, on the other, so lack resources or expertise in distributed ledger technology to do so, that they would hand the entire implementation over to a random startup, who will charge them handsomely, and in perpetuity, to implement an open-source software solution for them.
If blockchain itself is to all intents a bust — beyond the sovereign wallet (and, ahhh, discreetly financing drug trafficking and terrorism) no-one has come up with a plausible use case yet, in ten years of trying — then combining it with the boneheaded rentier carry-on of software as a service is essence of extra-virgin, first-pressing snake oil.
Yet the airwaves are full of it.[1] So, what do you call someone who (1) wants to re-intermediate a technology whose sole apparent benefit is disintermediating, and (2) who doesn’t trust Clearstream or Visa, but is prepared to trust a couple of guys in Bulgaria who met on 4chan?
Hopefully not “your Chief Technology Officer".