If he was born to fulfill an objective, why force him? The unpopular opinion about Blockchain

People are constantly observed in the media criticizing cryptocurrencies, claiming that they are only harmful bubbles for the economy that will destroy our savings, but with a position of acceptance to the Blockchain technology, selling it as the cause of the financial revolution, the holy grail of innovation and the representation of digital efficiency.

What would you think if someone said the opposite? Presenting the case of the position of Jimmy Song, part of the main partners of Blockchain Capital LLC, considering himself as educator, entrepreneur and developer of Bitcoin.

"Using Blockchain for something that is not Bitcoin is like shopping with an excavator"

That is the phrase with which Song initiates his speeches or public interventions, considering that he describes his opinion concretely and precisely. He holds the position that Blockchain was only created to give Bitcoin life and function, stating that this should be its only functioning.

The reason why Blockchain criticizes the use of BTC, is because it considers it slow and expensive, when there are centralized databases that can do the same and higher purchasing power, being Blockchain an advance for the privileged.

His statements include that he does not trust startups, making the severe claim that all, if not most, are scams, even if they do not know it. Alleging:

"Some are more or less sincere, but they are scams anyway. They just do not even know they're scammers. "

Even in a meeting with Josehp Lubin, founder of ConsenSys, they bet how the impact of Blockchain-based projects will be, with the prize being an amount of Bitcoins approved by both.

However, for Song the technologies that make a Blockchain possible - such as a P2P network, batch transaction processing, proof-of-work or public-key cryptography - can be applied to different industries individually.

In my opinion, I totally disagree with Song, considering that his vision is limited to the short term. To explain my position, I rely on the historical cases of computers and the internet:

When these revolutionary innovations were created, in fact they were costly and of little scope in societies, where it was the minority who could acquire them, presenting faults and low returns considering their costs; but the important thing is how companies, governments and users continued to use them, understanding their potential and thanks to them, the incentives to improve said technologies increased, making their production cheaper.