I don’t think a product exists that provides the benefits of blockchain technologies like Bitcoin, Ethereum and EVM broadly, and Monero. Not all blockchains have the same security properties or processing capabilities. That said, I don’t think you can get the same combination of functionality without using a blockchain.
Do you have some examples of tech that delivers comparable features/functionality to blockchain tech, without using the blockchain?
Do your above examples have usable products with market reach and availability, today? Because that’s the alternative. Warts and all, blockchain tech works when it’s implemented properly by good faith actors. Just like any enterprise involving assets you control, folks you don’t personally know, and being online. Modern day e-commerce didn’t spring whole-cloth from capitalism’s womb fully-formed. The status quo took time to be created and to get to what we have today.
You have to be more explicit about the properties you're referring to for us to have a meaningful discussion. The post you answered was looking for a "great idea", and it's not clear which one you have in mind in your comments.
Anonymous or pseudonymous online transactions themselves comprise the main “great idea” of cryptocurrencies, I thought. I don’t know if you can implement them without the specific properties of the math used, combined with the distributed ledger and security affordances of specific cryptocurrencies like Monero, or even things like Tornado Cash.
Cryptocurrencies are enabled by blockchain technology. I don’t know that they fundamentally rely on it by necessity, though all current cryptocurrencies that I’m aware of do use some of derivative of a blockchain, even if it may not be distributed, or may not allow the public to mine it or run validator nodes.
Does that make sense? Perhaps you can reply to what you think I’m saying in good faith, and I’ll respond in kind?
The existence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Taler seems to indicate that you don't need a blockchain to implement anonymous payments. So that might not be the best example.
Full decentralization (more exactly, to the extent of the mining power centralization) and full censorship resistance (if I have the private key and some Internet access, game theory says I'll be able to send cryptocurrencies) might require blockchains such as Bitcoin. But it's unclear whether these benefit societies at all once you take the drawbacks into account.
Taler is just a counterexample to "anonymous or pseudonymous online transactions" inherently requiring a blockchain; the userbase is not relevant for this. I could also question the actual userbase of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies when so much of the transaction volume seems to be rooted in speculation and scams rather than someone buying groceries in BTC.
> You haven’t mentioned any drawbacks [to full decentralization and censorship resistance]?
I don't think the specifics matter so much, it suffices to say that there are some. These properties make it easier to launder money and evade taxes, for example.
The userbase size and transaction volume are both directly relevant to any particular signal being able or unable to be disambiguated from the others. This seems to cut across your point.
> I could also question the actual userbase of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies when so much of the transaction volume seems to be rooted in speculation and scams rather than someone buying groceries in BTC.
This is immaterial in the context of the debate we’re having about anonymous or pseudonymous transactions being good for those that use them.
I wouldn’t expect those who don’t use products or services to somehow confer the benefit of using or having them. That doesn’t make any sense. So obviously the users of cryptocurrencies receive the utility of cryptocurrencies’ existence and functionality.
> I don't think the specifics matter so much, it suffices to say that there are some. These properties make it easier to launder money and evade taxes, for example.
Bad acts don’t make inert implements bad by proxy or association. Folks do bad things to each other and to the environment directly and through externalities. That’s what hypercapitalism, society, geopolitics, resource extraction, and hypernormalisation have wrought.
You can’t lay the costs of doing business at the feet of cryptocurrencies. Crypto didn’t start the fire of capitalism. It’s sharing the fire with the commons, and combining that light and heat to feed the new cryptoculture.
Not sure how we're talking past each other re Taler. You answered the request for "great ideas" related to blockchain with a wikipedia article, which I pointed out is actually unrelated to blockchain tech. We followed with other technical properties, but I pointed out that the ones that might be unique to blockchain tech may not be so desirable. Maybe you're talking about something non-technical, but then I was not and am not following.
> This is immaterial in the context of the debate we’re having about anonymous or pseudonymous transactions being good for those that use them.
There are technologies that allow this without bringing a whole can of worms along, so it's hard to see the drawbacks of blockchain tech as a necessary evil.
> You can’t lay the costs of doing business at the feet of cryptocurrencies.
I can definitely point out where we stand in terms of trade-offs, and 10 years in, the burden is still on blockchain tech to prove it's a net benefit once its drawbacks have been considered.
Name one. Just one.