> The bottom line for me is that we are finally seeing some useful decentralized applications being built for consumers on these blockchains.
I don't know if the word "decentralized" should be used so merrily. Research was published recently [0] showing that the blockchain protocol requires a central authority to prevent coordination failures and externalities. Maybe these "useful decentralized applications" should come with a caution sign to the consumers: "product will not only be slower and more expensive than the centralized alternative, but there is also risk of coordination failure and double-spends".
The same tension applies to a hypothetical mesh-network Internet, compared to the telco-backbone Internet: good for freedom and autonomy, bad for usability and performance. Alas, consumers tend to vote with their dollar for the latter. The "siren server" problem described by Jaron Lanier in "Who Owns The Future?" is a wicked problem when it comes to marketplace traction.
In the case of both mesh networks and dapps, I think the greatest potential is in the developing world, where centralized infrastructure is absent or inadequate.
I saw the exact same line and I wanted to take out the word "useful". Don't get me wrong, I am as excited about Dapps as the next person, but I have not seen use cases that solve existing problems.
What is the "blockchain protocol"? I think we really need to pick A blockchain and criticize it specifically.
And with applications: some will be more expensive, some won't be. Ethereum developers are already exploring ways for dapps to pay for gas instead of users (searching for link).
They define what blockchain is in the first two sections of the paper. Their model of the blockchain applies to both Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, and seems general enough to apply to most networks people today refer to as "blockchain".
I don't know if the word "decentralized" should be used so merrily. Research was published recently [0] showing that the blockchain protocol requires a central authority to prevent coordination failures and externalities. Maybe these "useful decentralized applications" should come with a caution sign to the consumers: "product will not only be slower and more expensive than the centralized alternative, but there is also risk of coordination failure and double-spends".
[0] https://www.tse-fr.eu/publications/blockchain-folk-theorem