Bitcoin solved the double spending problem in a decentralized system. This has numerous consequences, among them the possibility of creating a currency that doesn't rely on a centralized authority, trust minimization, immutability, etc. To me this has the potential to automate many jobs.

Not relying on a centralized authority, trust minimalization, and immutability are all bad things for a monetary system. The ability to dispute and undo transactions and track fraud is a crucial feature of banking systems that blockchain eliminates by design.

Blockchain will not automate any jobs because it is technologically no different from a database. The fact that transactions are recorded digitally is not a new invention, banks have been doing that since the 60s.

Minimizing trust is not a good thing. I don't understand where this obsession with it comes from.

EVERY transaction requires trust. I sell you a pair of shoes, you pay in bitcoin, oops! the box is actually full of cat poop, too bad, sucks to be you, you can't get your bitcoin back, shouldn't have trusted me.

Trust in the transaction system is not a dangerous component of commerce. Sure, you can trust Paypal to do the transaction for you (and also get benefits like chargebacks, disputes, and ID verification in return, not to mention the sub-second transaction speed), and what happens if they betray that trust? Well that's what governments are for, the two-ton hammer of the law will make sure you get your money back.

Not to mention, blockchain is the least trustworthy transaction system of the modern age. Over a billion dollars in crypto has been stolen out of people's accounts via exchange hacks and smart contract exploits in the last ten years. This has never happened to any US bank since the introduction of FDIC in 1933.

Trust minimization doesn't equal no trust. Also the trust that a currency works as intended and that a transaction goes through isn't the same kind of trust than trusting a vendor, which is why there will probably always be other systems in place for that particular issue. Some people are interested in that because their trust has been abused by a centralized authority. And we're not only talking about the transaction systems, but also about currency.

All in all it's all about the choice and preferences of individuals.

When has the centralized authority, the banking system, ACH, Visa, Paypal, etc. ever "abused trust" by failing to record a transaction?

And why is that very minimal trust in the ability of your money to get from one account to another worth risking all your money by putting it in an account with a single point of failure with no recourse in the event of a breach?

In 88 years, no bank in the Untied States has ever lost a customer's money. To date, there are more bitcoin exchanges that have lost their users' money than there are that haven't.

There are a multitude of examples of PayPal closing or suspending accounts without the consent of the account holder. Banks are free to attach conditions and fees to accounts that are not necessarily easy to understand if one is not financially illiterate. Many people are "unbanked." See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbanked

I think it's clear that the concept of a wallet or account that can be created at any time in almost any place almost instantly, that can send and receive something of value securely is a valuable contribution.

Those entities can abuse your trust if they decide to censor or cancel the transaction for some arbitrary reasons. Same can apply in the context of money, rules of said money can change, a person won't be necessarily always ok with that (we're talking about your own currency/savings), you don't have much control and much choice.

As a developer I appreciate the ability to skip the use of a third party, I just wish there were more users in this network, but the network grows.

And this is not about the united states in particular. I'm not from the US, I'm glad if you didn't had any problems with your monetary system and banks, and I hope it continues for the good of everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point was a thing, trying to get banks to not "record transactions" in your words.

Did you actually read any of that article?

The allegations in Choke Point were that banks were approving transactions they shouldn't have, without doing enough investigation to check for fraud, not that they were failing to move money from one account to another, the "problem" that blockchain is supposed to "solve".

In what way is blockchain supposed to prevent fraudulent transactions? It is impossible in blockchain to even check for fraud, because every transaction is automatically irrevocably approved by-design, no matter how fraudulent.

edit: unless, what you meant to imply, is that the banks weren't supposed to approve those illegal transactions and so the government stepped in to punish them, and that bitcoin is good because it will never deny an illegal transaction and is therefore useful for committing crimes? well then thanks for admitting it, I guess.

I think you are misinterpreting the placement of trust when you're positioning your responses. You're saying that there are advantages to a monetary system that relies on "objective" third parties to adjudicate disputes, combat fraud, and stifle illicit/illegal activity. You're not wrong that these are useful utilities. It's why I don't believe Bitcoin will ever replace them. It will certainly coexist though.

The trust Bitcoin removes is the central banking component. We rely on governments who have shown wanton disregard for the value of their respective dollars by printing limitless supplies and dancing with the risk of hyperinflation. When we save money in a given currency, it's because we trust that currency as a store of value or we park it in a vehicle that returns value or at least staves off depreciation of value (savings accounts, bonds, stocks etc.) Bitcoin allows you to park your savings in a space that does not require you to trust any particular government's monetary policy. Maybe you're entirely comfortable with the USD or the Euro but there are folks in less stable countries with which Bitcoin is a godsend.

What do you do if you're a billionaire in China and you said something bold online about an atrocity your government has just committed? You hear that you're about to be disappeared so you wish to defect to another country. How do you move your wealth? Can you move it via the existing banking digital network? No because the banking system is controlled by the government and that type of activity is red flagged and stopped. Can you move it all in cash or gold? Perhaps, but it's a huge undertaking logistically and very obviously shows your intentions.

Bitcoin allows you to relocate the entirety of your wealth anywhere in the globe with literally just your brain power. You can memorize your seed and leave to where ever you want. That is insanely powerful freedom which is the result of removing the "trusted" third party through decentralization.

Bitcoin was a brilliant technical solution to a problem that was already solved centuries ago by legal institutions and contracts. The introduction of bitcoin has had basically zero real economic impact on the macro economy, which to me is the surest indicator that it's a dead end. When the internet and PCs became mainstream, the economy exploded over the next decade. When crypto was invented, the only wealth being created so far has been from people trading it back and forth with fiat, funding companies that turn that funding into crypto, etc. I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone has compelling evidence, but it's been years and I haven't been convinced.