Very interesting, and mostly right imho. Still no killer app for any blockchain so far, but lots of problems already well known. I'm almost disappointed the author didn't mention the ecological disaster that goes with the energy consumption, instead of just talking about the price.
yeah proof of work is turning out to be a pretty unsustainable idea - i'm not sure if proof of stake truly can be considered the victor yet but it seems like a huge step in the right direction.
(Completely agreed that there hasn't been a killer app yet in the space - but I think i'm more optimistic about the chances of that happening at some point)
It's these deluded comparisons that make blockchain proponents look silly. The "traditional banking system" provides orders of magnitude more services than a blockchain. They are just not comparable.
If you are comparing the cost per transaction or per amount of money transferred, then I don't see how Bitcoin could in any way be considered more efficient.
I hardly think so. Try scaling up Bitcoin to the world's current volume of transactions and you'll find it uses vastly more electricity than traditional banking systems use.
We are working on it, so watch this space. The power consumption will not increase linearly, because of tier 2 & 3 solutions. The key is that blockchain is automated. With traditional centralised trust systems, you need buildings full of people running everything.
