If it isn't a decentralized, public blockchain, it is just an inefficient database.

That's me paraphrasing Andreas Antonopoulos.

If you think about it, blockchain is slower and more resource intensive than a regular old database. The only reason you use it is to remove the 3rd party.

Ergo, there will never be a good reason for a 3rd party institution to offer the world a blockchain solution. Banks, for example, will never have a reason to have their own blockchain solutions they offer.

They may investigate various ways to profit off blockchain, but it won't be by removing the 3rd party, since they are the 3rd party. Ancillary services that facilitate investing in crypto projects? Sure. But not blockchains of their own.

That's why Ripple Labs doesn't use blockchain. Not even XRP uses an actual blockchain. It's completely centralized and even offers the ability to run chargebacks. So much for immutability. But that's what you have to do for regulated entities. Which is why regulated entities will never be able to have their own effective blockchains. The introduction of the ability to edit the blockchain that is required by regulation immediately ends the benefits of having a blockchain in the first place, namely a trustless means of exchange of information, money, or other value.

Or Is There Something Else?

Is there some other reason to use blockchain instead of just a regular database?

I mean, if it isn't going to be decentralized and trustless, why use blockchain at all?

Now I have no issue with centralized entities initiating a blockchain that they later hand over to the public. Bitcoin developed in a time and manner where this was unnecessary. Everyone could just volunteer code and create the whole thing publicly. There was never a need for marketing teams to be paid, or office space to be rented.

But those who come after do need to have these things to break through and get adoption. I honestly wish Steemit Inc. invested quite a bit more in marketing really.

If the originating entity holds a lot of the coin as compensation for their initial investment to get it going successfully, I have no problem with that. What does one expect?

I therefore like how Steemit Inc. is working to hand over the running of the full nodes and as much else as they can to the community. That's exactly as it should be.

Decentralized Enough?

Now some will argue that delegated proof of stake will never be truly decentralized, and that only expensive proof of work systems can be, but I'm not that much of a purest. I think there are degrees of decentralization that make sense given other values. In this case, we need faster transactions on this blockchain more than we need to prevent governments from having anyone to pressure into changing the blockchain. So slightly more centralization works best in this situation.

The more decentralized, the slower the blockchain. The more centralized, the faster the blockchain.

True?

Anyway, these are my thoughts as I consider altcoins to buy in these final days of 2018. I wrote previously why tax law makes this the time for me to make any futher purchases. I'm assuming a rising market in 2019, so gotta realize those losses (which I do every time I buy an altcoin this year) while my net for the year will be negative.

I'm keeping the above in mind as I evaluate what altcoins will be good long-term investments.

Which are sufficiently decentralized for their primary purpose?

Which will never gain widespread adoption, because they can't offer any improvement over current solutions by simply introducing a blockchain and currency?

source