> Maybe. If the input and output are the same, but the efficiency is larger, or the quality is greater or more controllable, then you have some value-add. Ya,

> Maybe. If the input and output are the same, but the efficiency is larger, or the quality is greater or more controllable, then you have some value-add. Ya, but if I may re-summarize that objection it's, 'except for all the things that it does improve'. > If the input and output are artificially constricted and the business case is basically undefined then skepticism is expected and logical. > I never denied there are use cases, just stated they are very limited. I stand by that assessment. I don't disagree per se. I think we may just disagree over how limited is 'very limited'. I think, even just interbank transaction settlement (e.g. Ripple) is an enormously valuable usecase for blockchains. Some smart contracts make sense as well, keeping in mind that you can always offload parts of a contract to human auditors and mediators. People sometimes equate there being any human involvement with trustless execution being worthless. However, that's not really fair. For instance, suppose you are in a country with a corrupt legal system. You can't enter into a normal contract safely, because justice there is disbursed to the highest bidder. So, what do you do instead? You enter into a smart contract that specifies a mutually agreed upon 3rd party outside of the country as the arbiter of disputes, and gives them a private key that they can use to enforce their judgments. Now, you've created a functioning judicial system (admittedly, only for finance) in a country that didn't previously have it. I'd say that's a pretty valuable use case for people in say, Venezuela, or Russia.