>None of those are major cryptocurrencies Sure, but this is circular logic. They're not major anymore because they're dead. >and the blockchains of many of th

>None of those are major cryptocurrencies Sure, but this is circular logic. They're not major anymore because they're dead. >and the blockchains of many of those which are now effectively worthless continue to exist in a handful of nodes around the world, showing the resilience of this enterprise structure. Yeah and I still keep copies of old Word 95 documents around, so if we're going by only "time spent existing" then the data structure used in Word 95 documents is much better and more resilient than blockchains. Of course that's a silly way to look at things. >a blockchain is inherently far more widely distributed in its infrastructure providers and datastores This is not even remotely close to being true. Nothing about blockchains makes them inherently more distributed, you can very easily deploy a blockchain on only one machine and keep it that way. The communities around them might be more distributed but that's a different discussion that isn't really related to blockchains. >In this case they are too big to fail on their own, not too big for society to allow them to fail I'm sorry I don't understand what the difference is. The definition of success here is "society sees it as useful" so the mode of failure is the same either way. >It is a good thing for the world at large when a shared ledger becomes increasingly robust to failure due to its own structure becoming more resilient. This makes for a more reliable platform for financial and social interaction. Sure, I can agree with that, but these statements have nothing to do with blockchains or cryptocurrency at all. You could say the same thing about a digital cash becoming more robust.