4 ms·

Uh, yeah, if you compare it to DARPAnet, a defense-oriented research project, of course it wasn't growing. DARPAnet wasn't commercial and wasn't designed to to

Uh, yeah, if you compare it to DARPAnet, a defense-oriented research project, of course it wasn't growing. DARPAnet wasn't commercial and wasn't designed to to grow, it was focused on military communications. By the time it was declassified & evolved into a semi-public general network in the 80s, accessible through universities who partnered with the DoD, everybody wanted in on the action. Even before we had HTTP and the web and the dot-com bubble and the explosion of "e-commerce", e-mail and usenet were both going strong with active communities. Scams did exist, as they do in every communication medium (chain letters used to refer to actual letters you got in the mail!), but they were a sideshow.

yieldcrv 4y ago
The intrinsic financial nature of blockchains merely lets you quantify it. And instead of distinguishing what transactional activity is and isn't a scam to even begin quantifying it, blanket statements with fluid goal posts are chosen instead. The “non-commercial” internet was used for financial speculation for decades, while this is seen as an invalid use case of blockchain transactional activity by those who chose to denigrate the whole concept. For services that do distinguish scam vs licit transaction types, the highest estimates of scams in the billions of dollars pale in comparison to all the rest of the transactional activity by volume and asset size. Its nearly impossible to have an answer to the premise presented.