Perhaps more of a wishlist than what I think will actually happen, but:

- Everyone realises that blockchain is nothing more than a tiny niche, and therefore everyone but a tiny niche shuts up about it.
- Starting a new JS framework every 2 seconds becomes a crime. Existing JS frameworks have a big war, until only one is left standing.
- Developing for "FaaS" (serverless, if I must use that name) type computing becomes a big thing.
- Relational database engines get to the point where special handling of "big data" isn't required anymore. Joins across billions of rows doesn't present an issue.
- Everyone wakes up one day and realises that Wordpress is a steaming pile of insecure cow dung. It's never used again, and burns in a fire.

Sounds like you dont understand what blockchain is but ok

@irene redundant hashed linked list

@ganjaman It's arguably the most hyped "technology" on the planet at present, is being talked about by everyone, and yet it still hasn't found widespread use in any other industry or application.

I understand it very well. However, outside of cryptocurrency I've only ever heard of a few compelling use cases for it, and even those use cases don't look like they'll come to fruition any time soon (if ever.)

@AlmondSauce ever heard of git? It's a blockchain application (before blockchains were cool)

At the end of the day, blockchains are just another type of database, with its own set of pros and cons and applications.
Is it overhyped? Sure, just like many other things, the idiots who have no idea what they're talking about will happily blab about it.
Is it useless? No, you just gotta know when to apply it - just like any other tool

@AlmondSauce ya thats why i said you probably dont understand what it is about

@endor No, Git is based on a Merkle tree. Merkle trees are indeed very useful, have extremely wide ranging applications, and have been used for decades in everything from file systems to source control. Half my frustration over the whole blockchain thing is people coming along and re-claiming every Merkle tree implementation to push the blockchain agenda.

Blockchain is of course also based on a Merkle tree, but mandates that every record (block, in "blockchain" lingo) is cryptographically verified by each node before it can be considered part of the tree (or chain) - otherwise it's discarded. This isn't how Git works, and it's not how the vast majority of Merkle tree implementations work either, hence the distinction.

@AlmondSauce then what about git using hashes to verify commit and tree integrity and consistency?
The main distinction between cryptocurrencies and git is that cryptos use a public untrusted chain, so they require miners and consensus rules to ensure validity, while git requires some form of credentials to add new commits (which are basically identical to blocks, since they also refer to the parent commit by hash and they have a commit hash themselves).
Sure, some properties change because they're different applications, but the fundamental idea is the same

@endor Using hashes to verify integrity and consistency in the way you describe is fundamental to the operation of Merkle trees. They've been around for decades and found various uses (version control systems, filing systems, databases, etc.) in both cryptographically secure and non-secure settings with no-one screaming about blockchain.

Yes, the difference is cryptos use a public graph so they need to have the majority of the network verify this for a concensus to be reached. Yes, this in turns means a secure, cryptographically verified tree can be held in a decentralised fashion so long as your network is large enough, and yes, this is very useful for cryptos.

However, it's not really useful for that much else. Despite that, and for some reason I can't fathom, everyone's now screaming how great Blockchain is from the rooftops with no real understanding of what it is - and ploughing money into desperately researching what it might be able to do to justify the ridiculous hype.