[frankenst1]

> But even if all code was without mistakes, blockchains can’t do anything against threats like scams, fraud, hacking of devices with keys for the blochain or just plain old typos in a coin transfer.

Nirvana fallacy. Bitcoin allows people to control their own money, if they decide to give it to scammers, it's not Bitcoins fault.

> The absolutely perverted energy usage in times of climate change is only one of those (this is mainly caused by proof-of-work, still used by all relevant public blockchains, and general inefficiency). [8]

Bitcoin provides truly self-custodial, borderless money to the world and only causes <0.1% of CO2. Crypto donations to Ukraine worked flawlessly in the current time of war in which national banks are not fully operational. Refugees are able to travel with their funds simply by remembering a few words.

I would not call that "perverted energy usage".

Video streaming, video games, porn, dryers are causing similar or higher CO2 emissions. Wasted foods alone cause 6% of CO2. Calling these emissions useful but at the same time denying unbanked people access to financial services reeks of financial privilege.

Also the cited source [8] is an employee of the dutch central bank which is probably as opposed to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency as you can possibly get.

The rest of the article cites several projects which use the blockchain label to generate publicity. While this criticism is warranted, it should be directed at the projects, not at blockchain tech in general.

[nicbou]

> if they decide to give it to scammers

"Decide" is an interesting choice of word.