Blockchain. It’s the technology that everyone seems to be talking about, from tech enthusiasts to industry giants. Advocates claim it will revolutionise everything from finance to healthcare to voting. But as with many emerging technologies, there’s a lot of hype, misinformation, and, let’s be honest, bollocks surrounding blockchain.
Let’s cut through the noise and take a closer look at why much of the chatter about blockchain is overblown, misguided, or just plain wrong, as we go headfirst into part six of my satirical comedic polemic series.
Blockchain Will Fix Everything? Not Likely
The number one piece of bollocks surrounding blockchain is the idea that it’s a universal solution for any and every problem. Whether it’s securing elections, managing supply chains, or tracking personal health records, blockchain is marketed as the ultimate tool to fix it all. This narrative has been pushed so far that some have even suggested blockchain could end poverty, solve climate change, and bring about world peace.
The reality, however, is far less glamorous. Blockchain is a specialised tool with very specific use cases. Its value lies primarily in providing secure, decentralised, and tamper-resistant records. But that doesn’t mean it’s the answer to every issue under the sun. Many problems, especially those in highly regulated industries, don’t need blockchain at all—what they need are better processes, transparency, or simple upgrades to existing systems.
Blockchain is often hailed as a panacea without recognising that most of the issues it’s supposed to solve could be addressed with traditional technology, more efficiently and without the added complexity.
It’s Not as Decentralised as You Think
One of the most trumpeted features of blockchain is its decentralisation. The idea is that no single entity controls the system, making it fairer and more transparent. But in practice, decentralisation is often more of a marketing point than a reality.
Take Bitcoin, for example, where mining power is largely concentrated in the hands of a few massive mining pools. Similarly, blockchain projects that aim to decentralise industries like finance or cloud computing often end up being controlled by a small group of early adopters or investors, who hold the majority of the tokens. This centralisation of power undermines the very principle blockchain was supposed to embody.
In fact, many blockchain-based systems rely heavily on intermediaries—like exchanges, mining pools, or validators—that are centralised entities. So, if anyone tries to sell you on blockchain as being the ultimate decentralised system, take it with a healthy dose of scepticism. Much of this decentralisation talk is just more bollocks.
Blockchain Is Slow and Inefficient
Despite claims that blockchain is a revolutionary new system, its underlying architecture makes it slow and inefficient compared to traditional databases. Each block in a blockchain must be verified by a network of nodes, a process that can take minutes or even hours depending on the network. This is fine for Bitcoin transactions, where users expect delays, but it’s hardly ideal for industries like retail, healthcare, or logistics, where speed is critical.
On top of that, blockchain systems consume massive amounts of energy. Proof-of-work blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum (before its switch to proof-of-stake) require huge computational resources to verify transactions. As a result, blockchain networks are incredibly energy-hungry. The irony of promoting blockchain as a futuristic, revolutionary technology while ignoring its environmental impact is one of the most glaring bits of bollocks out there.
Blockchain Is Not Automatically Secure
There’s a common misconception that anything built on blockchain is unbreakable, ultra-secure, and immune to hacking. In reality, blockchain’s security is not inherent—it depends on how well the system is designed and maintained. Vulnerabilities in smart contracts, poor governance, and weak coding can all lead to hacks, scams, and system failures.
One famous example is the 2016 hack of The DAO, a blockchain-based venture capital fund built on Ethereum. A vulnerability in its smart contract code allowed hackers to siphon off $50 million worth of Ether, sending shockwaves through the blockchain world. Then there’s the regular occurrence of attacks on crypto exchanges, many of which are built on blockchain but have been breached by hackers, resulting in millions in losses.
So, the next time you hear someone wax lyrical about blockchain’s “bulletproof” security, remember: no system is perfectly secure, and blockchain is no exception. Pretending otherwise is just more blockchain bollocks.
Blockchain Will Replace Banks? Not So Fast
Blockchain enthusiasts have long claimed that blockchain will eventually replace traditional banking. They argue that decentralised finance (DeFi) will render banks obsolete, allowing people to lend, borrow, and invest without the need for centralised financial institutions.
But while DeFi has made some interesting strides, the idea that blockchain will topple the banking system is far-fetched. Banks provide far more than just transaction processing—they offer regulation, consumer protection, anti-money laundering checks, and risk management services, which blockchain simply cannot replicate at scale. Moreover, blockchain’s volatility and lack of user-friendliness make it an unlikely replacement for mainstream financial systems.
Even central banks have started experimenting with digital currencies (CBDCs), but these projects are more about maintaining control over currency than decentralising it. So, while blockchain might disrupt certain aspects of finance, the notion that it will completely replace banks is bollocks.
The Myth of “Trustless” Systems
Blockchain advocates often promote the idea that blockchain enables “trustless” systems, where intermediaries and middlemen are unnecessary because everything is governed by code. But the idea of a truly trustless system is more myth than reality.
Even in blockchain-based systems, trust is still required—just in different places. You need to trust that the code governing smart contracts is secure and bug-free. You need to trust the developers and validators maintaining the network. You need to trust that exchanges where you buy and sell cryptocurrencies won’t go belly-up or get hacked. Far from being trustless, blockchain systems simply shift where trust is placed.
And let’s not forget, when things go wrong (as they frequently do), it’s often the “trusted” centralised institutions—exchanges, developers, or even courts—that end up stepping in to fix the problems. The idea of a completely trustless system is appealing, but in practice, it’s just more blockchain bollocks.
Conclusion: Beware of the Bollocks
There’s no doubt that blockchain is an interesting and innovative technology with the potential to impact various industries. But the breathless hype surrounding it often leads to unrealistic expectations, misinformation, and, well, bollocks. Blockchain isn’t going to fix all the world’s problems, nor is it going to replace every existing system overnight.
What we need is a more balanced, pragmatic approach to blockchain—one that acknowledges its limitations, its specific use cases, and the fact that, like all technologies, it isn’t a silver bullet. Blockchain is not the end of centralisation, it’s not inherently secure, and it’s certainly not going to fix everything.
In the end, cutting through the blockchain bollocks means treating it as what it is: a tool, not a miracle cure.