I'm sorry if you think financial accountability and the ability to trade/sell items outside of a walled-garden don't mean anything. And, I don't know if you missed it but the fact that there could be interoperability in games answers your question. I know, it's not a thing now, but that doesn't mean it can't be. The internet wasn't a thing in the early 90's and no one could have imagined what utility it would have brought 20-years down the line, but here we are. Let me put it to you like this, regardless of how you feel about it, does it negatively affect you to have more options? Why are you on Lemmy when there's Reddit and Facebook? The tech doesn't negatively affect you, and regardless if you think it has any utility or it's dumb, that doesn't mean others share your opinion. Even if those people are the minority, does it mean we should tell them they can't do something just because we don't like it or can't see the benefit in it? Literally, of all places I would have assumed Lemmy users would have been more open-minded and tolerant of things. lol... Have a good day.

I, totally, get that you can't store large files on the blockchain. It's just how I generally refer to it. What I had in mind was something more along the lines of the file, or what have you, being on the blockchain but hosted on IPFS or something. I get peer-to-peer isn't ideal, but I've always like the idea of decentralization. I think the only significant things to actually be on the blockchain would be contracts and things of that nature. I regards to how it could benefit someone, there's definitely utility in it for financial matters. Such as stock market transactions. It would be nice if there was more insight into how companies use ATSes, or swaps (considering things like swap disclosures for certain things tend to get pushed back years and years, and the Swiss gov doesn't want to disclose certain financial matters about UBS absorbing CS for 50 years). But, all that aside, I think the most promising aspect is the ability for it to be incorporated into games. Having gamers be able to obtain skins, weapons, armor, etc. and have that be traded outside of a walled-garden. And, hopefully there's some interoperability with those things, between games, in the next few/handful of years. Not saying it's destined to happen, but it certainly would be nice to see.

It's not about proving anything. It's the fact that society is moving towards subscription based models in any facet of life they can possibly work it in. Software, hardware, tv, cars... Are you upset with the way I referred to how the data is stored? Typically that's the most cut and dry way of getting the point across. But since you're an expert on the matter, why don't you elaborate on why you're so against technology that benefits people?

The value of blockchain is to provide immutable ownership of something. Whether that be music, a tv show, movie, music, video game, etc. There is music on the blockchain, and the artists who have created that music can sell their music to fans without having to pay egregious fees to corporations. As well, they can determine if they'd like to include royalties, so every time their song is resold they can get a percentage of that transaction. TV show and movies are far less common, but the fact that you can own media on a decentralized platform that won't go down because, a cloud service is having trouble, or the company decides they don't want to host that particular media anymore even if customers have already bought it, means that you have access to what you purchased. The same can be said about games. Moreover, assets you either collect or purchase for that game can either be traded or sold. And, apparently the US Gov feels like there's beneficial use cases for it, too: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104625.pdf