Blockchain is touted as an immutable ledger of transactions visible to everyone.

The only proper use case I can see for it is audit logs where you never want to loose what transaction happened. That being said, we have existing technologies which provide this at a smaller footprint.

Don’t hate it.

A blockchain being essentially a public ledger.

It’s a good concept that will doubtlessly have several if not many practical uses. I think any hatred it gets is just because like every new thing hucksters try and brand it as the cure to all ills to make a buck.

The reason I am generally skeptical of the technology is the same reason I’m not going to try to give you a definition.

I’ve never seen it solve a problem or be proposed as a reasonable solution to a problem. What happens instead is that someone says “could we do BLOCKCHAIN for this, it’ll make it way more modern” and the subset of people that want to look really forward-leaning and cool say “YEAH”. If that subset of people is loud enough, a lot of money gets spent and a bunch of implementers have to figure out how to jam in something they can say is blockchainy… leading to a proliferation of definitions.

The results have been universally more expensive applications with fewer helpful features. I don’t like “blockchain” because everything that touches it gets worse.

I dont trust crypto stuff bc it’s essentially gambling, and any non-crypto use is worse than just an encrypted text file.

Downvoted because of the biased question. Its phrasing is presumptive (that everyone hates blockchain) rather than directed (to people who do hate blockchain).

I think some of the downvotes are from the very biased phrasing of the question. You’ve managed to phrase it in such a way that Blockchain bros and their detractors can both respond strongly in the same direction.

I suspect a more neural phrasing would not illicit such widespread dislike.