Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

During my graduate studies at UMass Amherst in 2017, distributed computing was a hot topic. Blockchain technology, in particular, held so much promise for the future. Ethereum was supposed to be next big thing, Solidity the programming language of choice. I was skeptical, but one must seriously consider even the most outlandish ideas for possible opportunities. I enrolled in a series of Distributed Application Programming (DAP) courses at UMass-Amherst where I was doing my MS in Computer Science. My aim was to gain a solid academic foundation in the new field.

Diving into the Details

The courses provided deep dive into the inner workings of distributed computing. We explored data structures, programming languages, and the inherent challenges of coordinating tasks across a distributed network. We also examined the complex “proof-of-work” schemes that support the major blockchain implementations.

As part of the coursework, we brainstormed numerous potential applications for distributed computing and blockchain technology. Our enthusiastic discussions yielded dozens of use cases across various domains.

However, upon closer examination, we discovered a critical flaw in our approaches. Many of the proposed use cases didn’t actually require blockchain technology. In fact, removing the blockchain element often resulted in a more efficient and streamlined solution. In the end, it was quite challenging, if not impossible for the entire class of graduate students in one of the most reputable institutions in the country, to come up with ONE legitimate use case that would be improved by the use of blockchains and cryptocurrency. Well, that’s not strictly true. There were multiple great ideas that were not strictly legal and there was a massive potential in skirting financial regulation. Besides that, we didn’t get very far.

Trusting trust, and so forth

The core limitation of blockchain technology emerged as a central theme. Blockchain is the most useful in environments with a complete lack of trust between participants. However, in most real-world scenarios, there’s always a reasonable amount of trust between business counterparties. Legal contracts and government institutions exist to enforce rules and make the process of cross-organizational trust and coordination easier. In such cases, the use of a trusted intermediary could often achieve the same results without the complexities of blockchain. Our exploration revealed that technology alone cannot solve the fundamental issue of trust.

Beyond Legitimate Applications

Sadly, the only use cases where blockchain seemed truly beneficial were those facilitating the movement of capital outside legal frameworks. This realization felt disheartening. At a time when advancements in machine learning and computer vision were burgeoning, my focus had shifted to a technology with limited practical applications.

The Future of Distributed Systems

While blockchain is an idea whose idea has come, and gone, distributed computing from a consumer perspective holds promise in other forms. Decentralized social media platforms like Mastodon offer alternatives to centralized social media. Unlike traditional platforms, Mastodon distributes storage of social media data among its various ‘instances’. Disappointed by the the other approaches to decentralization, but heartened by the technically sound and socially optimistic crowd, I joined a Mastodon instance in early 2017 and continue to use it semi-occasionally. I’m a proponent in the ‘open web’ concept, and believe the ownership of data should ultimately belong to the users. The centralizing tendencies of the internet exist due to the massive economies of scale, but they don’t necessarily align with user interest.