The anti-crypto sub seems to still be unable to find a kill-all argument against blockchain or decentralization, and why they think we'll never need those...after over a decade of trying. Here's their latest top upvoted "Eureka" argument against blockchai

The famous anti-crypto sub on Reddit thinks it has finally cracked the kill-all argument against blockchain and crypto in general with this little nugget:

I've seen recently, some people mentioning that they agree cryptocurrencies aren't useful, but are still open to the idea that blockchain might have a use case. I personally think we can quite confidently say there are no good blockchain use cases, and wanted to share my reasoning.
[...]

Let's assume that, in order for the database to be meaningful, the data has to represent something outside of the blockchain. To generalise, let's say an event A happens outside of the blockchain, and we want to record this event on the blockchain. Then we can tell the blockchain that A happened, and the blockchain can ensure that A is immutably logged in a way that a centralised database couldn't. That's great and all, but the blockchain doesn't know if A actually happened - just that we've told it A happened. This undermines the whole point of the decentrised nature of the blockchain. Because although no one would be able to edit or delete the entry that says A happened, we cant trust that its accurate.

This is just an excerpt, the full post is on their sub (but don't brigade their post if you go read it, it's against Reddit's rules).

TL;DR:

Their argument is that because you can put fake information on the blockchain, and the blockchain doesn't know if the original information was true or not (if you post a Reddit story on the blockchain, it doesn't know if the story really happened) then blockchain doesn't work and has no purpose.

Counter-argument:

That's not what decentralization or blockchain even does.

It could in some cases function as a way to verify information for some things, but it's not its core purpose.

One of its core purposes is to remove control from a single entity and decentralize the consensus, so whatever information you put on there, if you post your Reddit stories on there, whether it's true or not doesn't matter. What matters is that your post and whatever you put on there, can't be arbitrarily changed or tempered with by a single entity, and requires a consensus.

Example:

Say you create a blockchain to report car accidents for insurances and the department of transportation, and as transparency for the public to see.

The blockchain takes everyone's claims of an accident, witness statements, driver's statements, etc...

The blockchain makes sure those statements are secure, transparent, immutable, and car insurances, drivers, police, etc...can't temper with them or arbitrarily change them without a proper consensus.

Now, a driver could make a false declaration on their statement. Blockchain is not a lie detector.

But blockchain will ensure that the statement is taken into its database, and there isn't a centralized entity or person that can change what the driver has originally said, once the driver has entered their statement on the blockchain.

Conclusion:

At the end of the day, decentralization, security, immutability, removing the need to trust, etc... are things that are hard to argue against, and are fundamental things we'll always need at one point or another.

To argue against those, is like having to resort to argue against fundamentals like justice, freedom, sovereignty, civil liberties, ownership etc...

It will make it sound like they are defending extremist views or simply ran out of arguments.

You can make a more balanced argument that there are some things where you may not need decentralization, or be OK with some centralization, or don't need an immutable blockchain.

But it's hard to really make the kill-all argument that decentralization and blockchain are never useful and will never be needed, or that we will always be able to trust a single entity and never need to use a consensus.