This is like saying “All the “sugar-sweetened beverages are bad for you” people will sooner or later realize it is imperative to drink liquids”. It is perfectly congruent to believe trustless systems are important and that the way the blockchain works is more harmful than positive.
Additionally, the claim is that cryptocurrencies are used like that. Blockchains by themselves have a different set of issues and criticisms.
I've met and worked with many people who never shilled a coin in their whole life and were treated as criminals for merely proposing any type of application on Ethereum.
I got tired of having people yelling online about how "we are burning the planet" and who refused to understand that proof of stake made energy consumption negligible.
To this day, I have my Mastodon instance on some extreme blocklist because "admin is a crypto shill" and their main evidence was some discussion I was having to use ENS as an alternative to webfinger so that people could own their identity without relying on domain providers.
The goalposts keep moving. The critics will keep finding reasons and workarounds. Lots of useful idiots will keep doubling down on the idea that some holy government will show up and enact perfect regulation, even though it's the institutions themselves who are the most corrupt and taking away their freedoms.
The open, anonymous web is on the verge of extinction. We no longer can keep ignoring externalities. We will need to start designing our systems in a way where everyone will need to either pay or have some form of social proof for accessing remote services. And while this does not require any type of block chains or cryptocurrency, we certainly will need to start showing some respect to all the people who were working on them and have learned a thing or two about these problems.
Proof of stake brought with it its own set of flaws and failed to solve many of the ones which already existed.
> To this day, I have my Mastodon instance on some extreme blocklist because (…)
Maybe. Or maybe you misinterpreted the reason? I don’t know, I only have your side of the story, so won’t comment either way.
> The goalposts keep moving. The critics will keep finding reasons and workarounds.
As will proponents. Perhaps if initial criticisms had been taken seriously and addressed in a timely manner, there wouldn’t have been reason to thoroughly dismiss the whole field. Or perhaps it would’ve played out exactly the same. None of us know.
> even though it's the institutions themselves who are the most corrupt and taking away their freedoms.
Curious that what is probably the most corrupt administration in the history of the USA, the one actively taking away their citizens’ freedoms as we speak, is the one embracing cryptocurrency to the max. And remember all the times the “immutable” blockchains were reverted because it was convenient to those with the biggest stakes in them? They’re far from impervious to corruption.
> And while this does not require any type of block chains or cryptocurrency, we certainly will need to start showing some respect to all the people who were working on them and have learned a thing or two about these problems.
Er, no. For one, the vast majority of blockchain applications were indeed grifts. It’s unfortunate for the minority who had good intentions, but it is what it is. For another, they didn’t invent the concept of trustless systems and cryptography. The biggest lesson we learned from blockchains is how bad of a solution they are. I don’t feel the need to thank anyone for grabbing an idea, doing it badly, wasting tons of resources while ignoring the needs of the world, using it to scam others, then doubling down on it when presented with the facts of its failings.
Your memory is quite selective. El Salvador has been pushing for Bitcoin way before that, so we already have our share of Banana Republic (which is the US is becoming) promoting cryptocurrencies.
Second, the US is "embracing" Bitcoin by backing it up and enabling the creation of off-chain financial instruments. It is a complete corruption and the complete opposite of "trustless systems".
Third, the corruption of the government and their interest in cryptocurrency are orthogonal: the UK is passing bizarre laws to control social media, the EU is pushing for backdoors in messaging systems every other year. None of these institutions are acting with the interests of their citizens at heart, and the more explicit this become the more we will need to have systems that can let us operate trustlessly.
> For another, they didn’t invent the concept of trustless systems and cryptography.
But they are the ones who are actually working and developing practical applications. They are the ones doing actual engineering and dealing with real challenges and solving the problems that people are now facing, such as "how the hell do we deny access to bad actors on the open global internet who have endless resources and have nothing to lose by breaking social norms"?
> They’re far from impervious to corruption.
That’s it. That’s the point. You brought up corruption, and I pointed out blockchains don’t actually prevent that. Which you seem to agree with, so I don’t get your response at all.
> But they are the ones who are actually working and developing practical applications.
No, they are not. If no one wants to use them because of all the things they do wrong, they are not practical.
> They are the ones doing actual engineering and dealing with real challenges and solving the problems that people are now facing
No, they are not. They aren’t solving real problems and that is exactly the problem. They are being used almost exclusively for grifts, scams, and hoarding.
> such as "how the hell do we deny access to bad actors on the open global internet who have endless resources and have nothing to lose by breaking social norms"?
That is not a problem blockchains solve. At all.
No. Let's not talk past each other. My point is not about "preventing corruption". My point is that the citizens can not rely on the current web as an system that works in their favor. My point is that corporations and governments both are using the current web to take away our freedoms, and that we will need systems that do not require trust and/or functional institutions to enforce the rules.
> They are being used almost exclusively for grifts, scams, and hoarding.
"If by whiskey" arguments are really annoying. I am talking about the people doing research in trustless systems. Zero-knowledge proofs. Anonymous transactions. Fraud-proof advertisement impressions.
Scammers, grifters have always existed. Money laundering always existed. And they still happen far more often in the "current" web. There will always be bad actors in any large scale system. My argument is not about "preventing corruption", but to have a system where good actors can act independently even if corruption is prevalent.
> That is not a problem blockchains solve.
Go ahead and try to build a system that keeps access to online resources available to everyone while ensuring that it is cheap for good actors and expensive for bad ones. If you don't want to have any type of blockchain, you will either have to create a whitelist-first network or you will have to rely on an all-powerful entity with policing powers.