> You brought up corruption, and I pointed out blockchains don’t actually prevent that.
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.
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.