That read like a bizarre tangent, because it didn’t at all address the argument. To make it clear I’ll repeat the crux of my point, the conclusion that the other arguments lead up to, which you skipped entirely in your reply:
> 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"?
> 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.
> 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.