The core issue is that trusted, central bodies are generally already evil or will become evil, whether by their own volition or as authoritarian governments force them to use their centralized control to help them accomplish their goals.
Here is a talk I gave to Mozilla Privacy Lab back in 2017 about centralization and all of the extremely-concrete evil that has resulted, with every single example from the (long) talk directly cited (as every slide is a news article). And the sad thing is that every few days there is some new high-profile abuse of centralized power that I always feel also deserves to be in an updated version of this talk... it is a never-ending issue as people suck.
So, I feel like your very question of trying to solve things that can't be solved with centralized systems is flawed; hell: I studied decentralized systems in grad school, and I have been saying for as long as I can remember that "anything you solve with a decentralized system I can solve cheaper and faster and better with a centralized one"... but you know what I can't do? I can't solve it in a way that doesn't lead to at least some moral landmines due to my now having chosen to take those shortcuts by having centralized control of the result.
Inherently, then, I believe the reason to work on blockchain stuff is not to solve things that "can't" be solved using centralized systems... it is to figure out how to re-solve the things that people already solved using centralized systems without putting any individual or small cabal in charge of anything that would let them do evil things. And it is then to figure out how to do well enough with what results that people are willing to put up with it probably being a worse result on the surface because it is a better result for humanity.
And like, that's a nearly impossible bar, and maybe to really get there will require regulation of centralized systems to make them illegal... which I realize will probably never happen :(. But that doesn't make working on these systems dumb, the way a lot of people here seem to think: it makes it all the more noble, as everyone who isn't doing this are actively making the world a worse place to live (and in some of the more egregious examples, such as everyone who chooses to work at Apple, have pretty direct blood on their hands from issues in countries like China).
Hell... looking at your comment history, I see you recently being excited about the idea that Google could use their fleet of self-driving cars to create a mass road surveillance network capable of logging the license plates of "bad drivers" (and from thread context, "reporting them")... Google already is used as a stooge for governments (even as they push back, they still provide tons of data) but at least it is almost always about their own users: expanding their charge into watching other people is just evil and will lead to unprecedented ways to abuse this information stockpile :(.
It's not a flawed question - the question might be better worded, but it basically asks: where are the situations where the cost/benefit of blockchain is positive versus the centralized version. It's trivially easy for you to find examples of bad behavior, and it's trivially easy to find situations where blockchains have resulted in bad outcomes.
The people have voted with their wallets that buying books from Amazon is better than buying books from a bricks and mortar store. Not everyone needs to agree, but the aggregate has spoken. What is the analogy to Amazon?
Comments
The core issue is that trusted, central bodies are generally already evil or will become evil, whether by their own volition or as authoritarian governments force them to use their centralized control to help them accomplish their goals.
Here is a talk I gave to Mozilla Privacy Lab back in 2017 about centralization and all of the extremely-concrete evil that has resulted, with every single example from the (long) talk directly cited (as every slide is a news article). And the sad thing is that every few days there is some new high-profile abuse of centralized power that I always feel also deserves to be in an updated version of this talk... it is a never-ending issue as people suck.
https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms
So, I feel like your very question of trying to solve things that can't be solved with centralized systems is flawed; hell: I studied decentralized systems in grad school, and I have been saying for as long as I can remember that "anything you solve with a decentralized system I can solve cheaper and faster and better with a centralized one"... but you know what I can't do? I can't solve it in a way that doesn't lead to at least some moral landmines due to my now having chosen to take those shortcuts by having centralized control of the result.
Inherently, then, I believe the reason to work on blockchain stuff is not to solve things that "can't" be solved using centralized systems... it is to figure out how to re-solve the things that people already solved using centralized systems without putting any individual or small cabal in charge of anything that would let them do evil things. And it is then to figure out how to do well enough with what results that people are willing to put up with it probably being a worse result on the surface because it is a better result for humanity.
And like, that's a nearly impossible bar, and maybe to really get there will require regulation of centralized systems to make them illegal... which I realize will probably never happen :(. But that doesn't make working on these systems dumb, the way a lot of people here seem to think: it makes it all the more noble, as everyone who isn't doing this are actively making the world a worse place to live (and in some of the more egregious examples, such as everyone who chooses to work at Apple, have pretty direct blood on their hands from issues in countries like China).
Hell... looking at your comment history, I see you recently being excited about the idea that Google could use their fleet of self-driving cars to create a mass road surveillance network capable of logging the license plates of "bad drivers" (and from thread context, "reporting them")... Google already is used as a stooge for governments (even as they push back, they still provide tons of data) but at least it is almost always about their own users: expanding their charge into watching other people is just evil and will lead to unprecedented ways to abuse this information stockpile :(.
It's not a flawed question - the question might be better worded, but it basically asks: where are the situations where the cost/benefit of blockchain is positive versus the centralized version. It's trivially easy for you to find examples of bad behavior, and it's trivially easy to find situations where blockchains have resulted in bad outcomes.
The people have voted with their wallets that buying books from Amazon is better than buying books from a bricks and mortar store. Not everyone needs to agree, but the aggregate has spoken. What is the analogy to Amazon?