(I've tried explaining these as applications that no one controls, but that has a wild west connotation that isn't applicable.)
it's also a statement that's simply not true. the parties that usually control financial and legal systems might not control it. it might be the case that no single person or single organization controls it. but to say that "no one controls" it is false. there are people whose input controls it. if that were not the case, it would not be useful.
> the user's choice to use the application in the first place.
Right, but if none of the users can even run the so called "peer-to-peer" component, what's the difference between that and run-of-the-mill centralized DB software? Either way nobody but the chosen few can directly access the DB.
Users can run a node of the peer-to-peer component if they want. Anyone can. They just don't have to.
That trait is far from being unique to blockchains.
But no, users aren't in full control of cloud software.
> Users can run a node of the peer-to-peer component if they want. Anyone can. They just don't have to.
After 18 months of block size debate, this is deja vu. No, anyone can't run a node if you make it cost $5k/mo
We're in the process of defining economic interactions—both existing and novel interactions—as entries in a digital historical record to eliminate the need for middlemen in much of our economy and give everyone access to financial tools that were once limited to the wealthy and their corporations. Social interactions that don't involve money can be built as well.
Join us. Let's build software that users control.