Even with that remark -- I wasn't thinking particularly politically. There are plenty of markets I think blockchain has a decent swing at.
Blockchain does not appear to be the best way to build a decentralized system for user controlled data (such as a decentralized social network).
We already figured that system out: local software, local storage, open source, local permissions & controls. Billions of people have personal computing devices now. No blockchain is needed at all, that just adds entirely unnecessary bloat.
You shift the point of control back to the local device and away from the network. It is that simple, and it's how we largely used to control user data.
I agree. Blockchain only makes sense for things that require immutability which many applications do not. OpenBazaar is a good example of one of the applications I was thinking of.
* Website gives person a unique code to broadcast on the blockchain to prove they have control over that identity
* 'Approved' services claim things publically about identities (eg age, allowed to drive) which others can use to verify claims
What I don't get is:
* how you know which 'approved' services to trust in the first place
* why you'd want all of that information public
* how it'd fix the original issue
The other issue is that none of this is necessary. If I want to prove to Person X that Gov Y says that I have property Z, why can't I just present a cryptographically signed certificate saying I have property X. You could even have a similar revocation list as CA.
You don't think if the problem were that easy to solve, it would be solved already? Throwing blockchain in the mix gets Facebook nothing that it couldn't get today by just partnering with organizations can verify identities.
Not to mention, the "fake news" issue isn't largely an identity issue — there are plenty of people and organizations willing to lie on their real accounts to further their sociopolitical agenda, and plenty more people who don't care if something's true so long as it confirms their existing viewpoints.
All this money is invested in "get-rich-quick" hopes. Few would care, or invest anything, if it was just for the decentralization aspect (case in point, all the failed aspects of decentralized social networks and other such efforts).
This is true -- it's also true the 5% is pretty damn interesting.
There are plenty of interesting tokens out there. Some of them are tackling real problems. That's pretty exciting. I don't begrudge someone who's trying to solve something.
The historical analogs are lazy in my view. The financial and political system we operate in today has done plenty of damage. Indeed, some of the key examples listed on the slide.
The last global financial crisis wasn't that long ago (and wasn't that "reversible", certain people may recall). You could spin every one of those dot-points as commentary on our existing financial systems.
Doesn't mean blockchain is going to fix it. In fact, I have many doubts and concerns. There is so much to do. However, I really like that people are trying.