I have not explored this idea fully, but I think blockchain technology would be a good candidate for something like a community members ledger. Ie, a public list of people that belong to a group.
Based on this ledger then you can derive new ones for individual issues that the members can cast votes on.
This would form the basis for a type of electronic voting.
Having something on the blockchain doesn’t mean it can never be fixed. It’s just data and that data can never be deleted, but it can be amended and superseded.
Because as of today cryptocurrency has not yet reached the point where it makes sense for most merchants to accept payment in cryptocurrency. Because we are still paying other people and entities and the government in fiat and the exchange rates are fluctuating wildly.
And also furthermore in agreement with what you are saying, a lot of the fairweather supporters will be like let’s put this and that on the blockchain, and yet those people have no real understanding of the trade-offs that come with choosing to do so.
Thirdly something that I find annoying is when someone describes proof-of-work as “solving difficult maths problems”. A cryptographic hash is computationally expensive to find a collision for unless it is flawed, true. But the mathematics behind for example SHA-256 are not really “difficult”. It’s just time-consuming. And it has the property of being fast to verify. But to me when someone describes it as solving difficult maths problems it seems probable that they don’t really know at all what is being done.
100%, seeing people who just learned the word blockchain explain to me how I can make 100x my money on crypto is pretty annoying.
My recommendation would be to stick to github, the technical parts of bitcointalk.org and whitepapers at most. Those tend to have better signal to noise ratios.
Yes blockchains are indeed an exciting development and present a lot of potential, but "true" hackers are probably as excited by blockchains as they are by say Rust. The thing is that generally speaking we can have informed conversations about Rust, because those that understand the novelty of Rust have come to that understanding through a genuine interest in the technology, not because of how Rust can make them rich.
So yes, blockchains are indeed very interesting, but unfortunately the conversations around them are overwhelmingly distorted by the superficialities of what I would cynically describe as dilettantes. Of course there are indeed serious hackers doing game-changing work in the blockchain space and I believe blockchain does have a future, but right now it's almost impossible to hear the signal from the noise :/