None of those are things people care about, though, outside of a tiny niche.

Most people find it pretty easy to avoid getting kicked off social media, and even if they do, it doesn't affect them.

Likewise, "personal control of data" is meaningless. It's not like you can prevent people from taking the data and doing things with it.

I struggle to think of any actual use cases for your last three points that don't boil down to FUD.

Blockchain is neat, but it has no real use outside of extracting money from other people involuntarily.

At this very moment, reasonable people are debating the very real possibility that Twitter could be removed from both the Apple and Google app stores.

So, doesn't that astonishing fact deny pretty much every claim in your post?

Crazies (the least perjorative term I could think of) that have the power to eject an App used by hundreds of millions of people, from those people's own platform, are dangerous -- to our liberty.

And, when people are starving, and are forced to use only their oppressive regime's worthless money: these issues put citizens' lives at risk.

So, yes: these are things people care about. Many just don't yet realize they could be the victims of these dangerous bullies forcing these sub-standard tools on them.

No, and saying it's "astonishing" and "it's a threat to liberty" is ridiculous and incredibly overdramatic.

It's just an app. Companies rise and fall, it's how it works. We lived just fine before it, we will be just fine after.

Something will replace Twitter just like something replaced Friendster and MySpace.

A specific application I'm working on right now involves using Crypto for direct payments between software Licensees (end users) and the App developer.

Presently, there is a high risk of loss of income (see: every small individual Russian or Iranian software developer. Their families are now suffering because their income has been shut off, even though this is a textbook example of "Group Punishment" under the Geneva Convention. If I had decided to send some of my company's income to the Canadian "Freedom Convoy", my family's income would also have also been summarily cut off, without trial or conviction in a court of law).

So, like it or not: there are innocent individual who, due to no fault of their own, cannot use "TradFi" -- "DeFi" is their only alternative to achieve an income to care for their families.

Using a trivial Ethereum Smart Contract, a single-use Ethereum wallet address is generated for a set of payees (eg. the software author(s) and any number of other license fee recipients) designated to receive a proportion of an Ethereum fee payment. When the payment is received at the designated address -- the software License is generated, and any one of the payees can trigger the "smart contract" executing distribution of the fees to each of the payees' accounts, without being able to change the proportional distribution.

None of this is possible under "TradFi". All of it (except for the automatic generation of the License) is possible under Ethereum "DeFi". The entire application (including automatic, atomic generation of the License and distribution of fees) is possible under Holochain.

In all honesty -- whenever I hear "Crypto is a solution in search of a problem", I really have trouble not rolling my eyes. Perhaps that's not nice. But seriously; if you're here on HN, I have higher expectations of you. If you're enraged by this; perhaps there may be other forums more appropriate for you?

:)

Defi doesn't solve this at all. It is currently illegal for me and a lot of the world to buy software from Iran and Russia. Using blockchain to circumvent the law is the only use case people can scrape together.

It doesn't matter if blockchain allows you to break the law. You are still breaking the law and punishments exists outside of the chain.

Blockchain enthusiasts get confused between "a solution" and a "better solution". A car with an airplane propeller engine is technically a solution that solves a use case of getting a person from point a to point b, but is it the best solution when compared to current cars? Right now the crypto industry is slapping all sorts of stuff on and then just because their car makes it down the street, suddenly they think somebody in africa who never had a car before will want it.

The use case you describe has been beaten over and over in crypto over the past 5-7 years. DRM. Its old news. But no major company wants anything to do with it. Its a social problem not a technical one.

Blockchain is an engineers wet dream. Infinite solutions that make theoretical sense and the math works, but lack any way to solve the current problems better.

Unfortunately, while many people believe this to be true -- there is nothing legally or morally wrong with you purchasing software from a small Russian or Iranian software developer. How do we know this, you ask?

In fact, the entire Open Source (and most Closed Source) stacks depend on this fact, including the stacks underlying the entire US Government's (and its Military's) operations. Which functions on large amounts of software (free and paid) from Russian individual developers.

So, any demand by them (or any other government) that you personally cannot pay Yegor the Russian for his little Python package is morally, logically, legally and practically ridiculous.

And "DeFi" absolutely does solve this problem.

The fact that "all the baaaad people" can also use "DeFi" is immaterial. Just like you, too, can buy and use a windowless white van.

> morally, logically, legally and practically ridiculous.

Well i mean thats your opinion not the facts. There is a whole web of regulations when dealing with those countries and if they are allowed to buy from you.

There are even more laws around money movement and debt and financing.

Just declaring "it shouldnt be that way. it is unfair" doesn't change the laws.

Conversely, declaring "this is the law" doesn't change the fact that the Bitcoin or Ethereum networks process these transactions anyway.

> In all honesty -- whenever I hear "Crypto is a solution in search of a problem", I really have trouble not rolling my eyes.

..and some of us can't help but roll our eyes when we hear yet another crypto use case being skirting government laws / regulations.

In my opinion, removing the last paragraph would improve your post immensely. It would be a shame if the post got downvoted to oblivion because of it.

> So, I'll leave it. If only the "Eternal September" crowd is allowed to be comfortable here (because we all just "let them have their opinion", as usual), we know what happens.

Smug-o, not all of us here were born yesterday.

This is actually the wrong audience as the concentration of people who have been around the block a while is higher than for the average internet community.

> yelling low-research insults without anyone pushing back on them...

You'd think that in the past 14 years anyone would come up with a well-researched eloquent push back to the multitude of actually well researched eloquent questions that have been frequently asked of crypto enthusiasts.

However, all we get back is utter drivel, cultlike devotion, and "just join the discords".

The time of of eloquent questions has long passed. There is now a 0.999999999999999999999999 probabilty of anything crypto-related to be a scam, a solution in search of a problem, or a solution that ignores or is oblivious of the real world.

It's on crypto enthuiasts to prove that their latest scam du-jour isn't a scam, and is an actual solution.

Someone still has to convert the Eth to local currency for the person to have an income no? The dev has to find someone willing to exchange local currency for the eth - same as if someone had gifted a video game skin and now has to find someone to exchange it to local currency.

So … circumventing sanctions?

Absolutely none of this is obvious.

What does "permissionless composability" in DeFi mean, if not this?

Sure, its very expensive presently under the Ethereum version of "DeFi". Just like the original motorcar was expensive and fragile, and would break your arm occasionally while you crank-started it.

Now, if the cost basis of each "DeFi" transaction is reduced by 5 orders of magnitude (see: Ethereum vs. Holochain) -- what are the potential outcomes of that?

I have no idea what "permissionless composability" means. "Permissionless" isn't even a word (without permission or permission-less to be pedantic), and I can think of several overlapping contexts that those words could be meaningful in finance and/or software.

The problem is the language you're using sounds like bullshit.

Ah, sorry! Mea culpa. Permissioned vs. permissionless systems has been used for so long in my circles that I thought it was a thing...

Even "DeFi" systems may not be permissionless, though. It's just that the permissions are visible constraints (ie. in the code) -- not just randos deciding to deplatform you because, you know, "reasons".

This is an emerging risk to eg. Ethereum. Now, most "Staking" validators are "OFAC compliant". Does this mean that eventually the Ethereum blockchain will orphan any wallet that contains any Eth that went through the Tornado Cash mixer?

What if you decided to compose the Tornado Cash mixer into your payment app, to maintain some anonymity in the face of a repressive regime say throwing gay people off roof tops? Would you consider a permissionless system bad, in that case? Because, OFAC decrees that you are currently a criminal (and guilty without charge or trial) if you do so. What if they decide, next week, that whatever you do presently use is now verboten?

So, these concepts aren't "bullshit"; they are a present, serious concern to free peoples around the globe.

Just a meta note, what I'm saying is that you need to work on your communication. This reply is logically disjoint and succumbs to the problem that I was mentioning - the use of imprecise and confusing language or jargon. If you combine that with jumps to conclusions and pretend certain things are self-evident, it sounds like bullshit. It's how hucksters talk.

I didn't say that what you were talking about was bullshit. I said the language you used made it sound like it.

> It's just that the permissions are visible constraints (ie. in the code) -- not just randos deciding to deplatform you because, you know, "reasons".

Those "reasons" are called market forces and law.

Law is, you know, written, it's very complex (people are complex), but not some hidden thing.

Market forces are more abstract but they're the thing making human systems work.