neuralzen

I think it is because people who think or say "what about me?" hear "what about me?" from others as if it's support of their own view, when really their core issues could be totally different. "Yeah, what about us?"

As opposed to "we need to help everyone, especially highly victimized groups". And then people infight over which groups require more attention vs everyone else.

"...but ultimately the question is whether or not there is some level of ground truth that can be accessed in the form of mathematical theories."

Didn't Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem show we should anticipate some unprovable fundamental Truths, since we are within the system we seek to define?

I went through something similar once when I was interviewing for an IT position in the Antarctic (I'd applied for positions at both McMurdo and Amundsen-Scott), and I was supposed to connect to their network simulator to troubleshoot and solve some network issue, but it wasn't working on their end so the interviewer walked me through the scenario, and responded as a DM would. - Quite frustratingly this was my 3rd interview for the position, and although I diagnosed and solved the DM'd scenario of a downed vlan issue in a Cisco environment in ~5 minutes of this off-the-cuff "simulation" using DM provided prompts, help menus, and outputs, I did not get the job. I think he penalized me for relying on the DM provided help menus and auto suggest tabbing...which is something anyone on a working simulator would have done. Which was a bummer because even though I was overqualified for the positions and would take a pay cut, I really wanted the experience of living for months in the Antarctic. So while I see the usefulness of this kind of interview, there are noteworthy issues of bias which a real simulator wouldn't begrudge you.

They will share the details at Blackhat next week

Most are on IPFS, but about 10% are 100% on-chain

I don't think there is no real world application for Web3 or NFTs, that seems pretty short sighted. Sure, there are scams, but legit innovations as well. I mean, the MoMA liquidated 70 million USD in art, including a Picasso, to buy NFTs.

Community comes up in every facet of life...what's your point here?

Sure, but it has a different address...there is no possibility of confusion. Something from the 1950s is not going to be confused with something from the 1980s, especially with a blockchain timestamp.

Smart contracts can and do limit the amount which can be minted. And fraud exists everywhere, regardless of institutional controls - this is where community matters.

Like anything in life, the value and integrity of something is maintained by the community who uses it, a platform is just a tool for people to use.

I suppose I see is like noticing that a house is being built, and then criticizing it because no one can live in it, and the builder's tools are loud, and pieces of building material are strewn around. If you don't like houses at all, then it's certainly fair to be critical of them at any state of their development, but if you admit they are useful to exist, albeit in a more developed state than not, it seems like a conflict. - I do appreciate your discussion here, and I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic by saying your position is disingenuous, I just see it as a process of growth, some of which is not so tenable...like a screaming child vs an adult who creates something that contributes something that is a boon for society in their life. I also admit it remains to be seen, but there is meaningful evidence which supports a net positive outcome.

Alright, it is a fair point that it isn't a closed system, but you have to start from somewhere in order to grow from there into something with more of a closed loop. At the end of the day, courts of law have to decide on the outcomes of contentions, and this holds true with traditional crypto as well. - Perhaps one day we'll see smart contracts which are honored by courts to uphold the contracts in a lawful way, if written in a specific way (like what Agrello is/was trying to do...dunno if they are still around), but it has to be built first, it can't be perfect day one out the door, it's a journey.

It remains to be seen, the future is uncertain. There is also a lot more emotional attachment in the space...people do really like the art. Maybe not when it comes to cryptonarwals or whatever, but pieces that are genuine creative endeavors...deafbeef, art blocks, cryptopunks - there is a real love of these in the space, and it does help bind communities together. There will always be scammers and grifters in every walk of life, and it's a personal responsibility to apply critical thinking. But it doesn't discount the value of what is bring brought into focus with the innovation.

I agree PoW is bad, and I'm hopeful for the future of Proof of Stake. Just like using coal and oil to fuel our industries is bad, and we are moving more and more towards renewable energy it is a path of progression. You have to start somewhere and grow, but I think it is somewhat disingenuous to discuss them as if they are static states which are not seeking and progressing to more ethical models.