OP Is exactly describing working in a vacuum. They've got no ego invested in the project and whoever does can decide if they want to use their modifications.

>What if someone comes in the way of you building things? What then?

I don't think you're describing someone getting in the way of you building something. It seems more like, "What if you don't feel validated, by some community, after you built something?" Which is something leadership of any project might choose to evaluate. Does the project benefit more by trying to provide validation to everyone who makes an attempt to contribute or not?

In my experience, providing validation for anyone other than children is an enormous waste of time. Especially when building something.

I suppose if you desired you could consolidate your doxx point to Google and ISP's by running all your comments through a couple rounds of Google translate.

There is no privacy possible in the global village. Expectation of such is technically naive.

Unfortunately comments like this convey misinformation and could help to spread anti-vax positions.

There's very little research to suggest that ingestion of fluoride has any positive health impact. Comparing the two issues is quite misleading.

I see a lot of potential for decentralized tokens/governance-models to alter the way humans organize themselves. The closest historical parallel I see to this technology is the corporate charter. Where the corporate charter allowed for the decentralization of the power of kings & military decentralized token systems act on the power of the Nation State & Corporations. I don't know if you should care about it, but the technology is here it will be used and abused whether you care or not.

I think the broadest possible beneficial effect to the average person of this technology is the potential to reinvigorate what historically might be referred to as cooperatives or unions. To be able to self-select into pooling and multiplying your efforts with like-minded people on a global basis is a huge change from being the previous geo-spatial-political limitations to organization and cooperation.

Of course, there's nothing to prevent people from organizing around values like racialNationEugenicsCoin so there's plenty of potential for harm too.

Then there's the potential multiplier effect that you get out of this technology. It's not inconceivable that people on this forum could create a game or service that leverages decentralized tokens to accomplish what in the old paradigm would require lots of human and financial capital to achieve (think online game's, Uber, E-Bay, AirBnB). This efficiency of effort could potentially be used to further concentrate value than under old models or to require less value extraction from users. This particular effect is, I suspect, why in it's nascent state the technology is so pregnant with potential for scams.

Anyways I've gone on for too long, but that reflects some of my thinking. I'm not invested in crypto outside of, an admittedly limited, knowledge investment. I'd really love to have my mind changed but haven't come across a solid argument for how this tech isn't going to effect our human society as much as any of the related tech that's come before it.

One of the most attractive parts of 'digital nomadism' to me is that it doesn't require one to be a nomad. I could just as easily freelance from the small Kansas town I grew up in as from a van somewhere in SF.

From the perspective of having children and wanting them to experience actual physical community I see the trend towards remote work and freelancing as a boon. Instead of having to live in suburbia and commute to work everyday there's actually a viable path to living in a small community where cost of living is low and getting to actually spend time with my family. My kids can experience the independence of riding their bikes to the playground, I can be a part of their education and model something other than disappearing for 10 hours at time M-F and being tired all weekend.

Of course the trend could continue towards the majority moving as close to their regional hub as possible and spending their every waking moment glued to a screen, but I suspect that there will be at least a large minority of us who choose to embrace the possibilities that open up when one is not tied to a metropolis for work. Home ownership and physical community being two of those possibilities.

As someone who lives in a commuter town and is more libertarian than most libertarians, I'd happily pay an extra couple percent in sales taxes just for decent pedestrian access to the city.

If taxes are going to be spent on transit projects then I'd like enough sidewalks that I'm able to eschew public or private motorized transit all together.

I see a lot of fraud in the space, and it does seem like there's a lot of inefficiency in different solutions. However, it also appears to me to be an unavoidable continuation of a decentralization effort that kicked into high gear with the printing press. This process seems to have on average improved life for individuals, and so I have trouble seeing anything that moves decentralized solutions forward as addressing non-problems.

I am aware that my knowledge and understanding is quite limited and prone to error so I'm curious as to how you have come to your position.