[leifg]

> Concretely, our approach starts with collecting and steel-manning the key claims made for web3 through conscious, critical and open dialog with a diverse set of experts.

This is something that is desperately needed. More often than not I try to assess bold claims like "Blockchains will solve X". I try to follow the thought process of these claims and arrive at the solution: "Blockchains will most likely NOT solve X". The first comment to that is usually: "It was never supposed to solve X it is rather about Y which is loosely related to X".

There is no way to have a proper debate if one side if flip flopping about claims.

[okwubodu]

There's no debate to be had most of the time. Something about this particular topic makes people so prone to decide they're right first, then debate as if making the smallest concession means defeat.

Any discussion on the basis of "X will solve Y" or "X will most likely NOT solve Y" predictably spirals on and on because the parties chose hypothetical claims that can't be falsified so it's easier to play with semantics and pretend the other doesn't get it yet.

[pavlov]

The onus is on those making extraordinary claims to prove them, not on others to prove them wrong.

Blockchain is cold fusion for tech bros.

[jklm]

Extraordinary is subjective though, no?

If I were working at a dot-com company at the turn of century, it would have been extraordinary to me that there were people that didn't believe in the internet and still used white/yellow pages.

Soon after, with the crash, I would have been very wrong. And a few years after that, I would have been very right again.

As soon as any discussion becomes the 'other side' needing to prove something, it's likely already terminal.

[okwubodu]

Any claim about the future needs backing. That’s the only thing separating a thesis from a magic 8-ball.

> Blockchain is cold fusion for tech bros.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost...