For everyone saying apps need permission to use your mic I want to point you to "play services". The permissions protections only apply to user space apps not system apps. Thats how u can say "OK google" and get the chat ai to pop up even tho its "not listening" according to the OS.

Also if you read the website they are not piping audio to their servers. They push triggers (keywords, etc) to the local ai on your phone that listens for things like "OK google" and then sends those reports back.

Meta apps would need permission to to mic but I think if y'all check your big tech apps u will be surprised how many have that permission.

I can't speak to iOS because its closed source but it probably has similar backdoors for apple.

The way NFTs are currently impliented is just down right dumb haha. And their stupidity hurts blockchain's image and puts so much mud in the water when it comes to people understanding the tech. Add all the greedy people who try to exploit that confusion and the whole thing gets really ugly really fast.

Sadly this all then becomes the focus and its all people seem to see when they try and understand the tech.

The use case here is proof of origin and history not ownership of a hosted file. You can't directly apply NFTs to this.

The verification of hashes of files is the point. You want to be able to say "this video I'm watching was unaltered and signed by source X who has a verifiable reputation of providing data which has been verified by other entities who also have been verified". You don't store the media on the block chain.

Again the key here is that its a reputation system. Everything in life comes down to he said she said. But having perminant history of what they said and the evidence used is what allows you to weight the claims. Or yes, you could just pick one entity to tell you want to believe...

I would argue public records are a utility in their own right. But the point is that if you allow an institution to hold all the records they decide which ones can be seen and have ability to manipulate the truth. I realize that many Lemmy users seem to be fine with that but IMO your just picking and agreeing with your chosen leader at that point. A free open and transparent system of reputation that is not controlled by anyone ensures access to information for everyone while hindering the ability of bad actors to manipulate the " truth".

I find the "we already have people who keep history for us" argument odd. Sure, we do. But then is it really an issue to have another open system along side them? What cost is it to you? Why be opposed to multiple ways to try and achieve a goal? I'm not saying traditional organizations should not exist. I'm saying this tech provides a pretty rubust solution and should be taken seriously.

Anyways I know we arnt going to agree. But I wanted to put my argument here for anyone reading.

Its always worth exploring multiple solutions to a problem.

For a reputation based system and proof of origin and history traceability is exactly what we want.

For untraceable internet cash just look to monero

Omitting information is a pretty serious attack in a reputation based system. It would be like if all 1 star reviews on a product are omitted. You can have multiple hosts but then its on the viewer to find and verify on other hosts. And there is no garentee a history will continue to be hosted long term. Likley many histories will be lost over time. Especially considering these hosts then need a profit motive or some other motive to continue hosting them. You can have chains of signatures together similar to how SSL certs work but you will still need an authority at the end of that chain and it would result in many versions of the chain as multiple entities interact with it.

The cost of using a block chain is what keeps the motives in line. Hosting costs money. And if hosting costs are not covered then it leaves the door open for loss of data or malicious motives. Tho I agree base chain transactions are often too expensive. This is solved by any one of the many scaling solutions that exists. Tho I admit they are all still pretty early tech. With such solutions costs should be at least 10x smaller.

I would argue the ability to have a single distributed ledger and its forever history, colloraboration tools and inability to have information left out is considerably more then a marginal improvement.

Your missing the history part. Obviously any signature in isolation is only as good as your knowlage of that person. Thats how cryptography has worked classically. A block chain is not just a hosting service. Of course that could be done cheaper. The point is to have imutable history of what information is provided. This allows a reputation system as well as the ability for parties to endorce or rebuke information in a way that can not be covered up later.

Trust requires reputation. No anonymous person in isolation can be trusted. The point is to allow collaborative verification with proof. And that can not be done by a centralized host or authority without giving that authority control over what is "true".

It failed because owning digital collectables is dumb or because block chain failed to create immutable cryptographic proofs and history that could be read by anyone? I think your missing the forest for the trees. Confusing a demo case for the tech that made it possible.

I'm kinda amazed I haven't seen anyone mention the biggest upcoming use case for block chain here. In a world where anyone can create any media with Ai we are going to need robust systems of cryptographic proof of origin and history that anyone can access and that is not controlled by anyone who may wish to manipulate information. The exact strength of block chain.

As for cryptocurrency I'm seeing a lot of confusion here in how people think it works. While scaling has been an issue its not an insolvable one and multiple solutions exist. The issue with crypto is its image not the tech in general. And thats a combination of people using it to scam and governments/banks doing their best to discredit it.