My current answer to that question is that any industry that relies on trust could be structured in this way. If DNS were implemented on a blockchain, purchasing that chain's currency would be betting on increasing demand for that chain's transactions, domain names. What other industries are fundamentally about trust?
In case you're not aware: there is a BitCoin fork which seeks to compete with DNS, called NameCoin. Though the primary purpose is domain resolution, it's also a generic key-value storage system using the block chain.
Verification and validation. Bitcoin gives us a way to change and extend the trusted third party system Cryptography has been built on since the 80s. Those schemes worked great in theory, but it turns out there are no trusted third parties to build them on.
Virtually any service that can feasibly be arranged and delivered online is fundamentally about trust, and you don't even need Bitcoin to solve many of those.
I'm reminded of an example which I believe was given by some libertarian writer, perhaps David Friedman. One big role of governments and private institutions is the regulation of service industries through testing and licensing. In many places it is illegal to provide legal advice without an official license, often from the government. But all you need is email and public key cryptography to solve that issue. A certain legal expert, known only by his public key, could develop a good reputation for providing good service in some jurisdiction, let's say California. He need not be legally licensed in California or even live in California. You can just email him your question, arrange some electronic payment (okay, Bitcoin could work here), and he can respond with legal advice signed with his private key. Bingo. You know for a fact that you received legal advice from someone with a good reputation for providing legal advice, which is precisely the point of government licensing for lawyers.
Yeah, just gonna be a suckers game for all those people who get burned by people who provide bad legal advice while we churn through figuring out who knows what they're talking about it and can build up that "good" reputation.
EDIT: I mean sure, some people are going to die of contaminated food. But once the trustworthy labs are known, everything will be fine! It's not like companies or people ever change in quality either so it will be good for all time.
Surely you know that government regulations in every industry also came after bad incidents in that industry. Similarly, cures for diseases tend to be invented after those diseases come into existence, and poor product reviews come after people have already bought the products.
You seem to be implying that government regulation prevents any bad incidences from ever occurring, when that is absolutely not the case. Heck, even with government licensing, most people still turn to non-government sources of information (namely reviews from previous customers) to determine which providers to use for things like lawyers and doctors.
Regulatory bodies were invented after it became apparent no one can trust private industry to act in the best interests of the public. The FDA was invented because blue milk was being mixed with wall plaster and sold anyway.
The onus, now, is to prove your product is safe. Not that it doesn't contain wall plaster. You have to prove you've taken precautions against deleterious outcomes at the outset.
And that's the problem you're not addressing: how, in providing legal advice, does a new player enter the game? And what do you do if everyone in it is actually really bad at what they do, but see no money in improving it?
You've managed to say "well the system as it is kind of works that way" and so your conclusion is "hey, let's strip away some protections, and definitely stop trying to think ahead about what outcomes we're trying to achieve."
Because you know, what could go wrong? Just hope you're not in the "learner experience" losses I guess. You sign up for unlicensed drug trials right?
> Regulatory bodies were invented after it became apparent no one can trust private industry to act in the best interests of the public.
Perhaps, but by now it should be apparent that no one can trust regulatory bodies to act in the best interests of the public either.
> And that's the problem you're not addressing: how, in providing legal advice, does a new player enter the game? And what do you do if everyone in it is actually really bad at what they do, but see no money in improving it?
How do things work now, in industries that are less regulated (like babysitting), or even in industries that are highly regulated (like restaurants)? I'm not an entrepreneur or a businessperson, so I don't really know, but I suspect that if I wanted to offer legal advice for a living, I would attempt to get statements from well-regarded individuals or organizations (perhaps experienced lawyers, or law schools) affirming my ability. I would use those statements to advertise my services. This is just a guess, based on what inexperienced lawyers already do in our current system.
> your conclusion is "hey, let's strip away some protections, and definitely stop trying to think ahead about what outcomes we're trying to achieve."
No, my solution is to strip away political authority, and with it the possibility of regulatory capture, a drawback which I think far outweighs the benefits.
> Just hope you're not in the "learner experience" losses I guess.
I've been to several bad restaurants, but my reaction is to give them a poor review rather than to wish for the government to ban them.
> You sign up for unlicensed drug trials right?
I don't sign up for any drug trials, but I might if there was an illegal drug I thought was necessary for my health but which was banned by regulatory agencies. And that has actually happened with the FDA.
