It's not quite there yet, and there is a long way to go, but at least there is some progress.
That is the solution. What is the problem? I understand the problem they want to solve but I don't think that is truly the problem. I drank the kool-aid for over a year before I realized that the theoretical and practical realities are incompatible.
A truly trustless decentralized ledger is for the most part useless since as soon as you need to interact outside of the system (like change real world goods). Registering ownership on Ethereum and being trustless cannot coincide as ownership is a societal construct backed by governments and consensus. If I register stock on ethereum, I still need trust in the societal agreement outside of ethereum. Only transactions are trustlessm, but it is still very very far from clear that trustless transactions actually mean something without trustless assets that can be run on a truly trustless network.
I think this is evidenced by the fact that there are no compelling real world use cases for ethereum. There has been a huge downturn in turnouts at ethereum events and mindshare coinciding with the DAO attack after they shot themselves in the foot by doing the manual rollback which showed you still need trust in the network that runs the "trustless" system thus there is no such thing as a trustless system.
Yes it is still young, but I don't believe the theoretical case of having a trustless system (ethereum) interact with a trustful system (human society) while still being trustless is solved or even possible.
As soon as trust enters into the equation at any level the entire premise of ethereum is worthless moot. Could there be a narrow domain of applications that can use a "minimal trust network"? Yes. But that is different from being truly trustless.
Trust is a feature not a bug. Are there situations where you want less trust? Absolutely. But you are shifting the trust to another agent, not getting rid of it completely. Ethereum can exist, but it won't transform society and replace governements like everyone was hoping to ~9 months ago.
I'm not sure what downturn you've seen since ethereums devcon this year had over 700 participants attending despite being in China, and there is another conference next month this time in europe, so if anything it keeps growing.
The DAO was too much, too soon. you say "they" which I'm not sure who you mean, but please note that ppl behind the DAO are not the same as the Ethereum foundation, consensys, reuters, deloitte, santander, etc.. let's not conflate one group and their mistakes with the entire Ethereum comunity.
As for oracles, they are an interesting problem to solve. Note that not every project would necessary require outside interaction (such as a decentralized DNS), sometimes there are creative solutiosn to do certain things externally (http://www.ethereum-computation-market.com/), and there are ways to verify the validity of the data a oracle is providing, as an example you can watch this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pDUobV8geI
Eth's problem is exactly what you said: it's a solution desperately in search of a problem. I believe there are legitimate reasons to displace decentralized systems, but the market just isn't there yet. The value add just isn't there for anyone but a specific kind of nerd.
The fact that things are a bit raw and technical right now is a function of the whole system being less than two years old, and still rapidly changing. But it's already at a point where an Ethereum app can have a nice web UI, and all you need to use it is a Chrome plugin and a little ether.
I notice that a few times when various people (including myself) raised critical feedback we were marginalized. I know a few brilliant people who were kicked out of various Ethereum related stack channels for non-conformity, for example.
What about online gambling? With a trustless system, you can now prove that the game is fair, and isn't going to up and steal your money.
Gambling is frequently thought of as a "shady" business where trust matters a lot.
There is no interaction with real world goods. (the exchanges handle that).
Ether can provide some measure of server/network-side honesty, but makes no guarantees about what happens on the client side. So you must assume that all the other clients are super-powered bot-enhanced adversaries, or you need some way to trust and verify the client-side behavior of your peers.
The robots have come for oru jobs, and now they have come for our play.
The vast majority of gambling is not poker. It is slot machines or blackjack.
Client side stuff wouldn't matter for gambling Vs the house stuff (which is what most gambling is!!)
The dealer picks a random 512-bit number, X_0, and publishes a hash of X_0 to the players.
Each of the N players, picks another random 512-bit number and publishes it. These are X_1, X_2, ..., X_N.
The dealer xors X_0 through X_N to get a random seed to shuffle and deal out the deck.
At the end, the dealer publishes X_0 so the players can verify the dealer wasn't cheating.
what evidence of demand is there? what compelling need is there for existing infrastructures to uproot their investments for some elusive buzzword?
go ahead and downvote my critical views on Ethereum, I'm already used to it from /r/ethereum pumpers. But I'm taking away that there's no good rationale for adopting Ethereum or blockchain technology other than very micro and esoteric niches.
Btw, you used the word 'pumpers', I really couldn't care less about the price. I hate the whole market thing. Bitcoin/Ether could be $10K or $1 for all I care.
Also, I actually agree 100% that there is no good rationale for adopting Ethereum & blockcahin technology as it is right now as there is so much more to do until it's actually practical.
I doubt the game involves miner verification.
Edit: Read the linked blog post. "Provably Fair" since there's a verifier that takes the seed and user inputs and replays the game to find the score. Depending how it's implemented this could introduce new issues and holes. Most importantly it makes the verifier a rate limiting step and puts an upper limit on the complexity of games. Interesting stuff.
Of course, the ethically-challenged are endlessly creative, so there are cons you can do with that too - e.g., biasing any numbers the player didn't grab the hash for: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948965.0