6 ms·
No. Give up. It's over. Use context clues. Not a statement on the merit of cryptocurrency or your reasoning, just a descriptivist observation.
by jraines 9y ago
No. Give up. It's over. Use context clues. Not a statement on the merit of cryptocurrency or your reasoning, just a descriptivist observation.
- canes123456 9y agoI don't care one way or the other but I don't see 'crypto' being that widespread yet.
- semi-extrinsic 9y agoA fifty year old not-very-tech-savvy colleague recently suggested (in jest) that we could pitch something as "crypto-nano, for maximum buzzword effect".
- jacobush 9y agoHey... that could be a thing. A MEMS device, like a miniature (sorry, nano) Enigma machine.
- sanderjd 9y agoAnother possibility: folks like your parent may be able to keep fighting this fight long enough for cryptocurrency to fall off the mainstream hype radar and the smaller, more knowledgeable, community driving whatever the future steady-state of all this craziness ends up being may actually coalesce on better language (something involving "blockchain" perhaps?). I tend to think you're right that it's time to just sigh, shake our collective head, roll our collective eyes, and give up fighting this battle, but the future I just described seems at least somewhat plausible to me.
- jacobush 9y ago"Crypto" is slightly easier and faster to say out loud than "blockchain". So, it's over, move on.
- sanderjd 9y agoYou didn't respond to my point at all. People talk about this stuff like everything is established and permanent now that there has been, what, a year? of mainstream interest. It's absurd. Let's re-evaluate once we've moved a ways past the "flash in a pan" point.
- jacobush 9y agoYou are right, sorry, I didn't. About that, I think it won't be a flash in the pan. I think it's here to stay and people won't stop talking about cryptocurrencies.