5 ms·

A thing I've noticed about cryptocurrency news. The people that are pro cryptocurrency are often far too optimistic and sometimes are not the most academic peop

drcode 9y ago
That's how you can tell that cryptocurrency really is a from of money... only money could lead to this many strawman arguments and online mudslinging :-)
dvh 9y ago
Maybe we should create some discussion system where in order to post you need proof of expertise (PoE)
- Tinyyy 9y ago
  Well it’s hard to be negatively exposed to crypto so the discussion will be biased.
  - osteele 9y ago
    You can short crypto on Cboe and CME. A few minutes on the internet will reveal other means for shorting crypto.
- douglaswlance 9y ago
  With a methodology for generating consensus...
- desireco42 9y ago
  Excellent, and we need to release the token that you will get based on PoE.
- ty_a 9y ago
  Maybe you could count number of Ph.D contributors? I bet Bitcoin has as many or more than every other project combined.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    Why do you believe that?
  - kirillseva 9y ago
    IOTA has a lot of PhD contributors, allegedly
  - infowl 9y ago
    Citation needed. Appeal to authority, with no evidence of competency.
- osteele 9y ago
  Like Math CAPTCHA, only deeper and with more subject matter versions? One of the math forums (Cut the Knot?) had something like this, that actually required (I think) calculus. Reputation systems such as HN itself are another approach. These might not scale; or they might require an eigentrust-like system to scale; or scaling via eigentrust might create and reinforce the same kind of filter bubbles we see on social media. Who decides who’s a climate expert? Steemit is an attempt at a blockchain-based reputation system. Whenever I’ve looked, it’s been dominated by low-quality content, mostly about crypto itself. Maybe this is growing pains, or maybe a reputation system needs a different go-to-market (that bootstraps from an existing platform or community), or maybe wedding reputation to crypto — or at least to crypto that pays out — just isn’t a good idea. (You didn’t exactly suggest that, either; I just riffed my way over to it.)
  - simcop2387 9y ago
    As for a math captcha, http://random.irb.hr/signup.php http://random.irb.hr/signup.php sometimes it'll be simple arithmatic, other times multi-variable calculus.
- vinniejames 9y ago
  Like Stack overflow?
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  This idea was what lead to the split up of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on Wikipedia. Sanger went and created Citizendium which was supposed to be wikipedia with only credentialed authors and a panel of peer review. By all accounts Citizendium failed pretty spectacularly.
osteele 9y ago
I’ve noticed this with Tesla, too. I imagine that if people could take short or long positions* in programming languages and technologies, it would be difficult to find the current quality of reviews and discussion around those topics. I’ve been a fan of futarchy and prediction markets, but this phenomenon gives me pause. * I’m aware that investing time, effort or credibility in a technology is taking a long position in it, but direct financial positions seem to incentivize a different class of behavior (EDIT: probably because they require an investment only of money, rather than of these other resources that produce commitment or knowledge).
garmaine 9y ago
Reasonable discussion doesn’t happen on the internet (serious).
- crowbahr 9y ago
  I'd say reasonable discussion doesn't happen between strangers.
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  My experience is that reasonable discussion is a higher percentage of internet discussion than it is of in person discussion. But maybe I hang out in different places to you on the internet, or perhaps the people I spend time with in real life are insufficiently interested in 'reasonable discussion'.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  Actually, that's a reasonable statement. Uh oh. This reasoning is unreasonably self-contradictory.
- mancerayder 9y ago
  Maybe not on Reddit, which has an average age and IQ lower than here (in my very strong opinion). But on the Internet, which is really to say in written form, there's more room for attention span and dissection of arguments. In person, in conversation, you have attention span issues, you have failure to break down definitions and thus people arguing sideways against one another, etc. It's harder to cheat in the written word.
  - garmaine 9y ago
    Even hacker news has a rediculously low signal to noise compared with, say, well moderated community debate or other in person discussion.
eksemplar 9y ago
There are more than 1500 coins and tokens on the market, I’d wager that you could find a cryptocurrency project that fit almost everything that’s said in those discussions.
SamPatt 9y ago
Don't lump all cryptocurrency together. There are plenty of people who are strong believers in Bitcoin's more simple value proposition of electric cash and more simple scripting language than the complicated ethereum system.
doktrin 9y ago
> those that constantly critique cryptocurrency are often so wrong about their assumptions it's just pointless reading on People often criticize 'crypto' on the basis of technology, but are wrong about the market because the market is driven by psychology, and often disregards the tech. Like, people might say "oh, so-and-so is vaporware because it's literally just a whitepaper and an empty github repo", and then people go "pfft, whatever you don't understand their vision" - and the value goes up 50x over two weeks.
mancerayder 9y ago
A thing I've noticed about cryptocurrency news. The people that are pro cryptocurrency are often far too optimistic and sometimes are not the most academic people. However I've also noticed that those that constantly critique cryptocurrency are often so wrong about their assumptions it's just pointless reading on. It's so hard to actually get a reasonable discussion about cryptocurrency. It might be because of the intersection of different disciplines. For example, a math genius won't necessarily understand law, politics and/or economic policy. The others probably won't understand math. A marketing / CEO type might understand the business angle. Don't even get me started with 'journalists' who have to report on any of these areas. It's hard. There's some sort of Peter Principle effect where people from the various fields present themselves (perhaps sometimes accidentally) as experts in the other areas. Sorry, but knowing advanced cryptographic algorithms doesn't give you the authority such that I'm going to believe your predictions about law or politics. If you're an MBA/marketing type, hearing you talk about asymmetric encryption sometimes leads me to cringe. Meanwhile, the people who actually COMMENT on cryptocurrency news are the worst. They range from "there's nobody home in the head" types that type in all-caps comments that look more like wishes about 'the moon', or perhaps some attack against the FED and money-printing that they repeat; to baby boomers who scream about tulips and that you can't touch the digital assets. It's a disaster of information overload. The best you can do is observe, place your bets (if you're the betting type) and watch passively.
DidISayTooMuch 9y ago
I'm not sure if you are just following these lambo-moon kids on the internet. There are many many smart people working in the cryptocurrency. Just start following Naval Ravikanth, Adam Back, Balaji Srinivasan, Meltem Demirors et al.
- hndamien 9y ago
  I once had a very expensive chat with Naval and I told him that I was fairly confident that Mt Gox was insolvent. He was quite confident that it wasn't. Lesson: Don't trust anybody in crypto. I'm glad I didn't.
0xFFFF0000 9y ago
Discussion are commonly emotional, rather then rational - it's freedom, it's getting rid of banks, it's a scam, it's a secret project by the NSA, etc... and it's also politically charged topic, and everyone has an opinion, because a lot of people own crypto currency/mine or at least know someone who has. Its rare to see so many people interested in a given topic. There are great resources, although the are commonly rather vertical, then horizontal by topic. E.g. there is a lot of great technical information out around Bitcoin, how it works, wiki pages that discuss the code and algorithms in details - really useful stuff, e.g: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide Its rare though to find a more "cross-disciple" assessment/analysis of crypto currencies (political, economic impcat, society changes,...). If anyone has good resources, please share.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
Most of the worthwhile discussion happens on email lists and old clunky forums. There used to be subreddits that were decent, but that time has passed.

drcode 9y ago

That's how you can tell that cryptocurrency really is a from of money... only money could lead to this many strawman arguments and online mudslinging :-)

dvh 9y ago

Maybe we should create some discussion system where in order to post you need proof of expertise (PoE)

Tinyyy 9y ago
Well it’s hard to be negatively exposed to crypto so the discussion will be biased.
- osteele 9y ago
  You can short crypto on Cboe and CME. A few minutes on the internet will reveal other means for shorting crypto.
douglaswlance 9y ago
With a methodology for generating consensus...
desireco42 9y ago
Excellent, and we need to release the token that you will get based on PoE.
ty_a 9y ago
Maybe you could count number of Ph.D contributors? I bet Bitcoin has as many or more than every other project combined.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  Why do you believe that?
- kirillseva 9y ago
  IOTA has a lot of PhD contributors, allegedly
- infowl 9y ago
  Citation needed. Appeal to authority, with no evidence of competency.
osteele 9y ago
Like Math CAPTCHA, only deeper and with more subject matter versions? One of the math forums (Cut the Knot?) had something like this, that actually required (I think) calculus. Reputation systems such as HN itself are another approach. These might not scale; or they might require an eigentrust-like system to scale; or scaling via eigentrust might create and reinforce the same kind of filter bubbles we see on social media. Who decides who’s a climate expert? Steemit is an attempt at a blockchain-based reputation system. Whenever I’ve looked, it’s been dominated by low-quality content, mostly about crypto itself. Maybe this is growing pains, or maybe a reputation system needs a different go-to-market (that bootstraps from an existing platform or community), or maybe wedding reputation to crypto — or at least to crypto that pays out — just isn’t a good idea. (You didn’t exactly suggest that, either; I just riffed my way over to it.)
- simcop2387 9y ago
  As for a math captcha, http://random.irb.hr/signup.php http://random.irb.hr/signup.php sometimes it'll be simple arithmatic, other times multi-variable calculus.
vinniejames 9y ago
Like Stack overflow?
verylittlemeat 9y ago
This idea was what lead to the split up of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on Wikipedia. Sanger went and created Citizendium which was supposed to be wikipedia with only credentialed authors and a panel of peer review. By all accounts Citizendium failed pretty spectacularly.

osteele 9y ago

I’ve noticed this with Tesla, too. I imagine that if people could take short or long positions* in programming languages and technologies, it would be difficult to find the current quality of reviews and discussion around those topics. I’ve been a fan of futarchy and prediction markets, but this phenomenon gives me pause. * I’m aware that investing time, effort or credibility in a technology is taking a long position in it, but direct financial positions seem to incentivize a different class of behavior (EDIT: probably because they require an investment only of money, rather than of these other resources that produce commitment or knowledge).

garmaine 9y ago

Reasonable discussion doesn’t happen on the internet (serious).

crowbahr 9y ago
I'd say reasonable discussion doesn't happen between strangers.
kybernetikos 9y ago
My experience is that reasonable discussion is a higher percentage of internet discussion than it is of in person discussion. But maybe I hang out in different places to you on the internet, or perhaps the people I spend time with in real life are insufficiently interested in 'reasonable discussion'.
IncRnd 9y ago
Actually, that's a reasonable statement. Uh oh. This reasoning is unreasonably self-contradictory.
mancerayder 9y ago
Maybe not on Reddit, which has an average age and IQ lower than here (in my very strong opinion). But on the Internet, which is really to say in written form, there's more room for attention span and dissection of arguments. In person, in conversation, you have attention span issues, you have failure to break down definitions and thus people arguing sideways against one another, etc. It's harder to cheat in the written word.
- garmaine 9y ago
  Even hacker news has a rediculously low signal to noise compared with, say, well moderated community debate or other in person discussion.

eksemplar 9y ago

There are more than 1500 coins and tokens on the market, I’d wager that you could find a cryptocurrency project that fit almost everything that’s said in those discussions.

SamPatt 9y ago

Don't lump all cryptocurrency together. There are plenty of people who are strong believers in Bitcoin's more simple value proposition of electric cash and more simple scripting language than the complicated ethereum system.

doktrin 9y ago

> those that constantly critique cryptocurrency are often so wrong about their assumptions it's just pointless reading on People often criticize 'crypto' on the basis of technology, but are wrong about the market because the market is driven by psychology, and often disregards the tech. Like, people might say "oh, so-and-so is vaporware because it's literally just a whitepaper and an empty github repo", and then people go "pfft, whatever you don't understand their vision" - and the value goes up 50x over two weeks.

mancerayder 9y ago

A thing I've noticed about cryptocurrency news. The people that are pro cryptocurrency are often far too optimistic and sometimes are not the most academic people. However I've also noticed that those that constantly critique cryptocurrency are often so wrong about their assumptions it's just pointless reading on. It's so hard to actually get a reasonable discussion about cryptocurrency. It might be because of the intersection of different disciplines. For example, a math genius won't necessarily understand law, politics and/or economic policy. The others probably won't understand math. A marketing / CEO type might understand the business angle. Don't even get me started with 'journalists' who have to report on any of these areas. It's hard. There's some sort of Peter Principle effect where people from the various fields present themselves (perhaps sometimes accidentally) as experts in the other areas. Sorry, but knowing advanced cryptographic algorithms doesn't give you the authority such that I'm going to believe your predictions about law or politics. If you're an MBA/marketing type, hearing you talk about asymmetric encryption sometimes leads me to cringe. Meanwhile, the people who actually COMMENT on cryptocurrency news are the worst. They range from "there's nobody home in the head" types that type in all-caps comments that look more like wishes about 'the moon', or perhaps some attack against the FED and money-printing that they repeat; to baby boomers who scream about tulips and that you can't touch the digital assets. It's a disaster of information overload. The best you can do is observe, place your bets (if you're the betting type) and watch passively.

DidISayTooMuch 9y ago

I'm not sure if you are just following these lambo-moon kids on the internet. There are many many smart people working in the cryptocurrency. Just start following Naval Ravikanth, Adam Back, Balaji Srinivasan, Meltem Demirors et al.

hndamien 9y ago
I once had a very expensive chat with Naval and I told him that I was fairly confident that Mt Gox was insolvent. He was quite confident that it wasn't. Lesson: Don't trust anybody in crypto. I'm glad I didn't.

0xFFFF0000 9y ago

Discussion are commonly emotional, rather then rational - it's freedom, it's getting rid of banks, it's a scam, it's a secret project by the NSA, etc... and it's also politically charged topic, and everyone has an opinion, because a lot of people own crypto currency/mine or at least know someone who has. Its rare to see so many people interested in a given topic. There are great resources, although the are commonly rather vertical, then horizontal by topic. E.g. there is a lot of great technical information out around Bitcoin, how it works, wiki pages that discuss the code and algorithms in details - really useful stuff, e.g: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide Its rare though to find a more "cross-disciple" assessment/analysis of crypto currencies (political, economic impcat, society changes,...). If anyone has good resources, please share.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago

Most of the worthwhile discussion happens on email lists and old clunky forums. There used to be subreddits that were decent, but that time has passed.