5 ms·

How does that make them less novel? Your impression that the "vast majority of crypto/blockchain thing are either outright scams" is a personal opinion for whi

How does that make them less novel? Your impression that the "vast majority of crypto/blockchain thing are either outright scams" is a personal opinion for which you can't find supporting evidence. The SEC has only issued a hand full of notifications and LOST the only court case I've seen so far.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
"Scam" was only one of three categories I mentioned, but regardless here's a nice long list: https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist Ten years into the Web we had Google, Amazon, Geocities, eBay, Flash games, and thousands of existing companies moving their operations online. What is a single blockchain-related success we can point to other than cryptocurrency exchanges?
- decentralised 8y ago
  Who manages that list? Why do you trust it? edit: I looked through the site and most of the "scams" seemed more like basic phishing sites than actual blockchains or cryptocurrencies
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    Your anecdote is irrelevant. Scam sites usually give up their bitcoin related domains when they fail, which invariably get taken over by basic phishing sites. You should look on the Internet Archive to see what the scam sites were actually doing, before they went out of business and had their domains taken over by phishers. Funny that you trust and parrot Bitcoin scammers, but you don't trust a list of Bitcoin scammers. Afraid some you've invested in, hyped and promoted yourself might show up?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - decentralised 8y ago
      What anecdote? I've pointed out that most of the scams didn't actually involve a blockchain or tokens, as the SEC cases against a few of them show. The question of who manages the list is important so we can tell what method was used and what's the motivation to keep it. One of the areas I'm most interested is cryptoeconomics and of course fairness and transparency matter to me which is why I wonder why would you defend this site as if you knew it to be true and accurate.
      - DonHopkins 8y ago
        Your anecdote about looking through the site. How could you possibly not understand that? Nothing I said in any way was a defense of the site. Where did you get that idea? You're obviously not reading anything that I wrote, and just trying to be contrary to make it sound like you're making an argument. Please don't bother replying if you can't understand what I'm saying, and make stuff up that I didn't say.
- anongraddebt 8y ago
  We had these companies by '99, so assume the starting point for the ten year timeline is 1989. The 'internet' had already been opened up to certain universities/institutions in 1981 (and was in government R&D years before that). There were plenty of people in 1991 who said the internet wasn't going to be or do much of anything. The most charitable reading of the crypto tech timeline is to say that the bubble popped at the protocol layer instead of the application layer. In that case, we're somewhere around 1989-1993/94. Maybe we're still waiting for a Tim Berners-Lee. Who knows.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

"Scam" was only one of three categories I mentioned, but regardless here's a nice long list: https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist Ten years into the Web we had Google, Amazon, Geocities, eBay, Flash games, and thousands of existing companies moving their operations online. What is a single blockchain-related success we can point to other than cryptocurrency exchanges?

decentralised 8y ago
Who manages that list? Why do you trust it? edit: I looked through the site and most of the "scams" seemed more like basic phishing sites than actual blockchains or cryptocurrencies
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  Your anecdote is irrelevant. Scam sites usually give up their bitcoin related domains when they fail, which invariably get taken over by basic phishing sites. You should look on the Internet Archive to see what the scam sites were actually doing, before they went out of business and had their domains taken over by phishers. Funny that you trust and parrot Bitcoin scammers, but you don't trust a list of Bitcoin scammers. Afraid some you've invested in, hyped and promoted yourself might show up?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - decentralised 8y ago
    What anecdote? I've pointed out that most of the scams didn't actually involve a blockchain or tokens, as the SEC cases against a few of them show. The question of who manages the list is important so we can tell what method was used and what's the motivation to keep it. One of the areas I'm most interested is cryptoeconomics and of course fairness and transparency matter to me which is why I wonder why would you defend this site as if you knew it to be true and accurate.
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      Your anecdote about looking through the site. How could you possibly not understand that? Nothing I said in any way was a defense of the site. Where did you get that idea? You're obviously not reading anything that I wrote, and just trying to be contrary to make it sound like you're making an argument. Please don't bother replying if you can't understand what I'm saying, and make stuff up that I didn't say.
anongraddebt 8y ago
We had these companies by '99, so assume the starting point for the ten year timeline is 1989. The 'internet' had already been opened up to certain universities/institutions in 1981 (and was in government R&D years before that). There were plenty of people in 1991 who said the internet wasn't going to be or do much of anything. The most charitable reading of the crypto tech timeline is to say that the bubble popped at the protocol layer instead of the application layer. In that case, we're somewhere around 1989-1993/94. Maybe we're still waiting for a Tim Berners-Lee. Who knows.