3 ms·

I spend so much of my time on media literacy issues, and one thing I'd be careful of: most of these prognostications you cite should really be considered market

by nemild 7y ago

I spend so much of my time on media literacy issues, and one thing I'd be careful of: most of these prognostications you cite should really be considered marketing. They are not thoughtful views of cryptocurrency. If you're a software developer, I'd really dismiss lots of what you read about new technology, whether it be crypto or MongoDB. Here's my media literacy guide for software engineers: https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/software-engineers-media-guide.md https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/softwar... (It's kinda fun to realize that by getting excited about cryptocurrency, I also got excited about the financial incentives behind the media ecosystem) Also, be careful about throwing the baby (unfounded hype and speculation and charlatanism) with the bathwater (programmable money, open financial systems, digital scarcity).

panarky 7y ago
> babies and bathwater This reasoning is repeated for every new technology. "People are using [new thing] for [dangerous, speculative, immoral, hyped, trivial] purposes. Therefore [new thing] [will fail, will ruin civilization, should be banned]." I've witnessed this way of thinking with laser discs, VHS tapes, personal computers, modems and BBSs, fidonet email, Usenet, Compuserve and AOL, graphical web browsers, mobile phones, the internet, online shopping, video games, strong encryption, Google search, Facebook, ephemeral messaging, cryptocurrencies, machine learning, IoT and bioengineering. Maybe there were similar arguments about movable type, radio and television, I don't know. I used to be a Cassandra about new things but I've learned from my mistakes to ask different questions now. "If I ignore the [dangerous, immoral] uses of [new thing] is there still something worthwhile about it?" "How might the [hyped, trivial] uses of [new thing] change how we live and become important in the future?"
Nursie 7y ago
The bathwater is not that great AFAICT. Scarcity in and of itself isn't that great. I mean technically, sure, blockchains are an interesting if wasteful method of ensuring scarcity and consensus on a public network. But that doesn't mean the end result is all that interesting. Most of the other 'features' of blockchains are a negative - immutability/irreversibility, for example, or just a step backward in the capabilities provided by the mainstream systems.

by nemild 7y ago

panarky 7y ago

> babies and bathwater This reasoning is repeated for every new technology. "People are using [new thing] for [dangerous, speculative, immoral, hyped, trivial] purposes. Therefore [new thing] [will fail, will ruin civilization, should be banned]." I've witnessed this way of thinking with laser discs, VHS tapes, personal computers, modems and BBSs, fidonet email, Usenet, Compuserve and AOL, graphical web browsers, mobile phones, the internet, online shopping, video games, strong encryption, Google search, Facebook, ephemeral messaging, cryptocurrencies, machine learning, IoT and bioengineering. Maybe there were similar arguments about movable type, radio and television, I don't know. I used to be a Cassandra about new things but I've learned from my mistakes to ask different questions now. "If I ignore the [dangerous, immoral] uses of [new thing] is there still something worthwhile about it?" "How might the [hyped, trivial] uses of [new thing] change how we live and become important in the future?"

Nursie 7y ago

The bathwater is not that great AFAICT. Scarcity in and of itself isn't that great. I mean technically, sure, blockchains are an interesting if wasteful method of ensuring scarcity and consensus on a public network. But that doesn't mean the end result is all that interesting. Most of the other 'features' of blockchains are a negative - immutability/irreversibility, for example, or just a step backward in the capabilities provided by the mainstream systems.