3 ms·

I'm not an unequivocal fan of cryptocurrencies or any particular cryptocurrency by any means, but it appears this author really hates cryptocurrency and this is

I'm not an unequivocal fan of cryptocurrencies or any particular cryptocurrency by any means, but it appears this author really hates cryptocurrency and this is just an opportunity for them to argue that governments should ban cryptocurrency. Which is completely understandable and obviously in good faith given ransomware is bad and they think cryptocurrencies are bad, but I just wanted to point out their stance and that this is an anti-cryptocurrency blog rather than a security/tech blog. Every blog post they've ever published is about why they think cryptocurrency is awful: https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog.html >The Oncoming Ransomware Storm - May 11, 2021 >Et tu, Signal? - April 7, 2021 >The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban - March 30, 2021 >Bitcoin: The Postmodern Ponzi - February 27, 2021 >The Crypto Chernobyl - February 10, 2021 >Gamestop, Bitcoin and the Commoditization of Populist Rage - February 3, 2021 >Facebook Libra is Architecturally Unsound - November 2, 2019 I think they make many valid criticisms, but they remind me of the inverse of the standard Bitcoin maximalist. It seems there are a lot of people who think Bitcoin or Ethereum or something else should become the universal currency of the world and is the best and most innovative thing ever, and a lot of other people who think they should all be made illegal and are the worst thing ever. Also somewhat reminiscent of pg's fanboy/hater dichotomy: http://www.paulgraham.com/fh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/fh.html

pja 5y ago
This is just an ad hominem response to Stephen's argument.
- meowface 5y ago
  It 100% is an ad hominem response. I'm not trying to address his arguments whatsoever and am very low on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. And again, I do agree with many of his points. I just personally don't think banning cryptocurrencies (or pretty much anything) is the answer, and the very "ban-happy" attitude colors my impression of all of this and makes it less likely that I'd want to attempt to address their arguments, because I know they've very likely already made up their mind that they think the only solution is a government crackdown.
  - pja 5y ago
    I guess I’d like to see either a) a genuine engagement with the actual arguments made or b) alternative proposals that make his proposed solution moot. It seems to me that a strong dislike of the cryptocurrency space is an entirely reasonable & rational position to take at this point in time: the harm done with & by cryptocurrencies is now very obvious - if cryptocurrency boosters can demonstrate positive outcomes that outweigh those harms then they should be easily able to do so.
    - meowface 5y ago
      I definitely wouldn't call myself a cryptocurrency booster. I similarly wouldn't call myself a Tor booster. But if I saw someone advocating that governments should ban Tor ("what's the point except facilitating illegal activity and harassment/ban evasion/spam/malware/DDoSing/hacking"), I'd definitely want to counter that. If I ever make my own blog or something, I could write a thorough response to all of his own blog posts, including this one, but I think it's too much to ask for in an HN comment. (I also don't have nearly enough expertise to warrant making a blog or writing a blog post just for something like that.) I already wrote some responses with regards to ransomware in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096137, where I argue the root of the problem is the Russian government's policy of not in any way inhibiting cybercriminals as long as the criminals don't target Russian/Russia-allied citizens. I don't think banning cryptocurrency would help decrease ransomware that much. Ransomware was still prevalent before Bitcoin existed; it was just a much more immature space, with much less sophisticated and damaging malware. The top ransomware operators are either going to find alternatives, or, more likely, just circumvent the bans through various means. Regarding the other externalities associated with cryptocurrencies, I think many of his points are valid. There's absolutely no mention of the positive outcomes, though. I don't know if those positive outcomes outweigh those harms now or if they will in the future; it depends how you calculate it. I don't know if the positive outcomes of Tor now or ever will outweigh the negative outcomes. I still don't want either banned. And I think a good case could be made that the positive outcomes may outweigh the negative ones, for Proof of Stake-based smart contract protocols like the upcoming Ethereum 2.0, which will likely be out this year. (And please none of this ridiculous "Proof of Stake is vaporware and continuously promised to be just around the corner, like cold fusion", because it's not true. Tons of progress has been made and is being made every day.) I don't think cryptocurrencies (like ether) are necessarily that interesting, but decentralized smart contract protocols (like Ethereum) are super technologically and societally interesting. I think I could write an even longer blog post about the core problem I have with this writing. I would feel this way if I read someone writing like this about almost any topic imaginable in the world. It's extremely one-sided, unnuanced, uncharitable, unrigorous, and comes across as very emotionally charged and biased. (And all this was before I learned he's the founder of a company that's trying to compete with cryptocurrencies in many ways.) The tone and style is the main thing I dislike.
- literally_lit 5y ago
  It shows a clear bias on the part of the author and a reason to believe they would argue in bad faith. The author being a founder a company for which cryptocurrencies are competitors makes this doubly true.
  - meowface 5y ago
    >The author being a founder a company for which cryptocurrencies are competitors makes this doubly true. I totally missed this. That makes it worse. The company's tagline is "[company name] digitises cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates [sic?]", which is a pretty clear overlap. I don't necessarily see any evidence he's doing anything in bad faith, though - I just think he's extremely biased and narrowly agenda-driven. My main issue is just how much he seems to viscerally hate cryptocurrencies. It makes it harder to take it seriously. Like how incredibly snarky and spiteful he comes across in his most recent ostensibly-about-programming blog post: https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/fpt.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/fpt.html cryptoBusinessLogic = bid $ 10000000 $ do profits <- runRansomware launderMoney profits drugCartels void $ smashPuppies It's all starting to feel so political and a little bit religious. I sense a lot of parallels between staunchly pro- and anti-cryptocurrency people and the US political divide and culture wars. I know it's an annoying trope (https://xkcd.com/774/ https://xkcd.com/774/), but in the case of both politics and cryptocurrency, each side seems insufferable. I feel "accidentally moderate" (http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html) on both topics. edit: Side note, just to counter-balance the criticism. I knew his name seemed familiar; he wrote one of the most useful and formative tutorials for me when I started programming about a decade ago: https://sdiehl.github.io/gevent-tutorial/ https://sdiehl.github.io/gevent-tutorial/. (Although it's a bit gauche now, I still use gevent for new projects to this day.) It's more due to serendipity than anything else since there's not anything too special about it, but in my case it's actually possible I never would've become a developer if not for his tutorial - I used it to build my first programming project at a time when I was kind of struggling with many concepts and unsure if I wanted to go through with it. It goes to show that there isn't necessarily much correlation between (one's perception of) people's technical and non-technical attributes.
    - 5y ago
wespiser_2018 5y ago
Stephen takes an anti-crypto view and he's not trying to hid it. He's isn't some "hater" that got burnt on a random ICO, but a thoughtful engineer who backs up his opinions with technical, societal, and economic arguments based in part on his own experience in the blockchain space.
- meowface 5y ago
  I definitely acknowledge all that. I'm not questioning his motives, and I also agree with many of his arguments. I just don't agree with other arguments, or the conclusions, and I don't really understand the tone and ruthless hostility. I wouldn't even really understand it if the topic were just about anything else in the world.

pja 5y ago

This is just an ad hominem response to Stephen's argument.

meowface 5y ago
It 100% is an ad hominem response. I'm not trying to address his arguments whatsoever and am very low on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. And again, I do agree with many of his points. I just personally don't think banning cryptocurrencies (or pretty much anything) is the answer, and the very "ban-happy" attitude colors my impression of all of this and makes it less likely that I'd want to attempt to address their arguments, because I know they've very likely already made up their mind that they think the only solution is a government crackdown.
- pja 5y ago
  I guess I’d like to see either a) a genuine engagement with the actual arguments made or b) alternative proposals that make his proposed solution moot. It seems to me that a strong dislike of the cryptocurrency space is an entirely reasonable & rational position to take at this point in time: the harm done with & by cryptocurrencies is now very obvious - if cryptocurrency boosters can demonstrate positive outcomes that outweigh those harms then they should be easily able to do so.
  - meowface 5y ago
    I definitely wouldn't call myself a cryptocurrency booster. I similarly wouldn't call myself a Tor booster. But if I saw someone advocating that governments should ban Tor ("what's the point except facilitating illegal activity and harassment/ban evasion/spam/malware/DDoSing/hacking"), I'd definitely want to counter that. If I ever make my own blog or something, I could write a thorough response to all of his own blog posts, including this one, but I think it's too much to ask for in an HN comment. (I also don't have nearly enough expertise to warrant making a blog or writing a blog post just for something like that.) I already wrote some responses with regards to ransomware in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096137, where I argue the root of the problem is the Russian government's policy of not in any way inhibiting cybercriminals as long as the criminals don't target Russian/Russia-allied citizens. I don't think banning cryptocurrency would help decrease ransomware that much. Ransomware was still prevalent before Bitcoin existed; it was just a much more immature space, with much less sophisticated and damaging malware. The top ransomware operators are either going to find alternatives, or, more likely, just circumvent the bans through various means. Regarding the other externalities associated with cryptocurrencies, I think many of his points are valid. There's absolutely no mention of the positive outcomes, though. I don't know if those positive outcomes outweigh those harms now or if they will in the future; it depends how you calculate it. I don't know if the positive outcomes of Tor now or ever will outweigh the negative outcomes. I still don't want either banned. And I think a good case could be made that the positive outcomes may outweigh the negative ones, for Proof of Stake-based smart contract protocols like the upcoming Ethereum 2.0, which will likely be out this year. (And please none of this ridiculous "Proof of Stake is vaporware and continuously promised to be just around the corner, like cold fusion", because it's not true. Tons of progress has been made and is being made every day.) I don't think cryptocurrencies (like ether) are necessarily that interesting, but decentralized smart contract protocols (like Ethereum) are super technologically and societally interesting. I think I could write an even longer blog post about the core problem I have with this writing. I would feel this way if I read someone writing like this about almost any topic imaginable in the world. It's extremely one-sided, unnuanced, uncharitable, unrigorous, and comes across as very emotionally charged and biased. (And all this was before I learned he's the founder of a company that's trying to compete with cryptocurrencies in many ways.) The tone and style is the main thing I dislike.
literally_lit 5y ago
It shows a clear bias on the part of the author and a reason to believe they would argue in bad faith. The author being a founder a company for which cryptocurrencies are competitors makes this doubly true.
- meowface 5y ago
  >The author being a founder a company for which cryptocurrencies are competitors makes this doubly true. I totally missed this. That makes it worse. The company's tagline is "[company name] digitises cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates [sic?]", which is a pretty clear overlap. I don't necessarily see any evidence he's doing anything in bad faith, though - I just think he's extremely biased and narrowly agenda-driven. My main issue is just how much he seems to viscerally hate cryptocurrencies. It makes it harder to take it seriously. Like how incredibly snarky and spiteful he comes across in his most recent ostensibly-about-programming blog post: https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/fpt.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/fpt.html cryptoBusinessLogic = bid $ 10000000 $ do profits <- runRansomware launderMoney profits drugCartels void $ smashPuppies It's all starting to feel so political and a little bit religious. I sense a lot of parallels between staunchly pro- and anti-cryptocurrency people and the US political divide and culture wars. I know it's an annoying trope (https://xkcd.com/774/ https://xkcd.com/774/), but in the case of both politics and cryptocurrency, each side seems insufferable. I feel "accidentally moderate" (http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html) on both topics. edit: Side note, just to counter-balance the criticism. I knew his name seemed familiar; he wrote one of the most useful and formative tutorials for me when I started programming about a decade ago: https://sdiehl.github.io/gevent-tutorial/ https://sdiehl.github.io/gevent-tutorial/. (Although it's a bit gauche now, I still use gevent for new projects to this day.) It's more due to serendipity than anything else since there's not anything too special about it, but in my case it's actually possible I never would've become a developer if not for his tutorial - I used it to build my first programming project at a time when I was kind of struggling with many concepts and unsure if I wanted to go through with it. It goes to show that there isn't necessarily much correlation between (one's perception of) people's technical and non-technical attributes.
  - 5y ago

wespiser_2018 5y ago

Stephen takes an anti-crypto view and he's not trying to hid it. He's isn't some "hater" that got burnt on a random ICO, but a thoughtful engineer who backs up his opinions with technical, societal, and economic arguments based in part on his own experience in the blockchain space.

meowface 5y ago
I definitely acknowledge all that. I'm not questioning his motives, and I also agree with many of his arguments. I just don't agree with other arguments, or the conclusions, and I don't really understand the tone and ruthless hostility. I wouldn't even really understand it if the topic were just about anything else in the world.