6 ms·

You have thing upside down. Crypto, its fast-moving technology and implications on the financial system, economics, politics and the media is so vast that it co

by fleddr 5y ago

You have thing upside down. Crypto, its fast-moving technology and implications on the financial system, economics, politics and the media is so vast that it costs thousands of hours to study. Your strategy is to say "you're wrong, prove me right". No, I won't be writing book-length comments here to convince some internet stranger whom is categorically against it. I have no burden of proof. I'm not even a proponent or opponent. All I said is that it's complicated and two-sided, to keep an open mind. I'm not here to explain you crypto.

maxbond 5y ago
If you don't have an argument to make, perhaps it's better to say nothing? When you come out and say, things are too complex to make an argument, it can read like FUD and whataboutism. As if you are attacking an idea that an argument _can_ be made. I'm sure you didn't set out to muddy the waters, but after having muddied them in the middle of a lively debate, I think this is the sort of response you should expect to receive. Coherent arguments against cryptocurrencies are readily available. The case for cryptocurrencies is shifting, contradictory, and often nonsensical. This means something. It matters.
knorker 5y ago
If this were in isolation then yes I'd agree. And twitter is not the best way to make points. But I'm pointing out that this is ALWAYS the argument pro-cryptocurrency. It's not this instance, but a pattern. Cryptocurrency people refute entire books and deep analysis (from actual experts) with "everything you just said is wrong, but I have to go now so can't say why". It's not this in isolation, but the fact that it's a cliche that's the thing. It's comical. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're laying the ground work for waving your hand and saying "book? By the time it's published the technology has moved on, so it's not relevant, so let's just ignore the whole thing" when the main arguments against cryptocurrencies/smart contracts are not about the details of the tech. The arguments are mainly about the premises and the goals. What technical means get invented then becomes irrelevant.
- fleddr 5y ago
  I get what you're saying. You think I'm the typical crypto "bro" fleeing the scene as soon as some evidence need to be produced. I'm not a crypto bro, so I don't need to defend the case for crypto. 6 months ago I was in exactly the same spot as most people here dismissing the industry as a whole. Admittedly, largely based on hear-say and the mainstream narrative. Not by actually knowing anything about it. After taking a deep dive I've changed my mind on some aspects, but not all. I would not agree with my past self, I was ignorant. Even if you do study it deeply and still conclude it's all garbage, it's an intellectually fascinating journey. You get to learn a lot about history, human psychology, our financial system, politics, trading...basically how the world works. Interesting stuff to debate, but this is not the place. Fine.
  - knorker 5y ago
    It's probably not the place. But I'd like to say still that my opinion is not based on ignorance. The more I read (and I mean books too, not just rando's blogs and tweetstorms) on this, listen to pro-coin as well as anti, and talk to actual lawyers and economists about what problems the space actually has, the more I see it's just a scam. Well, almost. Probably cryptocurrencies have more of a chance of actually succeeding in providing realistic microtransactions. Not BTC (PoW and way WAY too few tps, too slow, too high fees, etc...), but it's something traditional finance has failed to provide. (cryptocurrencies have, for a decade now, also failed though. So I'm not getting my hopes up)
    - fleddr 5y ago
      If you look at the total space, some 10,000 different coins/tokens, all but perhaps 10 are shit tokens. They have zero purpose but to pump and dump. Of the remaining ones that should at least get the benefit of the doubt, here's my rough opinion... Bitcoin is king and proven in its function as "digital gold". Based on its enormous market cap, network effect (100m users and growing exponentially) and one-of-a-kind performance of 200% per year on average, for 12 years straight. Which is no guarantee for the future, but nothing is. Bitcoin is the invention of an entirely new asset class with unique properties, good ones and bad ones. Ether and adjacent helpers (such as link) are also a winner, if you take the long term perspective. Almost anything application-wise is built on top of it (DeFi, NFT) touching potentially almost any industry one can think of. It is true that most things built on Ether are crap and likely to fail, but that doesn't have to be true forever. The point is that even if 1% becomes successful, it's likely Ether-based. Even failed development on Ether grows usage of Ether, and the network effect quickly gets beyond the point of no return. Compare it to the world settling on Git/Github for software development. This doesn't guarantee good or useful software, yet when such software is produced, it's from that infrastructure. Besides Bitcoin and Ether, there's a few semi-serious outliers like Cardano and XRP. I expect them to fail fully. So that sums up my opinion of the space: - Bitcoin as asset class, long term. - Bitcoin's Lighting Network for payments, yet needs to become more user friendly and get wide support (give it 3 years). - Ether and helpers for a wide range of uses. Bitcoin and Ether are not only here to stay, they will grow exponentially. Pretty much anything else is safe to ignore. For now.

by fleddr 5y ago

maxbond 5y ago

If you don't have an argument to make, perhaps it's better to say nothing? When you come out and say, things are too complex to make an argument, it can read like FUD and whataboutism. As if you are attacking an idea that an argument _can_ be made. I'm sure you didn't set out to muddy the waters, but after having muddied them in the middle of a lively debate, I think this is the sort of response you should expect to receive. Coherent arguments against cryptocurrencies are readily available. The case for cryptocurrencies is shifting, contradictory, and often nonsensical. This means something. It matters.

knorker 5y ago

If this were in isolation then yes I'd agree. And twitter is not the best way to make points. But I'm pointing out that this is ALWAYS the argument pro-cryptocurrency. It's not this instance, but a pattern. Cryptocurrency people refute entire books and deep analysis (from actual experts) with "everything you just said is wrong, but I have to go now so can't say why". It's not this in isolation, but the fact that it's a cliche that's the thing. It's comical. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're laying the ground work for waving your hand and saying "book? By the time it's published the technology has moved on, so it's not relevant, so let's just ignore the whole thing" when the main arguments against cryptocurrencies/smart contracts are not about the details of the tech. The arguments are mainly about the premises and the goals. What technical means get invented then becomes irrelevant.

fleddr 5y ago
I get what you're saying. You think I'm the typical crypto "bro" fleeing the scene as soon as some evidence need to be produced. I'm not a crypto bro, so I don't need to defend the case for crypto. 6 months ago I was in exactly the same spot as most people here dismissing the industry as a whole. Admittedly, largely based on hear-say and the mainstream narrative. Not by actually knowing anything about it. After taking a deep dive I've changed my mind on some aspects, but not all. I would not agree with my past self, I was ignorant. Even if you do study it deeply and still conclude it's all garbage, it's an intellectually fascinating journey. You get to learn a lot about history, human psychology, our financial system, politics, trading...basically how the world works. Interesting stuff to debate, but this is not the place. Fine.
- knorker 5y ago
  It's probably not the place. But I'd like to say still that my opinion is not based on ignorance. The more I read (and I mean books too, not just rando's blogs and tweetstorms) on this, listen to pro-coin as well as anti, and talk to actual lawyers and economists about what problems the space actually has, the more I see it's just a scam. Well, almost. Probably cryptocurrencies have more of a chance of actually succeeding in providing realistic microtransactions. Not BTC (PoW and way WAY too few tps, too slow, too high fees, etc...), but it's something traditional finance has failed to provide. (cryptocurrencies have, for a decade now, also failed though. So I'm not getting my hopes up)
  - fleddr 5y ago
    If you look at the total space, some 10,000 different coins/tokens, all but perhaps 10 are shit tokens. They have zero purpose but to pump and dump. Of the remaining ones that should at least get the benefit of the doubt, here's my rough opinion... Bitcoin is king and proven in its function as "digital gold". Based on its enormous market cap, network effect (100m users and growing exponentially) and one-of-a-kind performance of 200% per year on average, for 12 years straight. Which is no guarantee for the future, but nothing is. Bitcoin is the invention of an entirely new asset class with unique properties, good ones and bad ones. Ether and adjacent helpers (such as link) are also a winner, if you take the long term perspective. Almost anything application-wise is built on top of it (DeFi, NFT) touching potentially almost any industry one can think of. It is true that most things built on Ether are crap and likely to fail, but that doesn't have to be true forever. The point is that even if 1% becomes successful, it's likely Ether-based. Even failed development on Ether grows usage of Ether, and the network effect quickly gets beyond the point of no return. Compare it to the world settling on Git/Github for software development. This doesn't guarantee good or useful software, yet when such software is produced, it's from that infrastructure. Besides Bitcoin and Ether, there's a few semi-serious outliers like Cardano and XRP. I expect them to fail fully. So that sums up my opinion of the space: - Bitcoin as asset class, long term. - Bitcoin's Lighting Network for payments, yet needs to become more user friendly and get wide support (give it 3 years). - Ether and helpers for a wide range of uses. Bitcoin and Ether are not only here to stay, they will grow exponentially. Pretty much anything else is safe to ignore. For now.