4 ms·

I would say it's because people on Hacker News are pretty intelligent. Either they are intelligent and manipulative and are looking to maximize their investmen

I would say it's because people on Hacker News are pretty intelligent. Either they are intelligent and manipulative and are looking to maximize their investments whatever the cost to others, the externalities, whatever… or they are intelligent and accurately perceiving the first type of intelligent person. By now, if you're a techie nerd, to be naive about this topic would mean there's something seriously wrong with you. You should have picked a side by now as this is not complicated or ambiguous. There is only furthering crypto by any means necessary, or opposing it (increasingly, by any means necessary). It's not going to get any blurrier. If you feign naivete and curiosity at this stage you are probably being manipulative and actually in the 'furthering by any means necessary' camp…

rocqua 5y ago
I think that is disingenuous. Because there remain interesting things to discus and consider in the world of 'crypto', even if you acknowledge there are issues and its not perfect yet. There certainly are some loud 'shills' out there. But there are also actual interesting technical developments. It seems to me that between the shills and the people shouting down who they perceive to be shills, the interesting discussion gets drowned out.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  If you're a sufficiently intelligent person, you can frame said interesting things in such a way that it establishes your position w.r.t crypto. It's like a sort of chess. If you're a sufficiently intelligent person, you can recognize arguments like "you oppose X, but you do not acknowledge Y. And Y exists. Therefore, you are disingenuous: you are not candid or sincere, you're pretending that you don't know Y. Therefore nobody should listen to you about X.' Um… I oppose X. At this stage, not interested in Y. And I keep running into arguments that are trying to shut me up about X… by any means necessary, including flat-out sophistry of every possible description. And this becomes an intellectual game. How can this NOT be fascinating to Hacker News readers? :)
Ologn 5y ago
> You should have picked a side by now as this is not complicated or ambiguous. There is only furthering crypto by any means necessary, or opposing it (increasingly, by any means necessary). I think crypto coins are as worthless as subprime mortgages, Pets.com type dot com stocks, or any other bubble going back to tulip bulbs. However as I am mostly uninvolved (aside from getting a free cryptocoin drop my friend wanted me to get), it has little effect on me. I find it annoying to see scams discussed, in the same way I don't want to hear an MLM pitch. I want to warn people it is a scam if I see a discussion, out of obligation. Also they say it hurts the environment, which I have not looked at much but suppose it makes sense. On the other hand, people with large crypto positions or who are invested in mining rigs and who have invested their time and have made large "capital" expenses and whose life is cryptocoins are much more apt to further crypto coins. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Bitcoin market cap in the next market correction where credit is tightened, stocks go down, margin calls go out etc. This is a game of musical chairs where the music has yet to ever stop.

rocqua 5y ago

I think that is disingenuous. Because there remain interesting things to discus and consider in the world of 'crypto', even if you acknowledge there are issues and its not perfect yet. There certainly are some loud 'shills' out there. But there are also actual interesting technical developments. It seems to me that between the shills and the people shouting down who they perceive to be shills, the interesting discussion gets drowned out.

Applejinx 5y ago
If you're a sufficiently intelligent person, you can frame said interesting things in such a way that it establishes your position w.r.t crypto. It's like a sort of chess. If you're a sufficiently intelligent person, you can recognize arguments like "you oppose X, but you do not acknowledge Y. And Y exists. Therefore, you are disingenuous: you are not candid or sincere, you're pretending that you don't know Y. Therefore nobody should listen to you about X.' Um… I oppose X. At this stage, not interested in Y. And I keep running into arguments that are trying to shut me up about X… by any means necessary, including flat-out sophistry of every possible description. And this becomes an intellectual game. How can this NOT be fascinating to Hacker News readers? :)

Ologn 5y ago

> You should have picked a side by now as this is not complicated or ambiguous. There is only furthering crypto by any means necessary, or opposing it (increasingly, by any means necessary). I think crypto coins are as worthless as subprime mortgages, Pets.com type dot com stocks, or any other bubble going back to tulip bulbs. However as I am mostly uninvolved (aside from getting a free cryptocoin drop my friend wanted me to get), it has little effect on me. I find it annoying to see scams discussed, in the same way I don't want to hear an MLM pitch. I want to warn people it is a scam if I see a discussion, out of obligation. Also they say it hurts the environment, which I have not looked at much but suppose it makes sense. On the other hand, people with large crypto positions or who are invested in mining rigs and who have invested their time and have made large "capital" expenses and whose life is cryptocoins are much more apt to further crypto coins. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Bitcoin market cap in the next market correction where credit is tightened, stocks go down, margin calls go out etc. This is a game of musical chairs where the music has yet to ever stop.