4 ms·

Because it's not two disinterested parties, it's owners versus mockers. Owners say irrational things because they've drunk the water. It's like asking why don't

Because it's not two disinterested parties, it's owners versus mockers. Owners say irrational things because they've drunk the water. It's like asking why don't believers in ressurection ever have curious conversations about the impossibility of ressurection.

tluyben2 5y ago
It's religion. I find it as useful to explain the flaws of cryptocurrencies to believers as I find discussing the flaws of 'your garden in heaven' with jehova's.
Viliam1234 5y ago
This, but in a world where the believers' net worth doubles almost every year.
- antifa 5y ago
  Plenty of people own appreciating assets like bitcoin and etherium while ignoring hot garbage like NFTs.
reginold 5y ago
This is an important aspect! Crypto is new in that way where everyone can have ownership. I believe everything in the future will be more like this than less. Everything will have financial incentives tied more directly to it. So if anything, the lack of crypto curiosity is a challenge to solve -- how do we get curious in a world where every article, upvote, and comment has a financial stake?
- malermeister 5y ago
  So I think this is exactly why there's not much of a discussion. There's folks that are really excited about what you described, no doubt. But then there's folks like me that think that vision of commodification of everything is a dystopian nightmare that devalues humanity by forcing everything into an economic corset. I fundamentally don't want financial stakes tied to anything, in my world view we'd ideally move past money and scarcity. I don't see how you'd reconcile those two views and that's why there's two very polarized takes on crypto with little nuance in between.
  - reginold 5y ago
    Oh appreciate your thoughts here! I can certainly agree that it can sound dystopian. Let's talk about how to make sure it's net positive! How do we built things better, where do we improve, what are the weaknesses? To me the rise of cryptocurrencies is a given -- so the role of being curious is about shaping what it becomes, rather than deny their impending dominance. (Not putting words in your mouth, if anything this framing comes from my own bias). Does that come through? To use a tired analogy, pretend it's 1950: I would love to talk about the possibilities of computers, good or bad. Though nascent, I believe computers are here to stay, and will be a bigger part of our lives, like it or not. I'm curious about our role in shaping those possibilities. When people say they don't want to talk about computers or think they're stupid does nothing to change that inevitability.
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      > Let's talk about how to make sure it's net positive! How do we built things better, where do we improve, what are the weaknesses? I think what puts people at odds here is that the conversation on your side is "how can we improve the model we're creating" while the other side's conversation is "we don't want this model at all". Wrapping everything in a financial model is like giving us handcuffs to wear, then asking how you can make the handcuffs more comfortable.
      - reginold 5y ago
        Appreciate the reply here! Your analogies are effective and point out an important difference. It comes down to this question: "Is wrapping everything in a financial model inevitable?" 1. If yes, then let's seize the moment to figure out how to make it the best we can. 2. If no, let's create an alternative, or figure out something else that's inevitable, or perhaps at least resist #1. I've landed on the side of #1. Therefore it becomes a matter of shaping it to be the best it can be. Same with solar power and electric cars. They are inevitable, let's make them the best they can be. For those that land on #2, I can see the point of resisting. However, the best way to support #2 would be an alternative hypothesis "Inevitably some things will be financial and other things will not" and then building tools to support that. Thanks for talking this through and creating this clarity about where the difference is.

tluyben2 5y ago

It's religion. I find it as useful to explain the flaws of cryptocurrencies to believers as I find discussing the flaws of 'your garden in heaven' with jehova's.

Viliam1234 5y ago

This, but in a world where the believers' net worth doubles almost every year.

antifa 5y ago
Plenty of people own appreciating assets like bitcoin and etherium while ignoring hot garbage like NFTs.

reginold 5y ago

This is an important aspect! Crypto is new in that way where everyone can have ownership. I believe everything in the future will be more like this than less. Everything will have financial incentives tied more directly to it. So if anything, the lack of crypto curiosity is a challenge to solve -- how do we get curious in a world where every article, upvote, and comment has a financial stake?

malermeister 5y ago
So I think this is exactly why there's not much of a discussion. There's folks that are really excited about what you described, no doubt. But then there's folks like me that think that vision of commodification of everything is a dystopian nightmare that devalues humanity by forcing everything into an economic corset. I fundamentally don't want financial stakes tied to anything, in my world view we'd ideally move past money and scarcity. I don't see how you'd reconcile those two views and that's why there's two very polarized takes on crypto with little nuance in between.
- reginold 5y ago
  Oh appreciate your thoughts here! I can certainly agree that it can sound dystopian. Let's talk about how to make sure it's net positive! How do we built things better, where do we improve, what are the weaknesses? To me the rise of cryptocurrencies is a given -- so the role of being curious is about shaping what it becomes, rather than deny their impending dominance. (Not putting words in your mouth, if anything this framing comes from my own bias). Does that come through? To use a tired analogy, pretend it's 1950: I would love to talk about the possibilities of computers, good or bad. Though nascent, I believe computers are here to stay, and will be a bigger part of our lives, like it or not. I'm curious about our role in shaping those possibilities. When people say they don't want to talk about computers or think they're stupid does nothing to change that inevitability.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    > Let's talk about how to make sure it's net positive! How do we built things better, where do we improve, what are the weaknesses? I think what puts people at odds here is that the conversation on your side is "how can we improve the model we're creating" while the other side's conversation is "we don't want this model at all". Wrapping everything in a financial model is like giving us handcuffs to wear, then asking how you can make the handcuffs more comfortable.
    - reginold 5y ago
      Appreciate the reply here! Your analogies are effective and point out an important difference. It comes down to this question: "Is wrapping everything in a financial model inevitable?" 1. If yes, then let's seize the moment to figure out how to make it the best we can. 2. If no, let's create an alternative, or figure out something else that's inevitable, or perhaps at least resist #1. I've landed on the side of #1. Therefore it becomes a matter of shaping it to be the best it can be. Same with solar power and electric cars. They are inevitable, let's make them the best they can be. For those that land on #2, I can see the point of resisting. However, the best way to support #2 would be an alternative hypothesis "Inevitably some things will be financial and other things will not" and then building tools to support that. Thanks for talking this through and creating this clarity about where the difference is.