4 ms·

These people are hardly trying to foster a real conversation. Person I was responding to implied I'm trying to rope him into an MLM scheme. I respond in kind, a

These people are hardly trying to foster a real conversation. Person I was responding to implied I'm trying to rope him into an MLM scheme. I respond in kind, and I'm the one being rude? > When you're backed into a corner you can't resort to "it's not for you" I think your bias is showing. I'm hardly backed into a corner. From my perspective, I've only ever stated hard facts. They're the ones backed into a corner by these facts, and all they can ever muster up is "Oh but I don't find that useful. My use case is an app that literally only myself uses." It's like wading into a conversation about Spark and saying it's overkill when you just want to process a hundred line CSV file. No duh, that's not what it's meant for. It gets real old when commenter after commenter -- and often even the same commenter -- misses the same point again and again. And I'll say, that includes you. You're backed into a corner and unable to name any alternatives here [1], so you resort to criticizing my tone instead. > It frankly makes your case look paper-thin and further reinforces the idea that cryptocurrency is a chump's game. I wasn't looking to convince anyone in particular, and that includes you. It seems you're more swayed by tone than by facts. So be it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753

smoldesu 5y ago
Your hard facts are really just reframing a conversation that time and time again you've failed to engage with. People are calling Web3 a fraud; a system where value is derived simply from the demand of crypto in general, and purely serves to benefit people who invested first (like MLM). When confronted about the possibility of all of it being a scam, your only response was "caveat emptor". When people say that's stupid, you resort to "well that's fine, I didn't want your money anyways". What people want to see is how Web3 iterates on the internet as it exists right now. You've provided a few implementation details, and repeatedly stated that it's different, but at no point have you produced a compelling refutation to the idea that, as a concept, it is a scam. Web3 is a bubble, even you're willing to admit as much; "there's already too much dumb money in it already" you claimed. Furthermore, you're arguing for a level of utility that doesn't exist out of the context of transferring money to wildly unstable assets. This is a textbook scam, and your rhetoric will perpetually be at odds with the rest of the discussion unless you engage them on their own terms. Web3 is marketing itself as something it is not. You're using a combination of expectation management and goalpost shifting to refute that, and people have called you on it. I can imagine that you don't see yourself as "losing" these arguments, since you haven't even responded to them in the first place.
- selestify 5y ago
  > People are calling Web3 a fraud; a system where value is derived simply from the demand of crypto in general The supply of ledger space is limited. When demand for that space not only goes up, but keeps going up, what does economics tell us happens to the price? I keep giving example after example of what people use this ledger space for, but all anyone every says is "Oh, but it's just moving tokens around." I have yet to see anyone say how that's any different from the stock market just moving fiat around. Deflection, deflection, deflection. Who's refusing to engage with the conversation now? > and purely serves to benefit people who invested first (like MLM) That is simply not true, and I've given example after example of the use cases that benefit the people using the chain. But after every explanation, you still resort to "Oh but I don't use it, so it must be an MLM." You haven't engaged at all with any of my points, you just keep repeating your own. Who's reframing the conversation now? > When confronted about the possibility of all of it being a scam, your only response was "caveat emptor". When confronted about the possibility of any single smart contract being a scam, my only response is "caveat emptor," yes. Because that's the whole point. You can't have censorship resistance without having this phenomenon. But when it comes to the possibility of the whole thing being a scam, that's clearly ridiculous and as I've said, I've refuted it many times over. The next few sentences of your comment are just more of the same, so I'm not going to bother refuting every individual sentence. > When people say that's stupid, you resort to "well that's fine, I didn't want your money anyways". Yes, all people ever do is to call it "stupid" without backing their argument up. You said it yourself. > This is a textbook scam And by implication, I'm one of the scammers then, aren't I? And you expect me to respond to such accusations politely and demurely? > your rhetoric will perpetually be at odds with the rest of the discussion unless you engage them on their own terms. "On their own terms" meaning that we accept the premise that it's a scam? So you don't want a discussion, you just want me to affirm your pre-existing beliefs. > I can imagine that you don't see yourself as "losing" these arguments, since you haven't even responded to them in the first place. I notice you still haven't named any alternative technologies in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753 . You say "decentralization doesn't need the blockchain," implying that the blockchain doesn't really do much for decentralization. I respond asking for any other alternative that does what crypto does, and gave an example of a major decentralized platform that was only possible because of crypto. Once again, you're backed into a corner, and all you do is refuse to respond, and then deflect and project your own loss onto me. I rest my case.

smoldesu 5y ago

Your hard facts are really just reframing a conversation that time and time again you've failed to engage with. People are calling Web3 a fraud; a system where value is derived simply from the demand of crypto in general, and purely serves to benefit people who invested first (like MLM). When confronted about the possibility of all of it being a scam, your only response was "caveat emptor". When people say that's stupid, you resort to "well that's fine, I didn't want your money anyways". What people want to see is how Web3 iterates on the internet as it exists right now. You've provided a few implementation details, and repeatedly stated that it's different, but at no point have you produced a compelling refutation to the idea that, as a concept, it is a scam. Web3 is a bubble, even you're willing to admit as much; "there's already too much dumb money in it already" you claimed. Furthermore, you're arguing for a level of utility that doesn't exist out of the context of transferring money to wildly unstable assets. This is a textbook scam, and your rhetoric will perpetually be at odds with the rest of the discussion unless you engage them on their own terms. Web3 is marketing itself as something it is not. You're using a combination of expectation management and goalpost shifting to refute that, and people have called you on it. I can imagine that you don't see yourself as "losing" these arguments, since you haven't even responded to them in the first place.

selestify 5y ago
> People are calling Web3 a fraud; a system where value is derived simply from the demand of crypto in general The supply of ledger space is limited. When demand for that space not only goes up, but keeps going up, what does economics tell us happens to the price? I keep giving example after example of what people use this ledger space for, but all anyone every says is "Oh, but it's just moving tokens around." I have yet to see anyone say how that's any different from the stock market just moving fiat around. Deflection, deflection, deflection. Who's refusing to engage with the conversation now? > and purely serves to benefit people who invested first (like MLM) That is simply not true, and I've given example after example of the use cases that benefit the people using the chain. But after every explanation, you still resort to "Oh but I don't use it, so it must be an MLM." You haven't engaged at all with any of my points, you just keep repeating your own. Who's reframing the conversation now? > When confronted about the possibility of all of it being a scam, your only response was "caveat emptor". When confronted about the possibility of any single smart contract being a scam, my only response is "caveat emptor," yes. Because that's the whole point. You can't have censorship resistance without having this phenomenon. But when it comes to the possibility of the whole thing being a scam, that's clearly ridiculous and as I've said, I've refuted it many times over. The next few sentences of your comment are just more of the same, so I'm not going to bother refuting every individual sentence. > When people say that's stupid, you resort to "well that's fine, I didn't want your money anyways". Yes, all people ever do is to call it "stupid" without backing their argument up. You said it yourself. > This is a textbook scam And by implication, I'm one of the scammers then, aren't I? And you expect me to respond to such accusations politely and demurely? > your rhetoric will perpetually be at odds with the rest of the discussion unless you engage them on their own terms. "On their own terms" meaning that we accept the premise that it's a scam? So you don't want a discussion, you just want me to affirm your pre-existing beliefs. > I can imagine that you don't see yourself as "losing" these arguments, since you haven't even responded to them in the first place. I notice you still haven't named any alternative technologies in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753 . You say "decentralization doesn't need the blockchain," implying that the blockchain doesn't really do much for decentralization. I respond asking for any other alternative that does what crypto does, and gave an example of a major decentralized platform that was only possible because of crypto. Once again, you're backed into a corner, and all you do is refuse to respond, and then deflect and project your own loss onto me. I rest my case.