3 ms·

Am I? Anyways, the definition of "reactionary" is to hold onto an outdated believe or assumption. Crypto means cryptocurrencies these days. I was just stating

Am I? Anyways, the definition of "reactionary" is to hold onto an outdated believe or assumption. Crypto means cryptocurrencies these days. I was just stating the obvious.

asimpletune 5y ago
Ok, but I think it was well stated above that really context just matters.
- timdaub 5y ago
  The context is that the economist wrote a piece on "most powerful people in crypto", so isn't it a bit weird that people assume these people to be cryptographers? Economist, crypto?
  - asimpletune 5y ago
    Yeah you're right, that was the original context, but then in this thread people also changed the context and were talking about the word crypto in general. It's not super controversial, and as was mentioned somewhere above no one really gets confused when we're talking about cryptography or when we're talking about cryptocurrency - or for that matter when we're talking about the golang crypto package. So, let me just say, I'm not trying to weirdly argue with by saying you're right, and still the word can be overloaded. Idk language is weird. Haha in 20 years maybe crypto will be abject failure and it'll become synonymous with pumping and dumping, like "pyramid" scheme, or maybe it'll be a huge success the likes of which no one has ever seen and will be used in that way in certain contexts.
formerly_proven 5y ago
Reactionary is a political label first and foremost and using it in this context tries to equate not-cryptocurrency-advocates to political reactionaries at large. Also, you've contributed to various cryptocurrency repositories, so trying to claim you're not some kind of cryptocurrency advocate/shill/memer or invested in it (pick whichever you like best) might take some convincing.
- timdaub 5y ago
  You put a large emphasis on the idea that I have invested in cryptocurrencies and that I'm hence arguing for that. But even if I had, wouldn't you equally be a shill for having invested in companies that merely exist for the sake of cryptographic functionality? Do you think any FAANG would be able to exist without cryptography? Do you hold any kind of stock? Because if so, your incentives aren't likely more inspiring than mine.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Am I? Anyways, the definition of "reactionary" is to hold onto an outdated believe or assumption. Crypto means cryptocurrencies these days. I was just stating the obvious.

asimpletune 5y ago

Ok, but I think it was well stated above that really context just matters.

timdaub 5y ago
The context is that the economist wrote a piece on "most powerful people in crypto", so isn't it a bit weird that people assume these people to be cryptographers? Economist, crypto?
- asimpletune 5y ago
  Yeah you're right, that was the original context, but then in this thread people also changed the context and were talking about the word crypto in general. It's not super controversial, and as was mentioned somewhere above no one really gets confused when we're talking about cryptography or when we're talking about cryptocurrency - or for that matter when we're talking about the golang crypto package. So, let me just say, I'm not trying to weirdly argue with by saying you're right, and still the word can be overloaded. Idk language is weird. Haha in 20 years maybe crypto will be abject failure and it'll become synonymous with pumping and dumping, like "pyramid" scheme, or maybe it'll be a huge success the likes of which no one has ever seen and will be used in that way in certain contexts.

formerly_proven 5y ago

Reactionary is a political label first and foremost and using it in this context tries to equate not-cryptocurrency-advocates to political reactionaries at large. Also, you've contributed to various cryptocurrency repositories, so trying to claim you're not some kind of cryptocurrency advocate/shill/memer or invested in it (pick whichever you like best) might take some convincing.

timdaub 5y ago
You put a large emphasis on the idea that I have invested in cryptocurrencies and that I'm hence arguing for that. But even if I had, wouldn't you equally be a shill for having invested in companies that merely exist for the sake of cryptographic functionality? Do you think any FAANG would be able to exist without cryptography? Do you hold any kind of stock? Because if so, your incentives aren't likely more inspiring than mine.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]