6 ms·

Maybe the onus is on the skeptics to conclusively prove that web3 is BS? Since none can effectively prove so, then maybe it is not BS? The skeptics are always i

Maybe the onus is on the skeptics to conclusively prove that web3 is BS? Since none can effectively prove so, then maybe it is not BS? The skeptics are always inventing new reasons why it will fail, and yet it's still here and bigger than ever, day after day, making the skeptics seems crazy at this point, pointlessly arguing for lack of use for something that is clearly useful, judging by the sheer amount of capital and development resources used, if nothing else.

simonw 5y ago
Is your argument here that web3 isn't bullshit as long as the number keeps going up? What will your opinion be of web3 should the number start to continually go down?
- jakupovic 5y ago
  As long as it is above 0 it has value and skeptics have to admit so. Anything else is ludicrous, to me.
  - svantana 5y ago
    There is obviously monetary value, but us skeptics see that it is driven by illicit trade, money laundering, tax evasion, pump & dump schemes, ponzi schemes, wash trading scams, etc. All things that are a net negative for society.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
almost 5y ago
Yes it’s totally normal to take a word with no real definition (or at best a definition that shifts depending on what’s needed) and have to “prove” it’s BS. If I tell you that web4 is all about complete freedom and an end to world hunger and it’s based on cow farts is it up to you to prove that it’s BS? (It’s early days for cow farts, you can’t judge them o what they can do right now)
- jakupovic 5y ago
  Once your web4 has the same amount of capital and work behind it, then we can use cow farts, until then we got what we got, web3/crypto.
  - almost 5y ago
    Ah so that’s your criteria, you should have said.
    - jakupovic 5y ago
      That was the whole point, it's here and now vs. what could be.
      - zaphar 5y ago
        I think his point is that what you claim to be "here" and "now" is different than what is actually here and now. Just having funding and effort getting put into it does not mean it actually delivers on it's promises. That said I find no reason that cryptocurrencies couldn't deliver given enough time. I just find what they are delivering to be something I rather wish wouldn't exist.
  - emerongi 5y ago
    Theranos also had massive capital, large corporation partners, years of work and many scientists working on it. The dot-com bubble was similar. The onus is on the cryptobros to prove its usefulness, not the other way around.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    Is your theory that anything with lots of money shoved into it must be good? If so, can I interest you in some tulips? Or, more recently, a few thousand shipping containers of unsellable 3D TVs?

simonw 5y ago

Is your argument here that web3 isn't bullshit as long as the number keeps going up? What will your opinion be of web3 should the number start to continually go down?

jakupovic 5y ago
As long as it is above 0 it has value and skeptics have to admit so. Anything else is ludicrous, to me.
- svantana 5y ago
  There is obviously monetary value, but us skeptics see that it is driven by illicit trade, money laundering, tax evasion, pump & dump schemes, ponzi schemes, wash trading scams, etc. All things that are a net negative for society.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

almost 5y ago

Yes it’s totally normal to take a word with no real definition (or at best a definition that shifts depending on what’s needed) and have to “prove” it’s BS. If I tell you that web4 is all about complete freedom and an end to world hunger and it’s based on cow farts is it up to you to prove that it’s BS? (It’s early days for cow farts, you can’t judge them o what they can do right now)

jakupovic 5y ago
Once your web4 has the same amount of capital and work behind it, then we can use cow farts, until then we got what we got, web3/crypto.
- almost 5y ago
  Ah so that’s your criteria, you should have said.
  - jakupovic 5y ago
    That was the whole point, it's here and now vs. what could be.
    - zaphar 5y ago
      I think his point is that what you claim to be "here" and "now" is different than what is actually here and now. Just having funding and effort getting put into it does not mean it actually delivers on it's promises. That said I find no reason that cryptocurrencies couldn't deliver given enough time. I just find what they are delivering to be something I rather wish wouldn't exist.
- emerongi 5y ago
  Theranos also had massive capital, large corporation partners, years of work and many scientists working on it. The dot-com bubble was similar. The onus is on the cryptobros to prove its usefulness, not the other way around.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  Is your theory that anything with lots of money shoved into it must be good? If so, can I interest you in some tulips? Or, more recently, a few thousand shipping containers of unsellable 3D TVs?