3 ms·

> At one point the internet was also a problem looking for a solution 1. The internet was a solution to a very specific problem. Go and educate yourself on wha

> At one point the internet was also a problem looking for a solution 1. The internet was a solution to a very specific problem. Go and educate yourself on what ARPA was doing, will you? 2. Crypto peddlers keep equating cryptocurrencies to the internet. And never ever equating it to Juicero or Enron even if all signs point to that.

fastball 5y ago
Juicero was something nobody wanted – clearly not true of crypto. Enron was a deliberate fraud where things were faked – certainly true of many (most?) crypto projects, but not true of the underlying technologies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc) and therefore not even close to being true for all projects in the space. Equating crypto to Enron is like equating Enron to the stock market – "the stock market allowed Enron make money off their fraud, therefore we should get rid of the stock market".
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Juicero was something nobody wanted People wanted it strongly enough to invest $120 million into it. > Enron was a deliberate fraud where things were faked – certainly true of many (most?) crypto projects Indeed. You're this close to getting the comparison > "the stock market allowed Enron make money off their fraud, therefore we should get rid of the stock market". Yes. Yes, we should. Stock market is pure speculation with little to no connection to the real world.
  - fastball 5y ago
    People thought other people wanted Juicero enough to invest $120M into it, but they were wrong. People actually want crypto, for various reasons. You're not going to get many people agreeing with you on the removal of stock markets, and therefore I think that conversation is outside the scope of this conversation about crypto.
nemothekid 5y ago
>1. The internet was a solution to a very specific problem. Go and educate yourself on what ARPA was doing, will you? In the same way the original Bitcoin paper was a solution to a very specific problem. I was referring to the amount of useless companies that were created during the original dotcom. >2. Crypto peddlers keep equating cryptocurrencies to the internet. And never ever equating it to Juicero or Enron even if all signs point to that. Not sure what this has to do with my comment. My comment was specifically there is a decentralized solution to do commerce that is powered by crypto. To pretend that this doesn't exist is absurd. NFTs, and Defi are literally just asset speculation but at the very least there was a platform that transacted billions of dollars on top of Bitcoin (Silk Road). I can't say that Juicero ever created a million dollars of value for its customers.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > I was referring to the amount of useless companies that were created during the original dotcom. No, you weren't. You literally said this: "At one point the internet was also a problem looking for a solution too" At no point was the internet a problem looking for a solution. > >2. Crypto peddlers keep equating cryptocurrencies to the internet. And never ever equating it to Juicero or Enron even if all signs point to that. > Not sure what this has to do with my comment. It has everything to do with your comment. Under an article criticising web3 you immediate response was to draw comparisons with the internet. All cryptopeddlers always draw comparisons between crypto and the internet. Or crypto and cars. Or crypto and some other world-changing invention. And never ever do they draw comparisons between crypto and Juicero, crypto and Enron etc. > My comment was specifically there is a decentralized solution to do commerce that is powered by crypto. There is no such solution. > at the very least there was a platform that transacted billions of dollars on top of Bitcoin (Silk Road). 1. I very highly doubt there were billions of dollars traded on SilkRoad 2. SilkRoad relied on a very centralised reputation system even as merchants there accepted bitcoin 3. All bitcoin "solved" was moving money for illegal activities, but not "commerce". Because actual commerce requires institutions of trust (even SilkRoad had a reputation system). And for legal activities it also needs reversebility of transactions and enforcement of rules.

fastball 5y ago

Juicero was something nobody wanted – clearly not true of crypto. Enron was a deliberate fraud where things were faked – certainly true of many (most?) crypto projects, but not true of the underlying technologies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc) and therefore not even close to being true for all projects in the space. Equating crypto to Enron is like equating Enron to the stock market – "the stock market allowed Enron make money off their fraud, therefore we should get rid of the stock market".

dmitriid 5y ago
> Juicero was something nobody wanted People wanted it strongly enough to invest $120 million into it. > Enron was a deliberate fraud where things were faked – certainly true of many (most?) crypto projects Indeed. You're this close to getting the comparison > "the stock market allowed Enron make money off their fraud, therefore we should get rid of the stock market". Yes. Yes, we should. Stock market is pure speculation with little to no connection to the real world.
- fastball 5y ago
  People thought other people wanted Juicero enough to invest $120M into it, but they were wrong. People actually want crypto, for various reasons. You're not going to get many people agreeing with you on the removal of stock markets, and therefore I think that conversation is outside the scope of this conversation about crypto.

nemothekid 5y ago

>1. The internet was a solution to a very specific problem. Go and educate yourself on what ARPA was doing, will you? In the same way the original Bitcoin paper was a solution to a very specific problem. I was referring to the amount of useless companies that were created during the original dotcom. >2. Crypto peddlers keep equating cryptocurrencies to the internet. And never ever equating it to Juicero or Enron even if all signs point to that. Not sure what this has to do with my comment. My comment was specifically there is a decentralized solution to do commerce that is powered by crypto. To pretend that this doesn't exist is absurd. NFTs, and Defi are literally just asset speculation but at the very least there was a platform that transacted billions of dollars on top of Bitcoin (Silk Road). I can't say that Juicero ever created a million dollars of value for its customers.

dmitriid 5y ago
> I was referring to the amount of useless companies that were created during the original dotcom. No, you weren't. You literally said this: "At one point the internet was also a problem looking for a solution too" At no point was the internet a problem looking for a solution. > >2. Crypto peddlers keep equating cryptocurrencies to the internet. And never ever equating it to Juicero or Enron even if all signs point to that. > Not sure what this has to do with my comment. It has everything to do with your comment. Under an article criticising web3 you immediate response was to draw comparisons with the internet. All cryptopeddlers always draw comparisons between crypto and the internet. Or crypto and cars. Or crypto and some other world-changing invention. And never ever do they draw comparisons between crypto and Juicero, crypto and Enron etc. > My comment was specifically there is a decentralized solution to do commerce that is powered by crypto. There is no such solution. > at the very least there was a platform that transacted billions of dollars on top of Bitcoin (Silk Road). 1. I very highly doubt there were billions of dollars traded on SilkRoad 2. SilkRoad relied on a very centralised reputation system even as merchants there accepted bitcoin 3. All bitcoin "solved" was moving money for illegal activities, but not "commerce". Because actual commerce requires institutions of trust (even SilkRoad had a reputation system). And for legal activities it also needs reversebility of transactions and enforcement of rules.