> put at risk because two dudes have a spat on twitter? Computing is largely faith/belief by tribes. The eco-protests against cryptoshit has been high & loud

> put at risk because two dudes have a spat on twitter? Computing is largely faith/belief by tribes. The eco-protests against cryptoshit has been high & loud & I think effective: it's obviously a colossally inefficient system, the most unimaginable conflagration of computing resources imaginable. But Jack has honed in on a more purist argumentation, one that is less rooted in the hard fact of cryptoshit scorching the planet, & far more insightful about the hypocracy & ineffectuality of the beast. There are few benevolent factors about in crypto-coin shit, it's a world dominated by self-interest first & mistrust second. They are systems ruled by concensus-of-the-powerful, & most folks need deeply deeply deeply intermediated experiences to have the most remote hope of getting anywhere at all. In short, Jack's one of the first critics to highlight just how perverse the profit motive has been here. Cryptocoinshit is free to become good, to show a light side, to enable real genuine capabilities, any day any time. But it's a highly highly costly environment to innovate in. There's a lot of pick axes folks need, is what Jack has highlighted. And the costs of working the medium, of sticking your pick in, are absurdly high, fantastically expensive. I don't see this as a specific threat of person versus person, but a battle for the soul of a young, interesting technology, one that has had less & less enobling, user-empowering potentials, and more and more been a dis-empowering, deeply intermediated, finnicky & costly boondogle. The particular personages here are proxy combatants, whose contest has provided a bit better televisable experience of what the real battle-lines & conflicts are.