5 ms·

> reasons that are all solved with education Reasons like "risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies", solvable with education, sure. P

> reasons that are all solved with education Reasons like "risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies", solvable with education, sure. People who use cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other related stuff all have a vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Things like "educating others" by cryptobro-splaining all over things is not going to solve the reputation of the movement. What's happening here is that you're seeing a peek into a different bubble. In your bubble, only a lack of education would be a valid reason to avoid bitcoin. In the bubble of wikipedia users who care enough to touch this poll, it is far less one-sided. I assure you all of those users who voted for or against have more than an average amount of education on the issues too, it's not like you can be the sort of person who votes on a wikipedia RFC without _also_ being a very online person.

DocTomoe 5y ago
The moment you understand your web project as a "movement" is the moment you need to take a step back and carefully consider which track you are really on. Very few good things ever came from organisations that self-described as a movement, but we got plenty of crime and sometimes genocides out of movements.
vmception 5y ago
Yes, exactly like that reason. Linked to the other reason about their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. And the problem of supposed implicit endorsement of the perceived environmental impact, which changes when people understand which crypto currencies to use or how to use them or what specific problems to solve or advocate against. All solved with education. If people that know this cant be a source then who can be a source, in your opinion?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. It's very relevant to "most" cryptocurrencies by value, though - Bitcoin and Ethereum are still PoW, and these two make up most of the market anyway, especially when including other coins based on their chains, like Tether and USDC.
sennight 5y ago
> ...vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Cryptobro-splainer here. Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next... and while this is going on you can't help but calculate how much potential profit your mistake has cost you. You are also going to be struggling with envy, and your offended sense of justice. What would such an experience do to a person? Well, it makes them very upset - and desperate for something that would shield their ego. The whole environmental impact cover is a perfect example: the papers people point to are always poorly executed, using outdated data and poorly justified guestimation... always without acknowledging the most important part - "relative to what?" But that isn't really the point, the point is to provide a moral justification for the costly shortsighted position.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  I don't see any detractors claiming that cryptocurrencies will be dead in any timeframe. They are arguing that they are useless and ponzi schemes, but it's very well known that market and people can stay irrational way longer than any bet.
  - vmception 5y ago
    https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/ https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      Yawn. A ton of those do not claim any predictions related to value, just state some facts and opinions about it. For example: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-is-just-a-crappy-tech-stock/ https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-is-just-a-crappy-tech-stock/
  - sennight 5y ago
    You must not be paying attention then, because many detractors have made the claim repeatedly. It would be funny if it wasn't clearly the result of a predictable feedback loop. I'm really not interested in skylining one particular individual, but if you are genuinely interested in understanding what is happening: pick any one of the many tech writers appearing in the multitude of obituary compilations, then pull up their twitter timeline and observe their increasingly venomous attacks on cryptocurrency over the years. With regard to them being useless: that argument falls apart very quickly when challenged. Unless you actually believe that software agents won't cause a massive economic shift, and that a weaponized financial system is really a good thing that brings stability. As far as it being a "ponzi scheme", a pump and dump, a tulip mania, a beanie-baby fad, etc... Just look at the time scale for a big clue as to why such an argument is laughable.

DocTomoe 5y ago

The moment you understand your web project as a "movement" is the moment you need to take a step back and carefully consider which track you are really on. Very few good things ever came from organisations that self-described as a movement, but we got plenty of crime and sometimes genocides out of movements.

vmception 5y ago

Yes, exactly like that reason. Linked to the other reason about their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. And the problem of supposed implicit endorsement of the perceived environmental impact, which changes when people understand which crypto currencies to use or how to use them or what specific problems to solve or advocate against. All solved with education. If people that know this cant be a source then who can be a source, in your opinion?

tsimionescu 5y ago
> their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies. It's very relevant to "most" cryptocurrencies by value, though - Bitcoin and Ethereum are still PoW, and these two make up most of the market anyway, especially when including other coins based on their chains, like Tether and USDC.

sennight 5y ago

> ...vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Cryptobro-splainer here. Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next... and while this is going on you can't help but calculate how much potential profit your mistake has cost you. You are also going to be struggling with envy, and your offended sense of justice. What would such an experience do to a person? Well, it makes them very upset - and desperate for something that would shield their ego. The whole environmental impact cover is a perfect example: the papers people point to are always poorly executed, using outdated data and poorly justified guestimation... always without acknowledging the most important part - "relative to what?" But that isn't really the point, the point is to provide a moral justification for the costly shortsighted position.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
I don't see any detractors claiming that cryptocurrencies will be dead in any timeframe. They are arguing that they are useless and ponzi schemes, but it's very well known that market and people can stay irrational way longer than any bet.
- vmception 5y ago
  https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/ https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    Yawn. A ton of those do not claim any predictions related to value, just state some facts and opinions about it. For example: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-is-just-a-crappy-tech-stock/ https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-is-just-a-crappy-tech-stock/
- sennight 5y ago
  You must not be paying attention then, because many detractors have made the claim repeatedly. It would be funny if it wasn't clearly the result of a predictable feedback loop. I'm really not interested in skylining one particular individual, but if you are genuinely interested in understanding what is happening: pick any one of the many tech writers appearing in the multitude of obituary compilations, then pull up their twitter timeline and observe their increasingly venomous attacks on cryptocurrency over the years. With regard to them being useless: that argument falls apart very quickly when challenged. Unless you actually believe that software agents won't cause a massive economic shift, and that a weaponized financial system is really a good thing that brings stability. As far as it being a "ponzi scheme", a pump and dump, a tulip mania, a beanie-baby fad, etc... Just look at the time scale for a big clue as to why such an argument is laughable.