4 ms·

It’s not an ad hominem - it’s a critique of the type of discourse. You’ve already made up your mind as evidenced by this reply (what you claim is “reality as it

It’s not an ad hominem - it’s a critique of the type of discourse. You’ve already made up your mind as evidenced by this reply (what you claim is “reality as it is”) and will just argue in favor of that conclusion. You’re right the difference is in the “probably”, but you’re wrong about what it means. I’m not so certain, but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists. Perhaps unfair for me to dismiss you as early as I did, but I just suspected your reply wasn’t in good faith.

dmitriid 5y ago
> and will just argue in favor of that conclusion Because reality doesn't care about your "probably"s. Note how you immediately started calling this discussion "this type of discourse" and "you made up your mind" immediately after I simply listed facts. > but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists There's a difference between "recognizing new capabilities" and "wishful thinking". Unsurprisingly, when faced with facts crypto proponents immediately fall back to "you just don't understand", "you're not curious", "future will show you're wrong" etc. Facts are: - the absolute vast majority of memberships imply "a central/centralized authority that verifies membership". That's what "gated community" is - Blockchains make even the simplest act of membership unnecessarily complicated, and makes more complex interactions nearly impossible. - It's on the crypto shills to show that this tech offers anything new or interesting beyond "oh, this is new tech with wonderful new capabilities". So far, at closer inspection, the people claiming that have precisely zero knowledge on the topic and haven't thought about anything beyond the simplest use cases. Without fail, in 100% of cases this is the case. - There's a very minor very fleeting possibility that globally verifiable membership in a group is useful, for large enough groups. However, looking at every single global group (largest being football fans, for example), there's literally zero indication that blockchains and NFTs can offer even a sliver of value, no matter how many "probably"s you throw in there. Masons managed to create a global secret society without blockchain, or computers. But do tell me how "I'm not curious" or "probably wrong". If only wide-eyed crypto enthusiasts were curious themselves.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts. That you can't or won't recognize this is what I'm talking about. "Literally no new thing", "I look at reality" (implying I only make stuff up), "wishful thinking", "precisely zero knowledge", "Without fail in 100% of cases this is the case", etc. etc. There are interesting conversations to have on this topic, but it's hard to have them with someone only willing to engage in this way. It requires some amount of willingness to be uncertain of what you currently believe and you're not. The more you reply, the more you confirm my initial suspicion of bad faith. I'm not some blind crypto nut (at best I'm cautiously optimistic), but I find it hard to engage with the baseline anti-crypto hostility on HN which makes interesting conversation hard.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts They are facts: 1. "Gated community is centralized by default" is a fact. 2. "Literally no new thing has come out of this" is a fact. 3. "Not to mention use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a gated community" is a statment that has a fact in it: "use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a gated community" And in the comment you're replying to I've also stated some facts besides just opinion. > There are interesting conversations to have on this topic, but it's hard to have them with someone only willing to engage in this way. Please show me a single "interesting conversation" where anyone from the crypto community has anything to say beyond "there are new interesting new things you just have to believe in possibility that someday maybe this will happen". > It requires some amount of willingness to be uncertain of what you currently believe and you're not. I'm definitely uncertain about many things. Once again, there's a difference between being uncertain and blindly believing in snake oil. It's on the sellers of snake oil to prove their wild claims, not on me. > The more you reply, the more you confirm my initial suspicion of bad faith. Yup. More comments without zero substance on the "interesting new capabilites" and "interesting discussions". > I'm not some blind crypto nut (at best I'm cautiously optimistic), but I find it hard to engage with the baseline anti-crypto hostility on HN which makes interesting conversation hard. If there was any such interesting conversation, "not blind crypto nuts" would have already had it and had, for example, links to such discussions. In over a decade no such discussion has materialised for very obvious reasons.

dmitriid 5y ago

> and will just argue in favor of that conclusion Because reality doesn't care about your "probably"s. Note how you immediately started calling this discussion "this type of discourse" and "you made up your mind" immediately after I simply listed facts. > but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists There's a difference between "recognizing new capabilities" and "wishful thinking". Unsurprisingly, when faced with facts crypto proponents immediately fall back to "you just don't understand", "you're not curious", "future will show you're wrong" etc. Facts are: - the absolute vast majority of memberships imply "a central/centralized authority that verifies membership". That's what "gated community" is - Blockchains make even the simplest act of membership unnecessarily complicated, and makes more complex interactions nearly impossible. - It's on the crypto shills to show that this tech offers anything new or interesting beyond "oh, this is new tech with wonderful new capabilities". So far, at closer inspection, the people claiming that have precisely zero knowledge on the topic and haven't thought about anything beyond the simplest use cases. Without fail, in 100% of cases this is the case. - There's a very minor very fleeting possibility that globally verifiable membership in a group is useful, for large enough groups. However, looking at every single global group (largest being football fans, for example), there's literally zero indication that blockchains and NFTs can offer even a sliver of value, no matter how many "probably"s you throw in there. Masons managed to create a global secret society without blockchain, or computers. But do tell me how "I'm not curious" or "probably wrong". If only wide-eyed crypto enthusiasts were curious themselves.

gonehome 5y ago
Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts. That you can't or won't recognize this is what I'm talking about. "Literally no new thing", "I look at reality" (implying I only make stuff up), "wishful thinking", "precisely zero knowledge", "Without fail in 100% of cases this is the case", etc. etc. There are interesting conversations to have on this topic, but it's hard to have them with someone only willing to engage in this way. It requires some amount of willingness to be uncertain of what you currently believe and you're not. The more you reply, the more you confirm my initial suspicion of bad faith. I'm not some blind crypto nut (at best I'm cautiously optimistic), but I find it hard to engage with the baseline anti-crypto hostility on HN which makes interesting conversation hard.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts They are facts: 1. "Gated community is centralized by default" is a fact. 2. "Literally no new thing has come out of this" is a fact. 3. "Not to mention use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a gated community" is a statment that has a fact in it: "use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a gated community" And in the comment you're replying to I've also stated some facts besides just opinion. > There are interesting conversations to have on this topic, but it's hard to have them with someone only willing to engage in this way. Please show me a single "interesting conversation" where anyone from the crypto community has anything to say beyond "there are new interesting new things you just have to believe in possibility that someday maybe this will happen". > It requires some amount of willingness to be uncertain of what you currently believe and you're not. I'm definitely uncertain about many things. Once again, there's a difference between being uncertain and blindly believing in snake oil. It's on the sellers of snake oil to prove their wild claims, not on me. > The more you reply, the more you confirm my initial suspicion of bad faith. Yup. More comments without zero substance on the "interesting new capabilites" and "interesting discussions". > I'm not some blind crypto nut (at best I'm cautiously optimistic), but I find it hard to engage with the baseline anti-crypto hostility on HN which makes interesting conversation hard. If there was any such interesting conversation, "not blind crypto nuts" would have already had it and had, for example, links to such discussions. In over a decade no such discussion has materialised for very obvious reasons.