4 ms·

A lot of people don't like these new financial toys like NFTs and tokens. But to say "they should be destroyed" seems... extreme? Just let nerds do their thing

A lot of people don't like these new financial toys like NFTs and tokens. But to say "they should be destroyed" seems... extreme? Just let nerds do their thing online. I don't tell furries to go fuck off because I find their subculture objectionable.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> Just let nerds do their thing online. Except these grifters, scam artists, and rug pullers are fleecing more than just a few nerds and it isn't limited to just the online world.
minimaxir 4y ago
> Just let nerds do their thing online. Web3 is the unusual case where it has significant effects offline that affects people other than nerds, namely in the form of energy consumption and global warning.
- solotronics 4y ago
  Christmas lights use 6.6 tWh per year. It's estimated that Bitcoin mining uses about the same amount of electricity as running clothes dryers. I never hear the argument that clothes drying is destroying the world.
  - agentultra 4y ago
    It's more than that and growing fast. There's also the yearly upgrades miners go through which shed piles of ASICs and extraneous e-waste which is, itself, constantly growing. It's using energy fast enough that it's holding us back from green energy deployments. There are studies picking this apart that you can Google if you're interested. The gist of it is that every unit of green energy added to the grid is gobbled up by miners forcing legitimate users of energy to rely on coal. PoW coins have expanded our use of coal over the last 10 years rather than reduced it. Update: "But proof of stake..." is green-washing. Claiming that something will be green in the future does not make it green today. Nor does it wash away the fact that this claim has been made for the last 6 years and has been delay yet again. It's release will likely continue to be "some time in the near future," indefinitely.
  - kingkawn 4y ago
    Except I get dry clothes from a dryer.
  - isoprophlex 4y ago
    Yes, the consumption of El Salvador. Those shitcoins are using what Spain uses.
- PretzelPirate 4y ago
  This is a different argument. You’re arguing that Proof of Work should die, not Web3. Web3 doesn’t require Proof of Work consensus.
  - recursive 4y ago
    But somehow, that's what all the most highly used and successful implementations are using. I don't think it's unreasonable to note that.
vetrom 4y ago
Well, to me it sounds like it was 'merely' a reference to `Carthago Delenda Est`. Given the polarized view on the subject matter, I suppose it fits.
akozak 4y ago
I would agree if there were no externalities, but those nerds are paying celebs to advertise crypto to the masses as an investment (soon Fidelity will help people put 20% of their 401k into bitcoin - seems bad) and we are adding GW to the grid y/y.
- md2020 4y ago
  Have you considered Fidelity has done more research and knows more about Bitcoin than you? Your judgement that it just “seems bad” is rather shallow when it’s being leveled at a decision made by one of the largest asset managers in the world.
  - akozak 4y ago
    It's just as shallow (unless you're a Fidelity insider) to assume they went through a rational process and have a strong legal argument that they're upholding their fiduciary duty to account holders. Big companies make dumb decisions all the time, and financial companies especially when there's money on the table. So far Fidelity seems to be standing alone with this move. Putting 20% of your 401k into bitcoin as a regular person just seems so obviously unwise to me, and the US Dept of Labor seems to agree, so I'll stick by my comment and priors until I see more first-order evidence.
    - dsr_ 4y ago
      Having Fidelity support Bitcoin, Dogecoin or Ethereum is about as difficult and expensive for them as supporting a new stock or commodity exchange, and about as risky... as long as they don't act as a market maker. They'll almost certainly make money on fees. Meanwhile they get the marketing value. They spend over $100MM annually on advertising (by way of a quick googling, I have no special insight) so it seems reasonable that they like being talked about, especially by people who might otherwise be avoiding them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nathias 4y ago
the_gastropod 4y ago
I think this probably stems from not having a good understanding of the objections. The externalities involved with these "toys" are many. For a solid run-through of some of the objections, I can't recommend enough watching this YouTube video titled "Line Go Up - The Problem with NFT's" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
drewcoo 4y ago
I think the thing to realize is that they're not furries. They're gremlins. At a Waffle House. At 2:30 am. It may not make any sense, but the situation doesn't look good. https://www.cbr.com/why-gremlins-after-midnight-eating-rule-makes-no-sense/ https://www.cbr.com/why-gremlins-after-midnight-eating-rule-...
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago
> Just let nerds do their thing online. I mean, absolutely. But let's not pretend that the whole blockchain bubble is a "nerd" (in the tech sense) thing. It hasn't been since like 2014. It also isn't an "interest of some", the cryptocurrency people very much want to force this dystopia and snakeoil technology onto everyone. All so a few people can make a lot of money.
rvz 4y ago
Well it is either regulation or ban. The author (and many other skeptics) want a total ban on the whole thing, and the crypto maximalists do not want regulations or bans either. I'm very sorry to report that these regulations are going to come and wipe the meme coins but leaving the compliant cryptocurrencies and web3 projects to survive. So, when I see articles like this calling for it all to be totally destroyed even since it 13 years of its existence, I can only say that the author, crypto-skeptics and the crypto maximalists are going to be disappointed for the next 13 years.
doomleika 4y ago
Depends on your angle. If you goal is to prevent your average joe, grandma & pafrom getting rugged from script kiddie, then it must be destroyed. Or you create financial tsunami dwarf today's collapse and probably create WW3.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago

> Just let nerds do their thing online. Except these grifters, scam artists, and rug pullers are fleecing more than just a few nerds and it isn't limited to just the online world.

minimaxir 4y ago

> Just let nerds do their thing online. Web3 is the unusual case where it has significant effects offline that affects people other than nerds, namely in the form of energy consumption and global warning.

solotronics 4y ago
Christmas lights use 6.6 tWh per year. It's estimated that Bitcoin mining uses about the same amount of electricity as running clothes dryers. I never hear the argument that clothes drying is destroying the world.
- agentultra 4y ago
  It's more than that and growing fast. There's also the yearly upgrades miners go through which shed piles of ASICs and extraneous e-waste which is, itself, constantly growing. It's using energy fast enough that it's holding us back from green energy deployments. There are studies picking this apart that you can Google if you're interested. The gist of it is that every unit of green energy added to the grid is gobbled up by miners forcing legitimate users of energy to rely on coal. PoW coins have expanded our use of coal over the last 10 years rather than reduced it. Update: "But proof of stake..." is green-washing. Claiming that something will be green in the future does not make it green today. Nor does it wash away the fact that this claim has been made for the last 6 years and has been delay yet again. It's release will likely continue to be "some time in the near future," indefinitely.
- kingkawn 4y ago
  Except I get dry clothes from a dryer.
- isoprophlex 4y ago
  Yes, the consumption of El Salvador. Those shitcoins are using what Spain uses.
PretzelPirate 4y ago
This is a different argument. You’re arguing that Proof of Work should die, not Web3. Web3 doesn’t require Proof of Work consensus.
- recursive 4y ago
  But somehow, that's what all the most highly used and successful implementations are using. I don't think it's unreasonable to note that.

vetrom 4y ago

Well, to me it sounds like it was 'merely' a reference to `Carthago Delenda Est`. Given the polarized view on the subject matter, I suppose it fits.

akozak 4y ago

I would agree if there were no externalities, but those nerds are paying celebs to advertise crypto to the masses as an investment (soon Fidelity will help people put 20% of their 401k into bitcoin - seems bad) and we are adding GW to the grid y/y.

md2020 4y ago
Have you considered Fidelity has done more research and knows more about Bitcoin than you? Your judgement that it just “seems bad” is rather shallow when it’s being leveled at a decision made by one of the largest asset managers in the world.
- akozak 4y ago
  It's just as shallow (unless you're a Fidelity insider) to assume they went through a rational process and have a strong legal argument that they're upholding their fiduciary duty to account holders. Big companies make dumb decisions all the time, and financial companies especially when there's money on the table. So far Fidelity seems to be standing alone with this move. Putting 20% of your 401k into bitcoin as a regular person just seems so obviously unwise to me, and the US Dept of Labor seems to agree, so I'll stick by my comment and priors until I see more first-order evidence.
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    Having Fidelity support Bitcoin, Dogecoin or Ethereum is about as difficult and expensive for them as supporting a new stock or commodity exchange, and about as risky... as long as they don't act as a market maker. They'll almost certainly make money on fees. Meanwhile they get the marketing value. They spend over $100MM annually on advertising (by way of a quick googling, I have no special insight) so it seems reasonable that they like being talked about, especially by people who might otherwise be avoiding them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nathias 4y ago

the_gastropod 4y ago

I think this probably stems from not having a good understanding of the objections. The externalities involved with these "toys" are many. For a solid run-through of some of the objections, I can't recommend enough watching this YouTube video titled "Line Go Up - The Problem with NFT's" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

drewcoo 4y ago

I think the thing to realize is that they're not furries. They're gremlins. At a Waffle House. At 2:30 am. It may not make any sense, but the situation doesn't look good. https://www.cbr.com/why-gremlins-after-midnight-eating-rule-makes-no-sense/ https://www.cbr.com/why-gremlins-after-midnight-eating-rule-...

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago

> Just let nerds do their thing online. I mean, absolutely. But let's not pretend that the whole blockchain bubble is a "nerd" (in the tech sense) thing. It hasn't been since like 2014. It also isn't an "interest of some", the cryptocurrency people very much want to force this dystopia and snakeoil technology onto everyone. All so a few people can make a lot of money.

rvz 4y ago

Well it is either regulation or ban. The author (and many other skeptics) want a total ban on the whole thing, and the crypto maximalists do not want regulations or bans either. I'm very sorry to report that these regulations are going to come and wipe the meme coins but leaving the compliant cryptocurrencies and web3 projects to survive. So, when I see articles like this calling for it all to be totally destroyed even since it 13 years of its existence, I can only say that the author, crypto-skeptics and the crypto maximalists are going to be disappointed for the next 13 years.

doomleika 4y ago

Depends on your angle. If you goal is to prevent your average joe, grandma & pafrom getting rugged from script kiddie, then it must be destroyed. Or you create financial tsunami dwarf today's collapse and probably create WW3.