4 ms·

You just proved that it's low quality as well as irrational. On a complex topic with an enormous scope, you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, and p

by fleddr 4y ago

You just proved that it's low quality as well as irrational. On a complex topic with an enormous scope, you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, and present it as factual. That's pretty much impossible on any topic of high complexity. You present zero evidence to justify such extreme conclusion. That's low quality and irrational. To come to a high confidence conclusion on the whole of web3, one would have to actually read hundreds of articles at least, and spent significant time actually using the many products. I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test. So you have zero evidence and presumably zero knowledge or experience. And you're the rational one?

polygamous_bat 4y ago
> To come to a high confidence conclusion on the whole of web3, one would have to actually read hundreds of articles at least, and spent significant time actually using the many products. I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test. But then, above, > Further, when you use Stephen Diehl as a source, you already lost. This guy has an unhealthy obsession with hating crypto fueled by his own crypto startup failure. Please get your story straight; all I am getting is ad hominems. If we are going that route, please provide me with enough reason to not believe that you are one of the hordes of bagholders who bought into a pyramid scheme covered in layers of jargon in 2021 and are now trembling with fear after losing half of your gambling money that you were promised will double in no time; and are now desperately trying to draw in new marks for your decentralized MLM by advertising and name calling on hackernews. See how it works both ways?
- fleddr 4y ago
  What exactly isn't "straight" about my position on crypto? The only thing I'm saying is that for such a vast and complicated space, both the absolutes (100% bad, 100% good) are suspicious, intellectually lazy and likely made by commenters with near-zero knowledge or experience. A character like Diehl is a "crypto is 100% bad" guy. Or more like 500% bad. It's a personal crusade. A crypto-bro shitcoin promoter is a "crypto is 100% good" guy. I reject both positions and characters. I regret to inform you that I own zero web3 tokens, nor do I have any other stake in any web3 project whatsoever. I'm not here to promote or defend crypto specifically. I'm here to defend (in vain) nuanced discussion and seeking truth. We could be having this same discussion about "JavaScript sucks" or "Elon Musk sucks" and I would do the same thing: reject simplistic absolutes by people who don't even know anything about said topic.
  - rvz 4y ago
    > reject simplistic absolutes by people who don't even know anything about said topic. Precisely. That is the whole point of what I am also saying. Absolutist positions on either side: the "All crypto should 100% die" from the anti-crypto crowd and "All crypto projects will 100% take over the current system" by crypto-bros and maximalists are both wrong. If they were to 100% die, they would have banned all of them a long time ago and not all of these projects are guaranteed to succeed, they can also fail as well, even after regulations a few projects will succeed. Given it is ridiculous to reject all electric vehicles because there are too many petrol and diesel vehicles currently burning up the planet, then it is also ridiculous to generalize and reject all cryptocurrencies because some of them use proof-of-work, even when not all of them use that. I predict we will see the same arguments, refutations and we will continue to see this in the next HN post about something about crypto again.
shkkmo 4y ago
Given the long and blemished history of failure, grifts and outright lies coming out of the cryptocurrency community, that is a ridiculous position. Please stop wasting your time trying to defend cryptocurrency. At this point nothing you say will be believe because cryptocurrency bros have a long history of hype that goes nowhere. If you want to show the world that cryptocurrency is useful, go figure out a way to make it useful that doesn't involve breaking laws or wouldn't be better solved by using a DB instead of the block chain.
- fleddr 4y ago
  Spoken like a true intellectual. But no, I will waste my time any way I please. Luckily that decision is decentralized. I'm not even a crypto promoter nor do I own a single web3 token. I was defending nuance in debate, quite ironical that you double down in the opposite direction, but not unexpected.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > I'm not even a crypto promoter nor do I own a single web3 token. I was defending nuance in debate, I didn't see any defense of nuance from you. > I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test. Here you don't add any nuance to the conversation, you just again attack people based on your assumptions about their level of knowledge. > you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, I didn't see any such claim in the comment you responded to. > And you're the rational one? This is defending nuance? Or is this just an ad hominem attack? > Spoken like a true intellectual. Look, another ad hominem attack. If you intent was to ask for evidence to back up those assertions, you did a very poor job of doing that in a way that promotes nuanced discussion.
    - fleddr 4y ago
      Well, it's a garbage-in / garbage-out kind of thing. You call my position ridiculous (without even understanding it). As is evident from your next point where you state I'm "defending" crypto. I've made it obvious multiple times that I agree that at least 90% of crypto projects fail and have no (mainstream) utility. The nuance I added is to not forget about that 10% and that regardless of success/failure, crypto in itself has interesting ideas. Ideas that are fun to reason about as they touch many aspects: economical, philosophical, technical, political. The only thing I said really is to be intellectually curious and to keep an open mind, and that this should be considered normal in a tech community like HN. Even for the bad parts of crypto (the 90% speculation) I'd encourage intellectual curiosity, as it's driven by important macro conditions for young people. Why not try to understand that better? For the above position you call me ridiculous and imply I'm a crypto bro. You continue that you will believe nothing that I will say. In a bad faith discussion like that, don't expect high quality replies. After all, you don't believe anything anyway.
FargaColora 4y ago
web3 is being hailed as changing the world. So far all it has done is create countless scams. However I am open to change my mind. Could you provide a single example of a popular and useful project that has been done using the revolutionary technology of web3?
danShumway 4y ago
Do you see any sense of irony here when looking at some of the crypto-proponents on this page arguing that the entire history of currency is bunk and can be discarded without knock-on effects? > On a complex topic with an enormous scope, you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, and present it as factual. That's pretty much impossible on any topic of high complexity. This, on its own, is a pretty good reason not to trust a community that regularly messes up pegging stablecoins. I do not buy that purposefully making something complex is the same thing as making it robust. If anything, it's the opposite, complex systems are more likely to have fundamental flaws and are more likely to fall down and blow up than simple systems. But if we are looking at complexity, current fiat currencies are already unbelievably complicated and multi-faceted. The way that inflation works, the way that currencies get issued, how trust in currencies grows, how countries coordinate and handle currency exchanges and debt, you could get multiple doctorates in every one of those areas. So if you're saying that GP is telling on themselves by dismissing cryptocurrencies out of hand because the math being hard means that quick dismissal of the social impact isn't allowed, how do you not immediately get really large red flags when you look at crypto-communities talking about how those economists are all just obviously wrong and crypto prices aren't tied to overall market effects, or that inflationary assets are just bad design, or that everyone's energy criticisms are just overstated, or that digital artists that hate NFTs just don't understand them, or that stock markets are exactly the same as cryptocurrency speculation, and so on and so on? The idea of cryptocurrency proponents saying, "wait a second, this system is complex, we can't just dismiss it out of hand" just seems like it's missing a tiny bit of self awareness. Cryptocurrency by and large is a dismissal of complex systems and was primarily made and popularized by people who looked at economic/currency theory and thought, "yeah, I can do that, how hard could it possibly be?"
- fleddr 4y ago
  I'm not talking about the technical complexity of crypto. I'm talking about statements that cannot possibly have a binary answer, as any reasonable answer lies on a spectrum. You can apply that to any complex divisive topic. Even harmless ones... "JavaScript sucks" Position 1: JS is pure evil, it should be eliminated or even banned. Position 2: Everything should be built in JS, no matter the problem. Both positions are absolute and extreme. They should both be distrusted as absolute statements tend to be false by default. In the rare case where they are true, extraordinary evidence needs to be presented and the commenter needs to be extremely knowledgeable and experienced on the topic at hand. Applied to crypto, a statement like "web3 is a scam" should be translated to: "I don't know anything about web3. I've never read any whitepapers. I've never used any of its products. I've never engaged with the community. I don't stay on top of news. Yet I did hear it is bad so I'll just parrot that and present it as fact." I mean, look at the original article: "keep the web free". ...which incorrectly assesses how "free" the current web actually is, but aside from that: what part of web3 is taking away the current free web? Does the author think that web3 will uninstall the HTTP protocol? There is no threat, it's entirely imagined.

by fleddr 4y ago

polygamous_bat 4y ago

> To come to a high confidence conclusion on the whole of web3, one would have to actually read hundreds of articles at least, and spent significant time actually using the many products. I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test. But then, above, > Further, when you use Stephen Diehl as a source, you already lost. This guy has an unhealthy obsession with hating crypto fueled by his own crypto startup failure. Please get your story straight; all I am getting is ad hominems. If we are going that route, please provide me with enough reason to not believe that you are one of the hordes of bagholders who bought into a pyramid scheme covered in layers of jargon in 2021 and are now trembling with fear after losing half of your gambling money that you were promised will double in no time; and are now desperately trying to draw in new marks for your decentralized MLM by advertising and name calling on hackernews. See how it works both ways?

fleddr 4y ago
What exactly isn't "straight" about my position on crypto? The only thing I'm saying is that for such a vast and complicated space, both the absolutes (100% bad, 100% good) are suspicious, intellectually lazy and likely made by commenters with near-zero knowledge or experience. A character like Diehl is a "crypto is 100% bad" guy. Or more like 500% bad. It's a personal crusade. A crypto-bro shitcoin promoter is a "crypto is 100% good" guy. I reject both positions and characters. I regret to inform you that I own zero web3 tokens, nor do I have any other stake in any web3 project whatsoever. I'm not here to promote or defend crypto specifically. I'm here to defend (in vain) nuanced discussion and seeking truth. We could be having this same discussion about "JavaScript sucks" or "Elon Musk sucks" and I would do the same thing: reject simplistic absolutes by people who don't even know anything about said topic.
- rvz 4y ago
  > reject simplistic absolutes by people who don't even know anything about said topic. Precisely. That is the whole point of what I am also saying. Absolutist positions on either side: the "All crypto should 100% die" from the anti-crypto crowd and "All crypto projects will 100% take over the current system" by crypto-bros and maximalists are both wrong. If they were to 100% die, they would have banned all of them a long time ago and not all of these projects are guaranteed to succeed, they can also fail as well, even after regulations a few projects will succeed. Given it is ridiculous to reject all electric vehicles because there are too many petrol and diesel vehicles currently burning up the planet, then it is also ridiculous to generalize and reject all cryptocurrencies because some of them use proof-of-work, even when not all of them use that. I predict we will see the same arguments, refutations and we will continue to see this in the next HN post about something about crypto again.

shkkmo 4y ago

Given the long and blemished history of failure, grifts and outright lies coming out of the cryptocurrency community, that is a ridiculous position. Please stop wasting your time trying to defend cryptocurrency. At this point nothing you say will be believe because cryptocurrency bros have a long history of hype that goes nowhere. If you want to show the world that cryptocurrency is useful, go figure out a way to make it useful that doesn't involve breaking laws or wouldn't be better solved by using a DB instead of the block chain.

fleddr 4y ago
Spoken like a true intellectual. But no, I will waste my time any way I please. Luckily that decision is decentralized. I'm not even a crypto promoter nor do I own a single web3 token. I was defending nuance in debate, quite ironical that you double down in the opposite direction, but not unexpected.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > I'm not even a crypto promoter nor do I own a single web3 token. I was defending nuance in debate, I didn't see any defense of nuance from you. > I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test. Here you don't add any nuance to the conversation, you just again attack people based on your assumptions about their level of knowledge. > you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, I didn't see any such claim in the comment you responded to. > And you're the rational one? This is defending nuance? Or is this just an ad hominem attack? > Spoken like a true intellectual. Look, another ad hominem attack. If you intent was to ask for evidence to back up those assertions, you did a very poor job of doing that in a way that promotes nuanced discussion.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    Well, it's a garbage-in / garbage-out kind of thing. You call my position ridiculous (without even understanding it). As is evident from your next point where you state I'm "defending" crypto. I've made it obvious multiple times that I agree that at least 90% of crypto projects fail and have no (mainstream) utility. The nuance I added is to not forget about that 10% and that regardless of success/failure, crypto in itself has interesting ideas. Ideas that are fun to reason about as they touch many aspects: economical, philosophical, technical, political. The only thing I said really is to be intellectually curious and to keep an open mind, and that this should be considered normal in a tech community like HN. Even for the bad parts of crypto (the 90% speculation) I'd encourage intellectual curiosity, as it's driven by important macro conditions for young people. Why not try to understand that better? For the above position you call me ridiculous and imply I'm a crypto bro. You continue that you will believe nothing that I will say. In a bad faith discussion like that, don't expect high quality replies. After all, you don't believe anything anyway.

FargaColora 4y ago

web3 is being hailed as changing the world. So far all it has done is create countless scams. However I am open to change my mind. Could you provide a single example of a popular and useful project that has been done using the revolutionary technology of web3?

danShumway 4y ago

Do you see any sense of irony here when looking at some of the crypto-proponents on this page arguing that the entire history of currency is bunk and can be discarded without knock-on effects? > On a complex topic with an enormous scope, you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, and present it as factual. That's pretty much impossible on any topic of high complexity. This, on its own, is a pretty good reason not to trust a community that regularly messes up pegging stablecoins. I do not buy that purposefully making something complex is the same thing as making it robust. If anything, it's the opposite, complex systems are more likely to have fundamental flaws and are more likely to fall down and blow up than simple systems. But if we are looking at complexity, current fiat currencies are already unbelievably complicated and multi-faceted. The way that inflation works, the way that currencies get issued, how trust in currencies grows, how countries coordinate and handle currency exchanges and debt, you could get multiple doctorates in every one of those areas. So if you're saying that GP is telling on themselves by dismissing cryptocurrencies out of hand because the math being hard means that quick dismissal of the social impact isn't allowed, how do you not immediately get really large red flags when you look at crypto-communities talking about how those economists are all just obviously wrong and crypto prices aren't tied to overall market effects, or that inflationary assets are just bad design, or that everyone's energy criticisms are just overstated, or that digital artists that hate NFTs just don't understand them, or that stock markets are exactly the same as cryptocurrency speculation, and so on and so on? The idea of cryptocurrency proponents saying, "wait a second, this system is complex, we can't just dismiss it out of hand" just seems like it's missing a tiny bit of self awareness. Cryptocurrency by and large is a dismissal of complex systems and was primarily made and popularized by people who looked at economic/currency theory and thought, "yeah, I can do that, how hard could it possibly be?"

fleddr 4y ago
I'm not talking about the technical complexity of crypto. I'm talking about statements that cannot possibly have a binary answer, as any reasonable answer lies on a spectrum. You can apply that to any complex divisive topic. Even harmless ones... "JavaScript sucks" Position 1: JS is pure evil, it should be eliminated or even banned. Position 2: Everything should be built in JS, no matter the problem. Both positions are absolute and extreme. They should both be distrusted as absolute statements tend to be false by default. In the rare case where they are true, extraordinary evidence needs to be presented and the commenter needs to be extremely knowledgeable and experienced on the topic at hand. Applied to crypto, a statement like "web3 is a scam" should be translated to: "I don't know anything about web3. I've never read any whitepapers. I've never used any of its products. I've never engaged with the community. I don't stay on top of news. Yet I did hear it is bad so I'll just parrot that and present it as fact." I mean, look at the original article: "keep the web free". ...which incorrectly assesses how "free" the current web actually is, but aside from that: what part of web3 is taking away the current free web? Does the author think that web3 will uninstall the HTTP protocol? There is no threat, it's entirely imagined.