4 ms·

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 dis

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.
- danShumway 4y ago
  > "JavaScript sucks" This risks falling into a tautology. The reason why it's naive to completely dismiss Javascript or to use it for everything is the same reason why it's a complicated topic -- because there are a lot of obviously useful applications, a lot of obvious flaws, because it managed to win marketshare over alternatives in a practical (not just speculative) way that led to genuine improvements to a lot of products that we use. Not to mention that a lot of incredibly smart people have ended up with nuanced takes that go in both directions. If what you mean by "complicated" is "this is inherently nuanced", then saying "complicated things are inherently nuanced" isn't really saying anything. It's just saying that nuanced things are nuanced, it isn't proof or evidence of anything about Web3. If you're not talking about the tech and systemic complication, then the question is whether or not Web3 really is actually complicated in the specific way you are using the word -- ie, is it actually a nuanced topic, or is it mostly a buzzword that companies like Facebook have latched onto? And it is important to ask that question. Most things are useless, Javascript is the exception. If somebody comes up to you and tries to get you to learn a new language, you want to be immediately asking, "who else uses this? What evidence do you have that this isn't a scam?" And if that's not your default reaction, you'll end up buying into a lot of questionable technologies and frameworks that are error prone or that have bugs. > as absolute statements tend to be false by default This is also a little bit over-literal. Absolutes tend to be rare, yes, but that does not mean everything is always in the middle of two extremes. Sometimes it's off to the side, sometimes something is mostly useless but has one or two small ideas. Even something like Theranos, there are lessons you can take away from that company about marketing, there's some degree of nuance there -- but it was still very definitely a scam and still very definitely did more harm than good. Crypto does not need to be entirely useless across the board or have no good ideas at all in order for Web3 to be a scam. And again, going to the above point, if you go into every opportunity or proposal that someone makes online as if it's probably got a roughly equal number of good points and bad points, then you are going to get taken in by a lot of scams. If you demand extraordinary evidence in order to not trust someone, then you are ripe picking for Internet scams. Is it OK for people to point at technologies like Google AMP or DRM and say that they should be rejected or that they're bad for the Internet? > what part of web3 is taking away the current free web? Web3's lack of threat to the open web is largely predicated on the fact that it's mostly useless and that it won't take off in a serious way. But if a lot of Web3's applications (NFTs, crypto-based voting, code-as-law, etc, etc) did take off, the negatives would outweigh the positives that did exist. I don't think that's an absolute statement either, I'm not saying there's literally nothing good about Web3, just that the negatives very solidly outweigh the positives and the concept of universal commodification of all digital representation, IP, and content is mostly the opposite of what most open web proponents want. This is not just cherry-picking examples either, I'm not saying that because one or two specific Web3 games are bad that the entire ecosystem is bad. I'm saying that the actual underlying ideas are bad. As you so correctly mention there are very few absolutes but in general the commodification of individual actions in a game is toxic design and should be avoided -- it shouldn't be the standard that we build a market on. In general, taking fungible game assets and making them non-fungible and limited makes games worse. There are some very rare exceptions, but they don't justify remaking the market to accommodate them. Likewise, when we look at company plans around the Web3 metaverse, many of those plans are by design purposefully turning away from a lot of the things that would make a metaverse interesting in the first place -- they're prposing strict control of IP, scarce assets for things like land. It would be toxic and negative if those ideas took hold, and the only reason why they might not be dangerous is because it is unlikely that Web3 is going to play out the way that those people want. > There is no threat, it's entirely imagined. Again, do you see any irony in saying this after you just complained about people making absolute statements? When a significant chunk of proponents for the open web are saying that Web3 is toxic to the open web's ideals, does that give you hesitation, or are you saying you've read more books and spent more time researching software freedom than these people?

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.

danShumway 4y ago
> "JavaScript sucks" This risks falling into a tautology. The reason why it's naive to completely dismiss Javascript or to use it for everything is the same reason why it's a complicated topic -- because there are a lot of obviously useful applications, a lot of obvious flaws, because it managed to win marketshare over alternatives in a practical (not just speculative) way that led to genuine improvements to a lot of products that we use. Not to mention that a lot of incredibly smart people have ended up with nuanced takes that go in both directions. If what you mean by "complicated" is "this is inherently nuanced", then saying "complicated things are inherently nuanced" isn't really saying anything. It's just saying that nuanced things are nuanced, it isn't proof or evidence of anything about Web3. If you're not talking about the tech and systemic complication, then the question is whether or not Web3 really is actually complicated in the specific way you are using the word -- ie, is it actually a nuanced topic, or is it mostly a buzzword that companies like Facebook have latched onto? And it is important to ask that question. Most things are useless, Javascript is the exception. If somebody comes up to you and tries to get you to learn a new language, you want to be immediately asking, "who else uses this? What evidence do you have that this isn't a scam?" And if that's not your default reaction, you'll end up buying into a lot of questionable technologies and frameworks that are error prone or that have bugs. > as absolute statements tend to be false by default This is also a little bit over-literal. Absolutes tend to be rare, yes, but that does not mean everything is always in the middle of two extremes. Sometimes it's off to the side, sometimes something is mostly useless but has one or two small ideas. Even something like Theranos, there are lessons you can take away from that company about marketing, there's some degree of nuance there -- but it was still very definitely a scam and still very definitely did more harm than good. Crypto does not need to be entirely useless across the board or have no good ideas at all in order for Web3 to be a scam. And again, going to the above point, if you go into every opportunity or proposal that someone makes online as if it's probably got a roughly equal number of good points and bad points, then you are going to get taken in by a lot of scams. If you demand extraordinary evidence in order to not trust someone, then you are ripe picking for Internet scams. Is it OK for people to point at technologies like Google AMP or DRM and say that they should be rejected or that they're bad for the Internet? > what part of web3 is taking away the current free web? Web3's lack of threat to the open web is largely predicated on the fact that it's mostly useless and that it won't take off in a serious way. But if a lot of Web3's applications (NFTs, crypto-based voting, code-as-law, etc, etc) did take off, the negatives would outweigh the positives that did exist. I don't think that's an absolute statement either, I'm not saying there's literally nothing good about Web3, just that the negatives very solidly outweigh the positives and the concept of universal commodification of all digital representation, IP, and content is mostly the opposite of what most open web proponents want. This is not just cherry-picking examples either, I'm not saying that because one or two specific Web3 games are bad that the entire ecosystem is bad. I'm saying that the actual underlying ideas are bad. As you so correctly mention there are very few absolutes but in general the commodification of individual actions in a game is toxic design and should be avoided -- it shouldn't be the standard that we build a market on. In general, taking fungible game assets and making them non-fungible and limited makes games worse. There are some very rare exceptions, but they don't justify remaking the market to accommodate them. Likewise, when we look at company plans around the Web3 metaverse, many of those plans are by design purposefully turning away from a lot of the things that would make a metaverse interesting in the first place -- they're prposing strict control of IP, scarce assets for things like land. It would be toxic and negative if those ideas took hold, and the only reason why they might not be dangerous is because it is unlikely that Web3 is going to play out the way that those people want. > There is no threat, it's entirely imagined. Again, do you see any irony in saying this after you just complained about people making absolute statements? When a significant chunk of proponents for the open web are saying that Web3 is toxic to the open web's ideals, does that give you hesitation, or are you saying you've read more books and spent more time researching software freedom than these people?