4 ms·

Color me sceptical of the in depth knowledge of this author, if he insists on writing "BitCoin" which isn't the way the entire industry writes it. This leads me

Color me sceptical of the in depth knowledge of this author, if he insists on writing "BitCoin" which isn't the way the entire industry writes it. This leads me to believe that the author isn't well-versed enough in the industry to be able to make claims such as these.

JellyYelly 4y ago
Surely if you think the author isn't well versed enough in the industry you can explain why from the content they've written, rather than nitpicking on the capitalisation of a word. This just seems overly dismissive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- adastra22 4y ago
  I've been involved in bitcoin since 2010. (1) Not once have I ever encountered someone who knew what they were talking about and yet spelled it BitCoin. (2) Every time I've encountered "BitCoin" the author had a truly dismal understanding of the bitcoin protocol or incentive structure. Shibboleths are annoying, but they do serve as pretty accurate heuristics for assessing someone's familiarity with a domain, as in this particular case.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    The author lays out some pretty straight forward points, though. The fact that no one bothers to rebut them but instead focus on OPs credentials is quite telling of the typical crypto-bro-hype that dismisses all criticisms...
    - adastra22 4y ago
      Every single one of his points are against strawmwn arguments. The involved botcoiners I know talk about fixed supply, programmable money being inherently volatile and carry the extreme added risk of self-custody. There’s nothing new here.
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    This is also my experience. Concur.
- once_inc 4y ago
  please see my direct response to the original author.
ggm 4y ago
Isn't that almost definitionally ad hom? Maybe it's the one allowed form: Show me your competency to form an opinion. But that said, it feels ad hommy. I'm a crypto currency skeptic, I made $600 for $200 put in 5 years ago, it felt like gambling and I have no doubt it's hype and all my fellow CS peers seem to agree, as do most economists. It's not capable of doing what most people claim and also be the stonks vehicle most people in practice want, and the fundamentals under contract in code are pretty awful: formal verification won't fix the problem. Merkle trees and public signed ledger on the other hand, and trusted third parties and PKI are pretty rock solid. Do them, they're good.
rukshn 4y ago
OP here - True that I'm not a cryptocurrency expert. I'm just writing some observations that I've made after following cryptocurrencies for a while. Do everyone has to be an expert to voice their observations and opinions? I'm not an expert in anything.
- once_inc 4y ago
  No, you don't have to be an expert to voice observations, but my point is that you have probably not investigated Bitcoin long enough if you write BitCoin to be able to see the nuances in most of the points you've made. An example: The comparison between the two charts of Bitcoin and Apple stocks looks similar at first glance, but if you exclude the last week, most of that similarity is gone. Yes, Bitcoin is being invested/speculated with in mostly the same way that tech stocks are getting invested/speculated with, but that doesn't prove inflation resistance; that's a long-term trend, not a short-term trend. Your points on stablecoins is fine; I agree that those networks tend to overpromise and underdeliver. Regarding regulation: I don't see the direct relevance, because most cryptocurrency projects don't explicitly (or even implicitly) promise to be/remain unregulated. Anonymity isn't a thing on a public blockchain, and never was. Your point on smart contracts is broadly correct, but I'd like to point out that most contracts were exploited because either the security was flawed (by human action mostly), the contract was poorly constructed and participants didn't care to actually read and understand it (also human action, though I do admit that most people on Earth won't ever (be able to) read a smart contract), or because of malicious actions of the smart contract creator (also human action). I agree with your final conclusions. We do need a way to prevent rugpulls. The most straightforward way to do this is by realising that most altcoins are insecure or technically flawed in such a way that rugpulls aren't disincentivised. If you built smart contracts on Bitcoin (see: RSK) people will be a lot more hesitant, because Bitcoin is the only blockchain that is both secure, and thus digitally scarce. You can easily spot the difference in perception between Bitcoin and altcoins in the way people describe their interactions and goals for them: Bitcoin is a means to store wealth, altcoins are investment/speculation vehicles generally used to make more money with. You can nitpick about wether those definitions boil down to the same thing, but the perception and philosophy differs.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Colour me sceptical of the in depth knowledge of this poster, since he insists on making nitpicks about orthography, without providing any substantive comments of his own. The leads me to believe that the poster isn't well-versed enough in the article to be able to make comments such as these.
- once_inc 4y ago
  please see my response to the original author for my in-depth substantive comments.

JellyYelly 4y ago

Surely if you think the author isn't well versed enough in the industry you can explain why from the content they've written, rather than nitpicking on the capitalisation of a word. This just seems overly dismissive.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adastra22 4y ago
I've been involved in bitcoin since 2010. (1) Not once have I ever encountered someone who knew what they were talking about and yet spelled it BitCoin. (2) Every time I've encountered "BitCoin" the author had a truly dismal understanding of the bitcoin protocol or incentive structure. Shibboleths are annoying, but they do serve as pretty accurate heuristics for assessing someone's familiarity with a domain, as in this particular case.
- matsemann 4y ago
  The author lays out some pretty straight forward points, though. The fact that no one bothers to rebut them but instead focus on OPs credentials is quite telling of the typical crypto-bro-hype that dismisses all criticisms...
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Every single one of his points are against strawmwn arguments. The involved botcoiners I know talk about fixed supply, programmable money being inherently volatile and carry the extreme added risk of self-custody. There’s nothing new here.
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  This is also my experience. Concur.
once_inc 4y ago
please see my direct response to the original author.

ggm 4y ago

Isn't that almost definitionally ad hom? Maybe it's the one allowed form: Show me your competency to form an opinion. But that said, it feels ad hommy. I'm a crypto currency skeptic, I made $600 for $200 put in 5 years ago, it felt like gambling and I have no doubt it's hype and all my fellow CS peers seem to agree, as do most economists. It's not capable of doing what most people claim and also be the stonks vehicle most people in practice want, and the fundamentals under contract in code are pretty awful: formal verification won't fix the problem. Merkle trees and public signed ledger on the other hand, and trusted third parties and PKI are pretty rock solid. Do them, they're good.

rukshn 4y ago

OP here - True that I'm not a cryptocurrency expert. I'm just writing some observations that I've made after following cryptocurrencies for a while. Do everyone has to be an expert to voice their observations and opinions? I'm not an expert in anything.

once_inc 4y ago
No, you don't have to be an expert to voice observations, but my point is that you have probably not investigated Bitcoin long enough if you write BitCoin to be able to see the nuances in most of the points you've made. An example: The comparison between the two charts of Bitcoin and Apple stocks looks similar at first glance, but if you exclude the last week, most of that similarity is gone. Yes, Bitcoin is being invested/speculated with in mostly the same way that tech stocks are getting invested/speculated with, but that doesn't prove inflation resistance; that's a long-term trend, not a short-term trend. Your points on stablecoins is fine; I agree that those networks tend to overpromise and underdeliver. Regarding regulation: I don't see the direct relevance, because most cryptocurrency projects don't explicitly (or even implicitly) promise to be/remain unregulated. Anonymity isn't a thing on a public blockchain, and never was. Your point on smart contracts is broadly correct, but I'd like to point out that most contracts were exploited because either the security was flawed (by human action mostly), the contract was poorly constructed and participants didn't care to actually read and understand it (also human action, though I do admit that most people on Earth won't ever (be able to) read a smart contract), or because of malicious actions of the smart contract creator (also human action). I agree with your final conclusions. We do need a way to prevent rugpulls. The most straightforward way to do this is by realising that most altcoins are insecure or technically flawed in such a way that rugpulls aren't disincentivised. If you built smart contracts on Bitcoin (see: RSK) people will be a lot more hesitant, because Bitcoin is the only blockchain that is both secure, and thus digitally scarce. You can easily spot the difference in perception between Bitcoin and altcoins in the way people describe their interactions and goals for them: Bitcoin is a means to store wealth, altcoins are investment/speculation vehicles generally used to make more money with. You can nitpick about wether those definitions boil down to the same thing, but the perception and philosophy differs.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

Colour me sceptical of the in depth knowledge of this poster, since he insists on making nitpicks about orthography, without providing any substantive comments of his own. The leads me to believe that the poster isn't well-versed enough in the article to be able to make comments such as these.

once_inc 4y ago
please see my response to the original author for my in-depth substantive comments.