3 ms·

Not just marketing people, look at the crypto space.

by secondcoming 4y ago

vkou 4y ago
Crypto is 90% marketing.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  My breakdown would be ~50% marketing, 49% first mover advantage, 1% actual tech. Many coins are far superior to BTC and Ether, on basically every front.* BTC and Ether are whale oil and crude, next to green energy.* The vast majority don't have the patience to listen to what's going on under the hood. They don't have the background in math, in coding, in economics to make sound decisions amid the oceans of bullshit. And it's not reasonable to expect them to be competent in all required fields before dipping their toe in. The tech is what interests me* - I have no significant stake in any of them.* When I try to tell people [very rarely] about block lattice such as Nano, people don't believe me.* They say I sound like a marketer when I claim that it processes transactions in under a second with no fees.* If I try to talk about how important decentralization is, people claim that BTC is the most decentralized (!!). Bag holders will bullshit til the day things break completely. ... I'd love to fix all this, but when I talk about it - *. * - I sound like a marketer.
  - davidatbu 4y ago
    Does this count as poetry? Because I really like it.
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      Umm, yeah.. Sure. Yes. Definitely. ... That's really nice to hear, thank you :)
  - bsenftner 4y ago
    > They don't have the background in math, in coding, in economics And for those of us that do have backgrounds in every one of these fields, we notice the abuse of formal industry terms with crypto-exclusive definitions that weaken the economic structure or flat out fabricate fantasy. Cryptocurrencies are a great idea for a more mature civilization. We are not that civilization.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    There is nothing wrong with directed acyclic graph crypto schemes but shilling nano is not a good example of 'having the patience to listen to what's going on under the hood'. Nano is able to process transactions quickly and cheaply because it makes the tradeoff that it is exceptionally susceptible to no cost or low cost spam attacks / sybil attacks - I can trivially make multiple copies of my agent 'self' and flood the network with invalid or zero value transactions, ensuring that nobody else can use the network. This in fact happened in 2021, which brought the service down globally. The only reason that doesn't happen constantly is that nano is not very widely used.
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      Nano now uses a 'bucket' system which works well to mitigate spam, and they are developing it further. I don't claim that it's perfect, but it is better than most every alternative with a higher market cap - and I find that very interesting in the context of marketing. Think about how absurd it is to claim that high fees are a feature and not a bug. Really think about it. It's so obviously upside down. Now think of the eco impact from mining - also often claimed as a feature rather than a bug. Real damage is being done with this nonsense. People only take these claims seriously out of ignorance, deluged by the loud repeated claims of BTC maxis and bag holders. That was kinda the whole point of my post. Btw - shilling? Really? No lies were told, or false claims made. You are really helping prove my earlier points though.
      - idiotsecant 4y ago
        I don't think anyone is saying high fees are a feature. What I am saying is that the tradeoff that nano makes to avoid those fees makes it a poorly designed protocol. Low or no fees is a fantastic feature - as long as it doesn't degrade the main use of the system - which in the case of nano it certainly does.
  - sinity 4y ago
    Ether is sufficient. Or will be, anyway. Consensus matters, we can't just keep switching this tech. Going from BTC to ETH made sense, because BTC is too primitive & its community doesn't want to change that. Ether will have low fees too, when it scales. See "The Limits to Blockchain Scalability" https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      People in here are really doing their best to prove my point. Block lattice > block chain; the numbers don't lie. Ether was and is interesting, but it is outdated. There are other DAGs that allow for coding, so please don't make a comparison to Nano which doesn't try to be an Ethereum competitor. Yes, consensus matters. that's why I gave "first mover" such importance in my comment. However, the tech limitations are growing every day. People can't keep burning crude all the time; and solar gets cheaper and more prevalent by the day - wait, I made this analogy already. Well, it still holds.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > we can't just keep switching this tech. Why? Why not keep switching until you find something that doesn't suck? Because a bunch of speculators who were buying in with hopes of owning the entire financial system of the future are going to be ruined?
- cynusx 4y ago
  Marketers have been flocking to crypto companies like crazy the past years, only now you see some washed up ones coming back. One I know likened crypto to selling art... 99% bullshit and the 1% is arguable

Not just marketing people, look at the crypto space.

vkou 4y ago

Crypto is 90% marketing.

mandmandam 4y ago
My breakdown would be ~50% marketing, 49% first mover advantage, 1% actual tech. Many coins are far superior to BTC and Ether, on basically every front.* BTC and Ether are whale oil and crude, next to green energy.* The vast majority don't have the patience to listen to what's going on under the hood. They don't have the background in math, in coding, in economics to make sound decisions amid the oceans of bullshit. And it's not reasonable to expect them to be competent in all required fields before dipping their toe in. The tech is what interests me* - I have no significant stake in any of them.* When I try to tell people [very rarely] about block lattice such as Nano, people don't believe me.* They say I sound like a marketer when I claim that it processes transactions in under a second with no fees.* If I try to talk about how important decentralization is, people claim that BTC is the most decentralized (!!). Bag holders will bullshit til the day things break completely. ... I'd love to fix all this, but when I talk about it - *. * - I sound like a marketer.
- davidatbu 4y ago
  Does this count as poetry? Because I really like it.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    Umm, yeah.. Sure. Yes. Definitely. ... That's really nice to hear, thank you :)
- bsenftner 4y ago
  > They don't have the background in math, in coding, in economics And for those of us that do have backgrounds in every one of these fields, we notice the abuse of formal industry terms with crypto-exclusive definitions that weaken the economic structure or flat out fabricate fantasy. Cryptocurrencies are a great idea for a more mature civilization. We are not that civilization.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  There is nothing wrong with directed acyclic graph crypto schemes but shilling nano is not a good example of 'having the patience to listen to what's going on under the hood'. Nano is able to process transactions quickly and cheaply because it makes the tradeoff that it is exceptionally susceptible to no cost or low cost spam attacks / sybil attacks - I can trivially make multiple copies of my agent 'self' and flood the network with invalid or zero value transactions, ensuring that nobody else can use the network. This in fact happened in 2021, which brought the service down globally. The only reason that doesn't happen constantly is that nano is not very widely used.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    Nano now uses a 'bucket' system which works well to mitigate spam, and they are developing it further. I don't claim that it's perfect, but it is better than most every alternative with a higher market cap - and I find that very interesting in the context of marketing. Think about how absurd it is to claim that high fees are a feature and not a bug. Really think about it. It's so obviously upside down. Now think of the eco impact from mining - also often claimed as a feature rather than a bug. Real damage is being done with this nonsense. People only take these claims seriously out of ignorance, deluged by the loud repeated claims of BTC maxis and bag holders. That was kinda the whole point of my post. Btw - shilling? Really? No lies were told, or false claims made. You are really helping prove my earlier points though.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      I don't think anyone is saying high fees are a feature. What I am saying is that the tradeoff that nano makes to avoid those fees makes it a poorly designed protocol. Low or no fees is a fantastic feature - as long as it doesn't degrade the main use of the system - which in the case of nano it certainly does.
- sinity 4y ago
  Ether is sufficient. Or will be, anyway. Consensus matters, we can't just keep switching this tech. Going from BTC to ETH made sense, because BTC is too primitive & its community doesn't want to change that. Ether will have low fees too, when it scales. See "The Limits to Blockchain Scalability" https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/23/scaling.html
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    People in here are really doing their best to prove my point. Block lattice > block chain; the numbers don't lie. Ether was and is interesting, but it is outdated. There are other DAGs that allow for coding, so please don't make a comparison to Nano which doesn't try to be an Ethereum competitor. Yes, consensus matters. that's why I gave "first mover" such importance in my comment. However, the tech limitations are growing every day. People can't keep burning crude all the time; and solar gets cheaper and more prevalent by the day - wait, I made this analogy already. Well, it still holds.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > we can't just keep switching this tech. Why? Why not keep switching until you find something that doesn't suck? Because a bunch of speculators who were buying in with hopes of owning the entire financial system of the future are going to be ruined?
cynusx 4y ago
Marketers have been flocking to crypto companies like crazy the past years, only now you see some washed up ones coming back. One I know likened crypto to selling art... 99% bullshit and the 1% is arguable