5 ms·

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, a lot of people involved are so ignorant that "water is wet" statements come as a genuine revelation to them. Why? Bitcoin

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, a lot of people involved are so ignorant that "water is wet" statements come as a genuine revelation to them. Why? Bitcoin advocates have been deliberately targeting very ignorant and naive people because they're easy money.

claudoppl 4y ago
I don't think that's the case. Look at some of the serious projects: - https://samouraiwallet.com/ https://samouraiwallet.com/ - https://keys.casa/ https://keys.casa/ It's pretty much focused on heavily tech-savvy people.
anonporridge 4y ago
Bitcoin advocates have generally been exceedingly clear about these kinds of things. To the point of begging people to listen. From "not your keys, not your coins" to "KYC/AML bought coins are easy to trace" to "please, for the love of god, don't give your coins to the centralized Celsius to try to eek out an extra 10% gains you greedy dumbass". People consistently don't listen. Crypto pumpers on the other hand tend to not care and say whatever BS they want to pump their bags.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Bitcoin advocates have generally been exceedingly clear about these kinds of things. To the point of begging people to listen. From "not your keys, not your coins" to "KYC/AML bought coins are easy to trace" Such advocates are the fringe. Most bitcoin advocates are saying "If you're not buying bitcoin you're an idiot! It's easy money! My critics are no-coiners who didn't listen to me!"
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    Such advocates are the ones with the credentials to actually bother listening to, like core devs or the people who literally wrote the book on understanding the technical nature of the system. They're not the fringe, they're the core that the fringe pump monkeys looking for a quick buck latch onto and promptly ignore. The majority of people who talk about literally anything aren't worth listening to, and if you can't differentiate between the two, we have bigger problems to work through.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > like core devs or the people who literally wrote the book on understanding the technical nature of the system. These are fringe. The cynical and predatory advocates are the ones who are actually heard by the naive marks.
- calibas 4y ago
  All the "Bitcoin advocates" that I've ever talked to couldn't tell a merkle tree from an oak.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    That speaks more about the people you're surrounded by than it does the incredible people actually doing the very interesting work of developing the bitcoin ecosystem behind the scenes. It is a shame that your only exposure to the space comes from pump monkeys who don't understand that a blockchain is barely more than a distributed linked list (hell, it's basically just glorified git) and the real innovation was not the data structure, but the integration of proof of work to create Byzantine fault tolerance. I'm pretty sure the only difference between a Merkle tree and an Oak is the theoretically infinite branching. Is that right? /s
    - randomswede 4y ago
      My (very rough) estimate is that somewhere between 1% and 5% of those who enthuse about crypto-currencies are actually interested in the underlying tech. The rest being in it for one of "it's a safe way to do nefarious economy" and/or "it's easy money". Me? I think the tech is intellectually interesting, but doesn't really scale to the point where it can provide a "world economy". If nothing else, with Proof-of-Work, you need 51% of ALL available computing resources dedicated to maintaining the chain, which is an incredible waste (if you don't have a majority of all available computing power, the chain is vulnerable). With Proof-of-Stake, you need a majority of the economic system dedicated to just maintaining the economic system. So, intellectually interesting, but practically useless.
    - calibas 4y ago
      FYI, I regularly interact with people who actually understand blockchain and cryptocurrencies, so your assumptions are a little mistaken. None of those people are telling me to buy Bitcoin though, so I don't count them among "Bitcoin advocates".
      - renonce 4y ago

claudoppl 4y ago

I don't think that's the case. Look at some of the serious projects: - https://samouraiwallet.com/ https://samouraiwallet.com/ - https://keys.casa/ https://keys.casa/ It's pretty much focused on heavily tech-savvy people.

anonporridge 4y ago

Bitcoin advocates have generally been exceedingly clear about these kinds of things. To the point of begging people to listen. From "not your keys, not your coins" to "KYC/AML bought coins are easy to trace" to "please, for the love of god, don't give your coins to the centralized Celsius to try to eek out an extra 10% gains you greedy dumbass". People consistently don't listen. Crypto pumpers on the other hand tend to not care and say whatever BS they want to pump their bags.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Bitcoin advocates have generally been exceedingly clear about these kinds of things. To the point of begging people to listen. From "not your keys, not your coins" to "KYC/AML bought coins are easy to trace" Such advocates are the fringe. Most bitcoin advocates are saying "If you're not buying bitcoin you're an idiot! It's easy money! My critics are no-coiners who didn't listen to me!"
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Such advocates are the ones with the credentials to actually bother listening to, like core devs or the people who literally wrote the book on understanding the technical nature of the system. They're not the fringe, they're the core that the fringe pump monkeys looking for a quick buck latch onto and promptly ignore. The majority of people who talk about literally anything aren't worth listening to, and if you can't differentiate between the two, we have bigger problems to work through.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > like core devs or the people who literally wrote the book on understanding the technical nature of the system. These are fringe. The cynical and predatory advocates are the ones who are actually heard by the naive marks.
calibas 4y ago
All the "Bitcoin advocates" that I've ever talked to couldn't tell a merkle tree from an oak.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  That speaks more about the people you're surrounded by than it does the incredible people actually doing the very interesting work of developing the bitcoin ecosystem behind the scenes. It is a shame that your only exposure to the space comes from pump monkeys who don't understand that a blockchain is barely more than a distributed linked list (hell, it's basically just glorified git) and the real innovation was not the data structure, but the integration of proof of work to create Byzantine fault tolerance. I'm pretty sure the only difference between a Merkle tree and an Oak is the theoretically infinite branching. Is that right? /s
  - randomswede 4y ago
    My (very rough) estimate is that somewhere between 1% and 5% of those who enthuse about crypto-currencies are actually interested in the underlying tech. The rest being in it for one of "it's a safe way to do nefarious economy" and/or "it's easy money". Me? I think the tech is intellectually interesting, but doesn't really scale to the point where it can provide a "world economy". If nothing else, with Proof-of-Work, you need 51% of ALL available computing resources dedicated to maintaining the chain, which is an incredible waste (if you don't have a majority of all available computing power, the chain is vulnerable). With Proof-of-Stake, you need a majority of the economic system dedicated to just maintaining the economic system. So, intellectually interesting, but practically useless.
  - calibas 4y ago
    FYI, I regularly interact with people who actually understand blockchain and cryptocurrencies, so your assumptions are a little mistaken. None of those people are telling me to buy Bitcoin though, so I don't count them among "Bitcoin advocates".
    - renonce 4y ago