3 ms·

The author has a huge conflict of interest: FaceCash. Therefore, his opinions are nearly worthless.

by codex 13y ago

tzs 13y ago
People with a conflict of interest are often the best to criticize something, as they have a bigger incentive to do a good and thorough job. Treating them with heightened skepticism is good, but dismissing them out of hand is bogus.
- woah 13y ago
  Except most of what he says is opinion (not necessarily an invalid opinion, but still).
- aric 13y ago
  ...and often the worst. Greenspan's criticism of Bitcoin is reminiscent of the same pontification he had about Facebook. It competed with his houseSYSTEM. Later, in an open letter for publicity, he advised Zuckerberg to either keep Facebook a closed network, exclusive only to students and faculty of an educational industry (.edu addresses), or to sell to Yahoo at their bid. That's interesting. Then he hawked CommonRoom. I had a level of disgust over Facebook's cavalier attitude with privacy and security that Greenspan seemed to have shared. Competition? Great. Bring on the competition. Criticism? Yes. Let's hear everything. However, the way it was presented as a whole didn't command credibility. I stopped reading his criticism of Bitcoin when it was clear he didn't understand Bitcoin. "Processing" might be a more digestible term to him, rather than "mining." There are valid criticisms of Bitcoin. This has been the case for 5 years. So too, there are valid criticisms about anything. Bitcoin was never intended to be everything to everyone. It will likely remain relegated to a subset of people. Knowing the state of security and the virus-prone systems of today, I wouldn't want the average person to use bitcoin beyond light money. It's risky. Beyond this, bitcoin's positives are entirely purposeful to enough people to trump its negatives. Being different and useful is rare. Being both and decentralized is a true marvel. Fool's Gold 2.0? Nothing is fake about bitcoin. Bitcoin never claims to be what you want it to be.
dcc1 13y ago
wtf is facecash?
cyrusshepard 13y ago
Perhaps not worthless, but his obvious conflict of interest should preferably been disclosed at the beginning of the article, and not in a footnote. In my mind, this severely damages the author's credibility.
thro2 13y ago
finally, a real ad hominem argument!

The author has a huge conflict of interest: FaceCash. Therefore, his opinions are nearly worthless.

by codex 13y ago

The author has a huge conflict of interest: FaceCash. Therefore, his opinions are nearly worthless.

tzs 13y ago

People with a conflict of interest are often the best to criticize something, as they have a bigger incentive to do a good and thorough job. Treating them with heightened skepticism is good, but dismissing them out of hand is bogus.

woah 13y ago
Except most of what he says is opinion (not necessarily an invalid opinion, but still).
aric 13y ago
...and often the worst. Greenspan's criticism of Bitcoin is reminiscent of the same pontification he had about Facebook. It competed with his houseSYSTEM. Later, in an open letter for publicity, he advised Zuckerberg to either keep Facebook a closed network, exclusive only to students and faculty of an educational industry (.edu addresses), or to sell to Yahoo at their bid. That's interesting. Then he hawked CommonRoom. I had a level of disgust over Facebook's cavalier attitude with privacy and security that Greenspan seemed to have shared. Competition? Great. Bring on the competition. Criticism? Yes. Let's hear everything. However, the way it was presented as a whole didn't command credibility. I stopped reading his criticism of Bitcoin when it was clear he didn't understand Bitcoin. "Processing" might be a more digestible term to him, rather than "mining." There are valid criticisms of Bitcoin. This has been the case for 5 years. So too, there are valid criticisms about anything. Bitcoin was never intended to be everything to everyone. It will likely remain relegated to a subset of people. Knowing the state of security and the virus-prone systems of today, I wouldn't want the average person to use bitcoin beyond light money. It's risky. Beyond this, bitcoin's positives are entirely purposeful to enough people to trump its negatives. Being different and useful is rare. Being both and decentralized is a true marvel. Fool's Gold 2.0? Nothing is fake about bitcoin. Bitcoin never claims to be what you want it to be.

dcc1 13y ago

wtf is facecash?

cyrusshepard 13y ago

Perhaps not worthless, but his obvious conflict of interest should preferably been disclosed at the beginning of the article, and not in a footnote. In my mind, this severely damages the author's credibility.

thro2 13y ago

finally, a real ad hominem argument!