4 ms·
Your comment seems to be saying, essentially, "You are talking about X, but I would prefer it if you talked about Y, because I think that is more interesting."
by chc 13y ago
Your comment seems to be saying, essentially, "You are talking about X, but I would prefer it if you talked about Y, because I think that is more interesting."
Another example would be, "You are talking about how to seamlessly add someone to a photo in Photoshop, but I would rather hear about how to optimize image algorithms for efficient cache usage, because I think that is more interesting."
This article is talking about Bitcoin as a commodity and a currency, which are actual use cases for it. I agree that the Bitcoin protocol is interesting, but to demand that people only talk about the protocol and not Bitcoins themselves seems a bit restrictive to me.
- altoz 13y agoThe author specifically claims that to understand bitcoin usage, you only need to look at the trading activity. That is what I'm disputing. No, you can't understand bitcoin usage without actually understanding the protocol. In your analogy, it would be someone saying that you can understand Photoshop by looking at how people use the resulting pictures. It's nonsense and that's what I'm disputing.
- chc 13y agoThe actual phrase the author uses is "Understanding the trend in Bitcoin usage." Why is it necessary to understand the protocol to understand high-level trends like "More people are investing in Bitcoins"?
- johnwyles 13y agoI actually think what he meant is that Bitcoin is valuable from the network that stands behind it and all the tools, websites, and services that have sprung up around it. In addition to all of that you also have the actual rules of the bitcoin system ("protocol"), which of course is interesting from a technical / mathematical standpoint, but also setup a structure and ecosystem that may (or may not) have long term staying power until the next and more sophisticated cryptocurrency comes along.