Makes me wonder if it’d be so bad if only those new features that made a majority of users update or switch clients were kept
Fair point. My reaction may be due to the fact that my Twitter bubble has almost only people who aggressively hate that whole space, and maybe I’d have the opposite reaction if I were actually exposed to the positive hype
2
2
Again, I’m unable to argue intelligently, but it seems to me to be a huge difference whether one compares something like BTC to € or to Venezuelan bolívar, to Apple stock or subprime mortgage derivatives
1
My understanding of economics is insufficient to adequately compare the risks of, say, Bitcoin to some smaller country’s currency or the stock market
1
This is one of the best takes on the whole “crypto” thing I’ve seen so far
It got me thinking, and in fact it got me thinking so hard I wrote 3,500 words about crypto: seldo.com/posts/crypto-the-g…
TLDR: I think crypto *will* change the world, for the better. But not in the way its proponents believe.
3
5
11
Yes, I understand how PoW chains might be judged this way. As of now, whatever perceived value they provide is not in a sane relation to their cost
1
Fair comparison, albeit with the restriction that nobody is suggesting that everything about AI/ML is the same kind of crap
1
1
My point is they’d be stronger if he added a caveat that what he writes is true for 95% percent of the space and deemed the remaining 5% not relevant enough to matter
1
1
That Dave Troy thread, BTW, literally seems to argue the sole motivation behind Bitcoin is to serve racist Nazi needs and phrases this as if it were an undeniable truth. I simply don’t find that convincing (even though I hate the people mentioned in that thread as much as anyone)
Yes, there is a huge amount of completely legitimate criticism. But e.g. of course an NFT could be useful, iff it actually were created by the owner of some digital good and conveyed actual rights. And it would be good iff it it actually disrupted the current, fucked-up mechanims