Note to would be readers, this is an article on cryptocurrency and not cryptography. I was hoping it was about the latter before opening the article.
Note that in English "5 years old" would become "0.5 decades", using the plural form as well.
Indeed, but decades (1983 or 1995-1998) older (except for the decentralization): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecash&oldid=94837...
It's actually a good signal about the organization.
>It's actually a good signal about the organization.
> a16z drank their own coolaid in this instance.
The cognitive dissonance amongst some of you guys is so baffling to me; I get most of you you don't get/like Crytocurrency, and often cherry pick its most notable blunders to highlight why its 'failed or dead,' but just a few years back A16z/Horowtiz was seen as the Bastion if not the very Oracle of everything that was shaking up SV and by extension most of what you guys here thought needed to be disrupted.
Now because many of them have gotten involved into Cryptocurrencies, for various reasons I won't speculate about, now they're simply 'drinking Kool-aid.' As if a lot of their other ventures didn't require a massive distrust in a failed institution, look at their investments and judge for yourself what they're saying has failed and can be capitalized on if they're right (the ones that jump out are Healthcare and Education in the US in case you didn't notice) [1].
Hell, most people here don't realize that Coinbase, who I personally detest, is a YC backed venture and became an exchange/holder of nearly 5% of the entire supply of BTC in existence! By this rationale is YC a fad-chasing, Kool-aid drinking den for finance bros, too?
Again, I'm indifferent to your position on Crypto as a whole, but to go so far as to burn the people most involved in the very startup culture that breeds innovation and belittling them because you think you know better is so conflicting with what SV was supposed to be.
You've become like those people saying the Internet was a fad and will become irrelevant in a few years, only to see it be the very backbone of nearly every activity in daily Life and making most other technologies obsolete in the process.
What's even crazier is that some of you might have not even noticed that one of Bitcoin's most active Core Developers (now stepped down) is actually a regular poster here, so rather than go on some diatribe about the scams or dismiss what many of you don't really understand, you could have engaged him and asked all the technical questions and gotten a very through analysis of your criticisms with one of the guys that helped maintain and develop the project into what it has become.
You’ll find few greater proponents of cryptocurrencies and censorship resistant p2p networks than I.
Note well, however, that when I say “crypto”, I am either using it as the greek prefix “kryptos” (i.e. hidden or concealed), or to mean cryptography.
I’ve never once met someone technically competent in the space who says “crypto” or “cryptos” to refer to cryptocurrencies or altcoins.
YC also doesn’t do that.
a16z does.
It’s a signal about the organization.
I personally refer to its by its actual name as I don't like speaking in generalizations as each ecosystem is its own thing, as you are aware, and I instead will say: Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin etc... but I would never assume someone is not competent because they used a term that has reached ubiquitous use to refer to the entirety of the Cryptocurrency Ecosystem.
Andersen Horowitz has been a proponent for Bitcoin since the days of Circle, right? I seem to remember his names being thrown around since back then.
I'm glad there are early adopters like yourself, predating me as I got in 2011, in the public discourse here but in light of all the disinformation around here do you really think hyper-focusing on semantics is the best way to try and clarify the Public's view on the subject?
Many people here, most with professional careers in tech and CS, don't even understand that Bitcoin solved the Byzantines General's problem in an elegant manner, one previously thought to be impossible. And often make specious reasoned arguments from that POV.
And I'm expected to take this argument of misused terms seriously?