Hacker News Reader

Comment by lvl100 | Hacker News Reader

This is just pathetic.

Which part? Could you say more? If you make a comment like this, I feel like it should be obvious what you mean, but it isn't at all obvious to me in this case.

The part where they said 10 years later there is still no actual applications or use, and someone responded with https://defipulse.com/

I think if a self-proclaimed crypto expert gives you this link as proof of use cases, you would walk away thinking the technology was pathetic.

There's a large subset of the talented people on HN that were wrong about crypto years ago-- they couldn't see that the casino and the innovation are, unfortunately, inseparable-- and many now cling to their original incorrect points of view, even as crypto is clearly changing the world like the internet did in the 90s and mobile in the 00s.

I have been full-time in crypto for years. I could write you a 10,000-word essay on crypto's promising use cases. But, I believe that you, and many others on HN, don't want to hear it.

That's too bad, because you guys grew up on sci-fi and rigor, and now you're ignoring that crypto is both rigorously successful and cypherpunk sci-fi come to life.

It’s pathetic because you’re just writing nonsense and can’t even describe anything practically productive about crypto. None.

By the way, I could ALSO write you 10,000 word salad about how commonly found stones can solve the wrongs in modern finance. That doesn’t say anything about common stones. It just says modern finance is FLAWED.

You are not showing yourself to be a person that it is worthwhile for this person to waste time on. There are other people in this thread with your point of view but who are commenting in good faith, rather than in bad faith like you are.

Bad faith involves deliberately hiding some truth. It doesn't mean "thing you call someone when you can't win the argument".

And I suspect you know that, which means... ;)

That is one kind of bad faith argument but there are others. In this case it is asserting that something is some adjective ("pathetic"), getting a response, and then just reasserting the same thing without responding to the response.

It was a bit brusque. I think that's the word you're looking for. If that's what bad faith means to you (which still seems a stretch of the definition so you can get the guidelines invoked and win the internet) then both sides of the discussion are guilty of this.

On the other side of the aisle, we have people pointing out that there aren't any interesting dApps, with the reply being:

"Sure there are! Here's a list dApps that are just more layers on moving cryptocurrency!"

That's only interesting if you assume the blockchain is valuable and interesting. This is a circular argument. Do you have anything better?

"Sure do! Here's a list dApps that are just more layers on moving cryptocurrency! Register on this site to hear me talk about NFTs!"

Is that "bad faith" too? I don't think so. There's a divide though, and it's a tiresome one. Some of us think the emperor has no clothes. Others think they are the best clothes ever. We probably all need our eyes checked.

There's a difference between "pointing out that there aren't any interesting dApps" and saying "This is just pathetic". The former is a reasonable point to make while the latter is a bad faith insult.

Instead of the thinly veiled ad hominem of trying to paint the user as a troll by crying "bad faith! bad faith!" Why didn't you provide some killer examples instead? This omission is as frequent as it is telling.

> I could write you a 10,000-word essay on crypto's promising use cases. But, I believe that you, and many others on HN, don't want to hear it.

You're already backpedaling from something you haven't even said yet. That speaks volumes.

My remark was merely a rhetorical device :)

I am widely published inside the crypto industry on twitter and on a few podcasts over the years. For example, here is an episode on the many present & future uses of NFTs (episode requires a free Real Vision crypto account)

https://www.realvision.com/shows/the-interview-crypto/videos...

> that were wrong about crypto years ago

No, they were exactly right. In ten years, cryptocurrencies have produced nothing of value except speculation. This is like saying the Dutch that didn't sell their homes to buy into the tulip bulb craze were wrong. Sure, people have made huge gains, like all ponzi schemes generate. Most are bagholders, though.

> even as crypto is clearly changing the world like the internet did in the 90s and mobile in the 00s.

Crypto hasn't changed a single thing about the world. There is not a single popular thing backed by crypto. Every example you gave in this thread was either weak, like that DeFi Pulse link, or just straight not even using crypto, like Eco.

When you as an expert can't even identify a popular product using crypto at it's core, it doesn't speak very highly.

> I have been full-time in crypto for years. I could write you a 10,000-word essay on crypto's promising use cases. But, I believe that you, and many others on HN, don't want to hear it.

I am an actual cryptographer and would love to read world salad like that.

> That's too bad, because you guys grew up on sci-fi and rigor, and now you're ignoring that crypto is both rigorously successful and cypherpunk sci-fi come to life.

Stop. Libertarian dorks that don't understand the history of finance is hardly the sci-fi we want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com