Hacker News Reader

Comment by almost | Hacker News Reader

Yes it’s totally normal to take a word with no real definition (or at best a definition that shifts depending on what’s needed) and have to “prove” it’s BS.

If I tell you that web4 is all about complete freedom and an end to world hunger and it’s based on cow farts is it up to you to prove that it’s BS? (It’s early days for cow farts, you can’t judge them o what they can do right now)

View on HN

Once your web4 has the same amount of capital and work behind it, then we can use cow farts, until then we got what we got, web3/crypto.

Ah so that’s your criteria, you should have said.

That was the whole point, it's here and now vs. what could be.

I think his point is that what you claim to be "here" and "now" is different than what is actually here and now. Just having funding and effort getting put into it does not mean it actually delivers on it's promises. That said I find no reason that cryptocurrencies couldn't deliver given enough time. I just find what they are delivering to be something I rather wish wouldn't exist.

Theranos also had massive capital, large corporation partners, years of work and many scientists working on it.

The dot-com bubble was similar.

The onus is on the cryptobros to prove its usefulness, not the other way around.

Is your theory that anything with lots of money shoved into it must be good? If so, can I interest you in some tulips? Or, more recently, a few thousand shipping containers of unsellable 3D TVs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com