> For all the effort from journalists trying to work out the precise 12-dimensional chess Facebook must surely have been playing … maybe Libra was just very stupid. Because it was a blockchain project started by bitcoiners. Maybe it was always just dumb as hell.
The rest if the article is links to buy the author's books, or links to the author's other blog posts. I thought there would be a payoff in the form of a conclusion but calling it "dumb" was all there was. I'll let you guess who submitted it to HN.
Wisdom comes from not only knowing your domain but understanding its critics and their criticism. Ignoring all criticism to the extent that you haven’t a clue who the loudest voices are is closer to zealotry (which is a word already used here in the other direction, strangely).
I find it likely if one feels the article is biased, it is likely that person is biased in the other direction. The project was dumb, it was lambasted almost immediately by what felt like everybody, and it did utterly and completely fail.
The worst part of crypto is that the only thing it truly excels at is speculation, and in order to be successful at that the hype has to remain at 1000%. This creates hordes of crypto cheerleaders who insist that crypto will do everything from free the poor oppressed masses to usher in a techno-libertarian utopia, while the only thing they truly care about is to see green numbers on their coin of choice.
I think crypto is fun, it was super geeky and I got into and enjoyed it, profited from it quite handsomely in the past mainly due to my curiosity and being in the right place at the right time, but I am under no illusion whatsoever that is living up to the hype and promise of its founders.
The author of this post did the same thing then: summarized the actual article in a blog post, then called Libra "dumb" at the end. That doesn't add anything.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2019/09/12/france-shuns...
I consider myself fairly well informed and I've never heard of this guy. He just looks like a professional pundit. The kind that found the right audience to keep playing the same one chord to. There's absolutely no chance at all I won't ever have crossed paths with this man's writing if it wasn't for HN's peculiar fixation on crypto.
Maybe "unbiased" would look more like your crypto-happy post history ?
(Now you added a personal attack about their post history, I don't think that's constructive.)
By this metric, calling the author’s bias “stupefying” is a personal attack. So either this entire thread is not constructive and your participation is exacerbating the problem or you’re merely providing cover fire for janandonly.
Personally, viewing your other comments in this thread, I’m inclined to believe it’s the later.
> viewing your other comments in this thread, I’m inclined to believe it’s the later [sic]
I have one other comment as of now...
Agreed.
But when you look at the name of the blog, it ain't exactly a surprise.
Also, he's been at it for quite a while, looks like he's spending inordinate amounts of time "fighting the blockchain".
I'm always puzzled when I see folks like this ... the sheer zealotry is simply amazing, and it always leads me to wonder what can possibly motivate them to be so hell-bent on destroying something that has likely zero impact on their lives.
Because it doesn't have zero impact. The amount of money that is scammed out of people and the amount of sheer environmental destruction is sickening and last I checked we all live on the same planet (if you live on the ISS then sorry for making the assumption you were on earth).
And your post history speaks quite loudly on what "bias" looks like to you.
To re-use another HN poster comment: "now do cloth dryers".
Or to phrase it easier to parse: if this is the battle people have decided matters in the fight against global warming, we're really not out of the woods.
> And your post history speaks quite loudly on what "bias" looks like to you.
Bias, eh?
While I do enjoy discussing cryptocurrencies a great deal because I find the tech. and its implications deeply fascinating, I certainly do no buy most of what folks in the space peddle out, nor am I religious about it, unlike the OP.
What I enjoy most is a well constructed argument against crypto, but unfortunately, those have been few and far between on HN in the past few years.
To give you an example, "just dumb as hell" (from the OP), doesn't fall in the "well constructed argument" bucket.
And unlike the do-gooder out to save the world in the 'attack of the 50 foot blockchain blog', or other kind of jihadists like Diehl, I'm not a crypto bible-thumper out to convert the infidels.
In short, I find crypto interesting and worth looking into, learning about, improving upon (the existing systems being indeed far from perfect).
If you want to label that bias, more power to you, but please don't compare me to the fanatic-on-a- mission-from-god who wrote the OP.
I mean, regulators _very much are_ doing clothes dryers; see the EC's Great War on Inefficient Appliances. Traditional vented dryers are probably not long for this world, at least in Europe (they'll be replaced with heat pump dryers), but I'd expect other developed countries to follow.
Clothes dryers are getting better through government intervention and technology improvements. Our Lord and Saviour the Blockchain is getting dramatically worse. It's not surprising that people see them differently.
There are certainly problems that crypto-currencies solve, but it's not problems most people have. So when a company wish conjure up billions of dollars in value from thin air, it has all the hallmarks of a scam. While some sit back and chuckles: "Who s dumb enough to fall for that", others feel compelled to warn the world and take down the scammer.