Why would this one be any different? The pitch that it will be is just snake-oil from prospective winners.
Are there that many HN readers who are subscribed to "Stears Business"?
Or are people just upvoting based off the title w/o reading the article?
HN median has an anti-crypto bias, headlines that align with that are more likely to get reflexively upvoted.
Is it one that trusts a few select governmental entities over zero-trust solutions? I'd think the latter but continuously get shown the former.
Is it one that prefers to keep the same broken solutions over at least trying something new? Same thing.
I don't know if it's an age thing, industry thing, or what, but the reaction to crypto on this site seems much more tainted by its branding, obvious scam projects, and perhaps by the idea of fundamental change, than by any of the actual fundamentals of Web3/Crypto itself.
Utopian claims about crypto are a hard sell to people who understand that technology is not a magic bullet.
This is pretty unusual.
It also means there’s a lot of variety of ideas and opinions, but generally a unifying thread of curiosity.
Still, the median view is often lame or mediocre, especially on some topics. Unfortunately crypto is one of them. There’s still interesting stuff sometimes, but it’s often drowned out.
And this:
> zero-trust solutions
vs.
> obvious scam projects
might be the source of cognitive dissonance people who are into this stuff might need to grapple with before they start throwing shade at people who are skeptical. And yes I'm aware that zero-trust here has a technical meaning that's not related to people scamming with it, but if you want to convince people that this is worth something your idea of trust needs to evolve beyond a dry technical reading.
Also, if I need to prove any credentials back in the early-ish days I burnt out a radeon video card mining a bunch of currencies up to the first rollout of ethereum. I think there's some interesting ideas in the tech (demonstrating that zero-trust consensus protocols could exist at scale at all is super interesting), but what it's become is an environmental and financial disaster zone and I'm not interested in that anymore.
Certainly this one. It is being upvoted based on the title alone and the comments here prove that they have read as far as the title and directly commented here.
If one actually reads the article and beyond the title even with the partially paywalled content, they would know that it is based on a strawman argument.
That said, I think if you conflate the two and try to bring all kinds of decentralization under the cryptocurrency/web3 umbrella, all you'll ever do is cause damage to any real efforts at decentralization.
Most of the internet is built on decentralization to some degree or another. Until cryptocurrency, most of those things did so by taking advantage of a lack of scarcity rather than trying to invent new ways to create haves and have-nots.