sashimi-houdini

I also like Dan Luu's take (starting with a Joel Spolsky quote)

“Find the dependencies — and eliminate them.” When you're working on a really, really good team with great programmers, everybody else's code, frankly, is bug-infested garbage, and nobody else knows how to ship on time.

We had a similar attitude, although I'd say that we were a bit more humble. We didn't think that everyone else was producing garbage but, we also didn't assume that we couldn't produce something comparable to what we could buy for a tenth of the cost. From talking to folks at some competitors, there was a pretty big cultural difference between how we operated and how they operated. It simply didn't occur to them that they didn't have to buy into the standard American business logic that you should focus on your core competencies, that you can think through whether or not it makes sense to do something in-house on the merits of the particular thing instead of outsourcing your thinking to a pithy saying.[0]

[0] https://danluu.com/nothing-works/

I'd start with saying "thank you" :-)

Given your skepticism, if you want to apply your studies this might be relevant to your interests: https://www.skepticoin.org/

Is TFA specific enough for you? It appears to be about the inevitable outcome of imitating banks in an unregulated context. A top level comment here is about the outcry for regulation that this then produces.

But cryptocurrency's answer is usually not "how can we do better" but "how can we repeat the same mistakes in a shorter time span?"

"They are doing it too" is a favorite argument of crypto-enthousiasts. I'd argue the answer here is not more madness (crypto), but a serious attempt to fix the traditional financial system.

I wrote Skepticoin as a serious parody of Bitcoin. Articles like these about the "state of the art" of cryptocurrency make me wonder: would a parody of a more "modern" cryptocurrency even be recognizable as such?

Because plants don't grow from heat, but from light

I'm using skepticoin for something other than gambling or illegal activities... namely to prove that cryptocurrency is nonsense.

Just think what happened with PCs between 1975 and 1987... that's also 12 years

We haven't properly covered the more advanced layers of bullshit yet but we're getting there:

https://github.com/skepticoin/skepticoin/blob/master/docs/pa... for details on the parameters

Atari: not sure but if it supports Python you're good (until target hash rates ruse even further)

Pizza: see elsewhere in this thread

Issue #1 on github is for begging ("faucet")

There's a subreddit rather than a discord for now... we like to be open about what this particular pump and dump is about

0 Skepticoin = 0 bitcoin!

What do you mean? Skepticoin is the future of cryptocurrency!

Pizza I'm not sure but a bag of tulip bulbs was bought for 10,000:

https://github.com/skepticoin/explorer/blob/master/b0099d84d...

You've understood perfectly well. The confusion stems from thinking others have the same level of understanding.

This is why I've minted the "White House" NFT on the Skepticoin blockchain:

https://github.com/skepticoin/explorer/blob/master/00038cce6...

'To own the SKEPTI from this transaction or any derived transaction is to "own" 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. (AKA the White House). #metaverse'

This seems like a dangerous bet to make... my take on the NFT "market" is that it's money laundering, wash trading (inflating prices to attract suckers to the market) and perhaps in a small part conspicuous consumption. Mostly fraudulent... but would you bet against a fraud?

"This is good for bitcoin"

This is also why Skepticoin cannot be cloned: the clones (cynicalcoin, sarcastocoin etc) are simililar, but they're not "the skepticoin". In this way, the supply of skepticoin is still limited.

Let's shift this one level up:

Simple. Bitcoin is an asset that is not used as currency but provides the holder with certain desired benefits and the asset can be liquidated if needed. Skepticoin is similar in that it provides a financial vehicle that possesses certain properties. I'm not saying it should be thought of as digital bitcoin but that it's like bitcoin, it provides value not only in its price tag but in some inherent property that provides value to the user.

It used to be that enthusiasts could claim "currency of the future", but a lot of time has passed and that future simply hasn't come. In fact, Bitcoin's top utility is already far behind us.

Dropping "currency of the future" does come with the challenge of coming up with a new supposed benefit, which is where "store of value" comes in. Problem is: there is no inherent value in bitcoin.

1.The term you're looking for is "naturally occurring Ponzi scheme" https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19358

2. I literally don't know what this means. If it drops below 10, and you bought at 50k, you have an 80% loss. This might indeed induce "some nervousness".

3. Bitcoin is, per the title of the whitepaper, "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". You don't have to read very far into the whitepaper to understand that being a currency is 100% the stated objective. As you pointed out: it has failed miserably at that.

4. No... if this is a "Ponzi", then _on average_ there are more fools than smart people. Smart (or lucky) people are in fact a requirement of a successful Ponzi scheme... where else would the money go?

I heard about bitcoin first right here on HN, and I thought today would be a good day to return the favor. Let me know if you have any questions.

Naturally occurring Ponzi scheme is the term of art:

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19358

The term you're looking for is "naturally occurring Ponzi scheme"

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19358

The funny thing is that a couple of comments up 2 sibling comments basically gave the exact same answer, but one in jest and one seriously. The cryptosphere really is beyond parody

I don't think anyone disagrees that pariah states and criminals use the internet, but I don't see that touted as a good thing particularly often either... presumably because there are actual use cases for using the internet outside of these 2, and hence the use by pariah states and criminals is seen as an acceptable drawback of the technology.

'Extended meaning "social outcast" is attested by 1819.' ... I think we can agree that Iran fits that description, no matter your take on the events of 1979 and thereafter

Bitcoin... where adoption by pariah states (this article) and criminals (elsewhere) is presented as good news

I'm sure the victims from TFA don't see it as a feature, and as such: If crypto-enthousiasts have the right to victim-blaming, I certainly have the right to point out what's going on, no?