But no, I will waste my time any way I please. Luckily that decision is decentralized.

I'm not even a crypto promoter nor do I own a single web3 token. I was defending nuance in debate, quite ironical that you double down in the opposite direction, but not unexpected.

I didn't see any defense of nuance from you.

> I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test.

Here you don't add any nuance to the conversation, you just again attack people based on your assumptions about their level of knowledge.

> you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer,

I didn't see any such claim in the comment you responded to.

> And you're the rational one?

This is defending nuance? Or is this just an ad hominem attack?

> Spoken like a true intellectual.

Look, another ad hominem attack.

If you intent was to ask for evidence to back up those assertions, you did a very poor job of doing that in a way that promotes nuanced discussion.

You call my position ridiculous (without even understanding it). As is evident from your next point where you state I'm "defending" crypto. I've made it obvious multiple times that I agree that at least 90% of crypto projects fail and have no (mainstream) utility. The nuance I added is to not forget about that 10% and that regardless of success/failure, crypto in itself has interesting ideas.

Ideas that are fun to reason about as they touch many aspects: economical, philosophical, technical, political.

The only thing I said really is to be intellectually curious and to keep an open mind, and that this should be considered normal in a tech community like HN.

Even for the bad parts of crypto (the 90% speculation) I'd encourage intellectual curiosity, as it's driven by important macro conditions for young people. Why not try to understand that better?

For the above position you call me ridiculous and imply I'm a crypto bro. You continue that you will believe nothing that I will say. In a bad faith discussion like that, don't expect high quality replies. After all, you don't believe anything anyway.

which you won't/can't provide a single example of...

> be intellectually curious and to keep an open mind, and that this should be considered normal in a tech community like HN.

Being open minded is not about believing whatever people tell you, it is being willing to consider ideas you disagree with you. I disagree with you, but I am willing to consider your ideas. You refuse to provide any actual details or facts to support your claims and instead insist that I simply believe you because that would be "open minded", That isn't how it works.

> Even for the bad parts of crypto (the 90% speculation)

If you think that speculation is the "bad part of crypto" then you simply have no idea what you are talking about. The bad parts or the fraud, grift, extortion that pervade the industry and make up the majority of it's non-speculative uses.

I do believe there is some value in cryptocurrency but if I were to pull a number out of my ass it would be that way <1% of the valuation of the cryptocurrency ecosystem comes from non fraud/grift/extortion/laundering. I am hopeful that number will rise but things seem headed in the opposite direction.