My criticism on the original comment is not about his take on crypto, it is about taking that stance about quite literally anything.
If one refuses to argue because they believe the other side is irrational, then abstain for conversation instead of just name-calling/shitting on the thing on a public forum. This is somewhat equivalent to posting some egregious opinion and then saying "don't @ me".
I understand crypto perfectly and I strongly believe that it's ultimately useless. The difference is that I have no financial incentive to tell everyone I know about crypto, whereas you certainly do.
I'll leave it up to the audience to decide which one of us is biased.
You not being convinced is no excuse for derailing the discussion.
Behavior like this makes people think twice about even trying to engage with the crypto-loving, privacy conscious, free-speech market segment, because even trying to do anything in that direction is met with abuse.
Thanks for accusing me of group think! To turn the tables around, the burden of proof is on crypto to be useful, not on me. Stuff is not useful by default. So, instead of stooping to your insults, let me ask you - what use does it have?
Also, I found you online, you work for crypto, pretty dishonest of you to not disclose that before commenting.
Up front: I hate crypto. I think it is stupid and any use case it has can be solved much more efficiently with existing tools.
To me this blog reads like post-breakup copium. Dude just spent two years of his life and who knows how much money trying to find a market, only to realize there isn’t one. But he is sure someone else will find it! The technology is good!
No it isn’t. And no they won’t. Admit when you are wrong and serve as a lesson to others.
It's like I'm talking to a child when I talk to you. I wouldn't bother if you didn't constantly pop up to derail conversations about crypto with your "crypto should stay hard" attitude. I suspect you want crypto to remain impossible to get right just so you can continue to stay relevant.
The rest of my comment frankly wasn't for you, it's for the folks reading what you write and blindly accepting it. At least now they can see how petulant you can be when facing differing points of view.
It wasn't supposed to be a defence of crypto. I have no need to defend it and there are plenty of reasonable criticisms of it. I was just trying to explain the kind of unsubstantial attacks on 'crypto' we see frequently (e.g. this post). "You're jealous" may sound childish but that doesn't make it untrue.
There is nothing that would ever convince you which is why I didn't want to try in the first place. You're starting from a position of thinking you're unshakably correct (and constantly write wildly over-confident condescending things like "99.9999999% of all discussions with crypto people follow the same pattern" which make it unpleasant to interact at all).
The nice thing about economic bets is it doesn't matter. You'll still be complaining about this no matter what happens in the future, just like people still argue EVs can't work. Your opinion on this just won't be important.
> "We were talking about memberships? "Well, let me talk about something else"
You made extreme claims about "nothing new, it's all snake oil" etc. - it's easier to point at stuff that more explicitly shows this is false before talking about more nuanced/uncertain cases.
If you just wanted an excuse to shit on crypto then... ok.
reply