I mean seriously, is this a real argument. Bitcoin is good because one person who got rich from it happened to be philanthropic? Where do you think that money came from? The answer is other "investors" who were told Bitcoin would make them rich. If the best justification for Bitcoin's existence is the Pineapple fund, Bitcoin must be the stupidest charity fundraising effort of all time, which is saying something.
The intrinsic value which Bitcoin provides is that it is as a currency, i.e. a way to transfer and store value. But as the Bitcoin detractors in this thread point out, it's value in this role is far outweighed by its costs.
Yes, it's a real argument against "There isn't a single redeeming quality about Cryptocurrency". I agree that not everything with cryptocurrency is good. In fact, I'd argue most uses today are bad, and only a few are good.
But I haven't argued for that everything about cryptocurrencies are good.
Remember; "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
At least that's what I think the parent is getting at. I would agree it's a bit of an obtuse analogy and doesn't necessarily apply to all of crypto as a whole.
In practical terms, the machine I'm writing this on is closer to cloud computing than the EVM is.
Ok, yes, that's fair. That doesn't totally negate the analogy, though. It just shows that it's a potentially inferior solution.
> In practical terms, the machine I'm writing this on is closer to cloud computing than the EVM is.
I think what the parent was getting at is the whole "cloud == someone else's computer" trope. Without knowing more details about the computer you're using to post on HN it's impossible to know but I think it's pretty likely you own the computer you're currently using. You wouldn't be using your employer's computer for non-work purposes, right? ;)
"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son."