I'd hoped to see Phil Zimmerman on the list, but apparently they are talking about cryptocurrency, not cryptography.
Get off my lawn!
Get off my lawn!
This ratio closely resembles what I hear about whenever I hear the term, and I actually have a cryptography function in my company's product. For regular people the ratio will be even more extreme.
I would prefer for it to mean cryptography, but this ship has sailed, and we have to accept it.
"Crypto" only means cryptography in technical circles. The average person speaking colloquial English does not know or need that abbreviation.
Whereas the average person buying cryptocurrency does need an abbreviation for cryptocurrency and since "crypto" is vacant for them the abbreviation is made.
Where do you think you are, dude?
Anyways, the definition of "reactionary" is to hold onto an outdated believe or assumption. Crypto means cryptocurrencies these days. I was just stating the obvious.
But even if I had, wouldn't you equally be a shill for having invested in companies that merely exist for the sake of cryptographic functionality? Do you think any FAANG would be able to exist without cryptography? Do you hold any kind of stock? Because if so, your incentives aren't likely more inspiring than mine.
So, let me just say, I'm not trying to weirdly argue with by saying you're right, and still the word can be overloaded. Idk language is weird.
Haha in 20 years maybe crypto will be abject failure and it'll become synonymous with pumping and dumping, like "pyramid" scheme, or maybe it'll be a huge success the likes of which no one has ever seen and will be used in that way in certain contexts.