Comment by headmelted | Hacker News Reader

Comment by headmelted | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think at this point we’re just so far past the point of having reasonable discourse on this topic that it will not be possible to have a reasoned discussion about it ever again, anywhere, regardless.

Personally I have to fight my own rising blood temperature to even discuss it as being “a thing”, because people have such fundamentally different views on what that thing is, and I believe the argument is made in bad faith (not by you or your comment by the way, just in general).

Adherents would have you believe that the current price, whatever it is at a given point, must mean some variant of “can all these people really be wrong? That’s ridiculous”. It’s not a reasonable starting point for a discussion, and then it immediately breaks down again.

The tldr of it is that to have a discussion we’d need to agree a common set of facts as a starting point.

To me, it’s a collection of distributed ponzi schemes based on signed linked lists, but it seems the whole world wants to agree that regardless of whether or not cryptocurrency is the future of money, blockchain is a really transformative and revolutionary breakthrough without any evidence to support that claim.

Also stop trying to make fetch happen.

>Adherents would have you believe that the current price, whatever it is at a given point, must mean some variant of “can all these people really be wrong? That’s ridiculous”. It’s not a reasonable starting point for a discussion, and then it immediately breaks down again.

But it is reasonable to dismiss the whole field because you think it's a scam? Please read what you write before you post, as this is meaningless and illogical.

This is simply saying “can all these people be wrong?” in other words.

What I wrote is absolutely logical as best I can tell. I didn’t say it’s a scam (although that community is riddled with those too). I said it’s a collection of ponzi schemes (for which there is far more evidence to support than it being a financial revolution).

Charles Ponzi genuinely believed he had revolutionised finance, too.

All you’ve essentially said here is “Lots of people hyping on social media, therefore no scam, shut up fool”.

The Ponzi comment above was a poor attempt at humour. He was a con artist who knew he was a con artist.

I do not believe the majority of people in the cryptocurrency space are attempting to harm anyone.

I see you making a fair number of these sorts of ad hominem attacks in response to good-faith posts. Please stop.

Based on my reasoning it is illogical and meaningless. Pretty sure same logic as the poster. You on the other hand are not providing anything, but read of what I posted previously, please stop.

If you find something illogical and meaningless, take the time to explain why.

Will try to explain my reasoning better. Please see my reply to one of the comments where we compare youtube and web3. tldr; youtube/Google can change content of a link that points to them at will, but in web3 you cannot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com