I agree with you on that. Never mind the money laundering, the criminal extortion, the unfettered grift, the ponzi schemes, the lack of regulation, smart contracts which aren't, securities sold in exchanges that aren't secure, the gross misappropriation of other's work making profit in NFT's as genius level crypto godhood, and the never ending supply of pretzel logic to convince others that while 90% of it is all shit, the 10% that isn't justifies crypto's entire existence.
Is that because they're blinded by their own technical abilities? Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck before the regulator's swoop in?
I don't see you addressing this in your post, so I thought I'd ask.
I don't know who the "they" you're referring to is, but I'm pretty sure the people who are really into NFT's actually believe in it. My guess is there's still more scammers than not, but they remind me of card traders. You can laugh at them all day, but some of those pokemon cards are worth a lot of money. I don't think they think its a fraud, they like the feeling of owning that NFT.
So getting back to it, "realize its all a fraud", that's already poising the well before you ask the question. It would actually have to be one(a fraud) for someone to "realize" that it is. Otherwise you need to talk objectively and work your question from the standpoint that "NFT's/crypto is a fraud" is merely an opinion and not a hidden fact that needs to be realized.
What do they "like" about holding an NFT? They don't own the copyright usually, and they also don't own the original. Do they like seeing their name as the owner on some website? Because we can do that with credit cards and databases and html.
If the well has been poisoned already, asking someone for proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff. This is the kind of pretzel people try to logic themselves out of.
What do they like about holding Joe Montana's rookie card? Or a first-edition Charizard? Do they like having the physical card? Because we can do that with cardstock and inkjet printers.
It ain't my cup of tea in any case, but it also ain't my place to judge them for it or interrogate their motivations. If they want to collect Yu-gi-oh cards or bored monkey NFTs, power to 'em.
So if collecting doesn't involve adding to the global warming crisis, I'd be much more okay with it.
And if holding an NFT (especially on a proof-of-stake blockchain, wherein the carbon footprint is negligible) was in any way comparable to holding child porn, then maybe that'd be a valid point.
No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters.
Same thing with credit cards and databases. Those are centralized databases owned and operated by a central organization. When it comes to blockchain technology, to make entries regarding the portions of the blockchain that you control, no one else can make changes to that portion of the blockchain without the keys. This is the aspect of ownership that makes digital assets ownable. The ability to control the asset that no one else who doesn't own it can.
Look, I can't speak for ownership of NFT's, but to be honest, you probably can't either. Your entering the stage with a pitchfork and torch trying to hate it before you've even tried to see what its about.
I don't think it has anything at all to do with seeing their name on some website, its about ownership.
> proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff.
You're not making a lot of sense here. Maybe you don't know what "poisoning the well" means.
poising the well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
> is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
Again, we don't know that NFT's are a fraud, so to say "Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck" asserts the question from the standpoint that they are, when we can't know that.
You are coming to the stage proclaiming the New England Patriots have won the Superbowl when the Superbowl has yet to start. That's all I'm saying. That to me sounds more like the pretzel logic.
Well, that's the ideal right? The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier -- which you haven't addressed yet.
So now you're arguing the low level details now and smearing your opponents intention rather than trying to make the big arguments in supportive of your point. That seems to me you have no further big arguments to support your point and are willing to go into minutae to score debate points.
Where is the smear of the intention? Was it because I said you are attacking the argument from the standpoint that something is a fraud, when the argument cant be attacked from a position that it was a fraud because that's a fact we cannot know?
Your communications of the reasons you've stated must have not come across very well because I didn't understand them from rereading your previous comments. What were the reasons again?
How are we using Bitcoin? As a ponzi scheme where the earliest of investors win by bringing more people in.
How are we using Blockchains (specifically NFTs)? Outright fraud.
Ponzi schemes and fraud won't solve our social or economic woes. What few good things Bitcoin and the blockchain ever provided has been completely overwhelmed by the crap.
As a result, governments are going to crack down on these technologies hard. They've already started by taxing these virtual currencies the same way they do stocks.
In the developed world, sure. In the developing world, people are using it as actual money to replace traditional financial systems that are rife with corruption or have outright failed.
Never said that it did. Only that HN'ers suffer from a kind of overconfidence of other aspects of this world because they are used to being right on technical things.
> How are we using Bitcoin? As a ponzi scheme where the earliest of investors win by bringing more people in.
The US dollar fits a better definition of a ponzi scheme, its just a different kind of pyramid. The closer you are to the regulatory environment, the more disproportionate your gains. Bitcoin will store value better than the dollar. Doesn't matter if you're "late" or "early". So its not a system that favors those who got in early, its a system that favors everyone who uses it.
> How are we using Blockchains (specifically NFTs)? Outright fraud.
Lets not discuss nft's or other cryptos. Only bitcoin.
> Ponzi schemes and fraud won't solve our social or economic woes. What few good things Bitcoin and the blockchain ever provided has been completely overwhelmed by the crap.
Again lets not talk nft's or other cryptos. Only bitcoin.
> As a result, governments are going to crack down on these technologies hard. They've already started by taxing these virtual currencies the same way they do stocks.
Thank goodness. Regulations and legislature is necessary for this emerging market. We need to work with it, not against it.
HN hates on bitcoin because it’s incredibly wasteful and overhyped.
HN hates on blockchain because it’s a convoluted way of solving problems that could otherwise be done simply.
>
> HN hates on bitcoin because it’s incredibly wasteful and overhyped.
>
> HN hates on blockchain because it’s a convoluted way of solving problems that could otherwise be done simply.
There is nothing in your comment that isn't accounted for in my original comment.
Bitcoin works exactly as technically scoped. Which part of "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is technobabble? I think its a pretty good choice of words.
> rather that HN readers see crypto's empty promises to fix existing issues for what they are: bullshit designed to lure in ever more dumb money.
I would say rather that HN readers are blinded by their own technical abilities, so much so that they think they are right when it comes to social or economic ones.
Good news is the future years will determine which theory is right. Either its "bullshit designed to lure in ever more dumb money", or its an innovation that created something that provides real value to the economy.
I promise, one of us will be deterministically wrong.