It was anecdata the first time. The second time, it became hand-waving.
> I do loosely follow the industry
You follow it closely and care enough to comment here. 'disturbingly large percentages' and 'rather large percentages'... all say it is the big bad cookie monster... but it is just that... all anecdata.
You're trying to spread a myth, without anything more than anecdata, which is the whole point of this thread. I'd love to see less myth and more research.
Yes, because I'm concerned about the societal effects of it. What I don't follow closely are the implementation details.
> You're trying to spread a myth
No, I'm simply reporting what I personally observe. I even stated where I've observed it (mostly here on HN). My observations can, of course, be incorrect -- but describing it as "trying to spread a myth" is misleading. I'm not trying to spread a myth at all. I'm explaining why it is that I view the cryptocurrency space as having a lot of sketchy things in it.
I asked you for a source of the 'why' and you couldn't give me anything concrete. Therefore, my only other recourse is to assume you're spreading a myth. Burden of proof.
In any case, since you brought up burden of proof, it's the cryptocurrency world that is presenting the new thing, so it's on them to prove that what they're offering is an adequate substitution for what we currently have. I am the potential customer that has to be assured about it. So, in the larger sense the burden of proof is on the cryptocurrency people.
What I'm reacting to is your inability to quantify your opinions. Specifically, 'disturbingly large percentages' and 'rather large percentages'.
> it's the cryptocurrency world that is presenting the new thing, so it's on them to prove that what they're offering is an adequate substitution for what we currently have.
"for what we currently have". See, that's the thing, we had newspapers and tv before we had the internet. The internet came along and gave us an entirely new medium. It took a while for people to get used to that. You're in that phase now.
While millions of other people are off experimenting with these new things (and effectively using as part of their daily lives). Nobody forced anyone to use the internet. People gravitated to it because they found value in it.
Just because you have come to the opinion that it has 'large percentages' of grift, doesn't make that opinion true.
No specific source, just how it looks to me based on what I hear pro-cryptocurrency people say (mostly here).
> media focuses on the failures and not on the successes.
By "here", I meant HN, not the larger mediasphere.
> Please try to get past the HN trope of 'crypto has zero purpose other than number goes up or down and bitcoin mining is destroying the planet' and look at what is actually happening in the industry.
This comment is mis-aimed. I'm not on that trope (I see one legitimate use), and I do loosely follow the industry. I don't follow it deeply because it's not a field that is technically interesting to me, but I am interested in the ramifications to society at large.
All I'm saying is that a rather large percentage of people I see advocating cryptocurrency are not making cryptocurrency look good.