[mirekrusin]

I think people have problem with assesing concepts that can only improve with time.

For some reason people seem to think that all things behave like a runner "he can run fast now but he'll have to slow down and stop" kind of thinking. As if those concepts have possibility of reverting to become worse than what they are.

You could hear similar voices around wikipedia, saying it'll never compete with professionally edited encyclopedia, you can hear similar voices around AI etc.

People don't seem to understand that a) things will keep changing and b) the only reasonable change is in direction of improvement.

I'm not saying that crash is not possible - it is, but underlying concept will not crash, it'll only improve, which means with time the system will be better than it is at the moment and there is no reason for it to perform worse than today.

[zucker42]

Sometimes inventions improve continuously over time, but sometimes they stop improving and stagnate. You can't just assume away criticism of technology with the assertion that things will improve in the future.

I think what a lot of cryptocurrency bears see is that blockchain-based currencies, especially BTC, have fundamental problems. Blockchains are fundamentally not scalable; since the more throughput a blockchain has, the harder it is to run a node, since every node processes every transaction. Another current problem is the massive energy usage of PoW blockchains. Concerning is that the biggest cryptocurrency by market cap seems to have no plans to research fixes to these problems, let alone implement them, and there is widespread opposition to change in general. Also, my personal experience is that 9 out 10 cryptocurrency projects lack clear technical explanations of how they work, with all the details. These problems coupled with the fact the industry is filled with hucksters, pumpers, and scammers makes people have a rather dim view of cryptocurrencies.

Perhaps these problems can be overcome (ETH is trying) but perhaps they can't, and if they can't then cryptocurrencies will be little more than what they are now (to a large extent), which is objects to fuel speculation.

And to be clear on my personal opinions, I wouldn't classify myself as a cryptocurrency naysayer, but enthusiasm is tempered and I believe that the current market caps are driven by speculation.

[chillacy]

I feel like I always read reasonable criticism like this and find myself convinced, and then 5 or 10 years later realize that I've missed out on Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Bitcoin, etc. Granted I've probably also saved myself from investing in stuff that hasn't panned out, but in the past 20 years, it would appear that overall market returns are driven by outliers.

[zucker42]

I own a small amount of Ethereum. But I consider it more of a speculative research project that a lot of people believe in, rather than something that you'd be stupid not to own.

In general, I don't know if it's a good idea to inform your choices with FOMO.

[hanniabu]

> You can't just assume away criticism of technology with the assertion that things will improve in the future.

Unless you're aware of the topic and know that it will continue to improve.

> Blockchains are fundamentally not scalable; since the more throughput a blockchain has, the harder it is to run a node

Statelessness

> Another current problem is the massive energy usage of PoW blockchains.

Proof of Stake

> Concerning is that the biggest cryptocurrency by market cap seems to have no plans to research fixes to these problems

Which is why almost all innovation is happening on Ethereum. Many people look at "crypto" as just bitcoin as if that's the only option.

> Perhaps these problems can be overcome (ETH is trying)

Indeed they can and are being overcome on ETH