[kordlessagain]

If we look at Lightning, it enables a full implementation of the 402 response code flow, which would allow for decentralized identity and payments in the use of machine learning networks for a wide variety of AI based systems. One such use case may end up being the "killer" use case for crypto and may make up for the speculative phase we're in now.

[knorker]

> One such use case may end up being the "killer" use case for crypto and may make up for the speculative phase we're in now.

If I had a penny for every time someone said "X may be the killer use case for cryptocurrencies"...

[yui43]

You’d have 587 million dogecoin, which is totally useful currency and not a speculative joke named after a meme.

[jarym]

Yep. So far crypto has been the killer use case for the problem of excess electricity. 100% no BS its true.

[pk_kinetic]

It seems rather poor form to ask someone to disclose their exact crypto holdings for the sake of legitimizing, or delegitimizating their position.

Couldn’t it just be a binary yes or no?

Disclosure: I own some crypto.

[reducesuffering]

No I don't think it's poor form. If we had a forum full of people talking about how great Facebook is, and when forced to disclose their $FB holdings, realize everyone is holding $100,000+ of $FB, we might realize we have skin in the game to talk it up instead of objectively evaluating it. Big difference in incentives between $10 and $100,000.

Stake 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH

[kybernetikos]

Image you were in a forum with people who claimed to believe that Facebook was great, but none of them had invested in it. Wouldn't that make you doubt the sincerity of their position?

It'd be a bad idea to only listen to opinions from people who won't put their money where their mouth is. If anything, objectively analysing something is much more important to those who have stake than those who do not.

[pk_kinetic]

Imagine a world where you can’t argue about anything without disclosing the exact amount of stake you have in it.

Skin in the game works both ways. FOMO is a real thing.

[mijamo]

Your comment is funny because in many countries all people that talk in a national assembly need to disclose their stakes. So yes I can imagine it, because a lot of parliaments work exactly like that.

And I am not sure what "both ways" means but of course you have to disclose if you have taken a short position in the matter.

[pk_kinetic]

People who talk in a National Assembly have real influence on laws so conflict of interest is a real problem.

If the chair of the SEC comes out for or against crypto (or any financial product) of course we should know what investments he holds.

We’re arguing about a subject on a message board. It’s not going to have any influence whatsoever on the price or whether it fails or not.

I would hate to have to disclose the exact amount of Toyota stock I own anytime I argue with someone the merits of Toyota over Ford or Honda.

[reducesuffering]

You don’t have to. However, TFA explicitly asked you for this discussion. You’re free to join the thousands of other discussions where there’s no ask to disclose stake. There’s value in one that does.

[knorker]

You do know that ethical journalists talking about stocks disclose if they are long or short on that stock, in the article they're writing, right?

[pk_kinetic]

We’re not journalists. We’re discussing a subject on a message board.

Besides, my original position was that it was bad form to ask for the exact amount of crypto someone holds.

I don’t ask for the exact amount of stock someone holds in Tesla when they are talking about how great Tesla is.

[knorker]

But Tesla is not a multi-level marketing scheme.

But yes, maybe it would be better to say "none", "a bit", or "my retirement depends on it". (or whatever scale you want to use)

Just because you're not a journalist doesn't mean you can't be ethical.

[tim333]

He doesn't say "exact crypto holdings." I'm sure something like disclosure - I hold some ETH would do.