[cslarson]

This is really a complaint against Proof of Work based consensus protocols.

"Cryptocurrency" is also kind of a dumb term. Everyone seems to still think this is about creating new currencies. Really we are talking about tokens that represent some component of a system. Yes that is general because the base for experimentation with tokens is absurdly vast. God we need to move beyond thinking about Bitcoin! Really this article is saying "Fuck Bitcoin" and well, I'd agree with that at this point.

[knorker]

> This is really a complaint against Proof of Work based consensus protocols.

I wouldn't say so. The multi-level marketing ponzi scheme things would still be present.

> "Cryptocurrency" is also kind of a dumb term.

Yes, but "crypto" means something else.

> Everyone seems to still think this is about creating new currencies.

It's not. It's about greed and creating money for yourself. Currencies are just more direct.

Everything else is just either incidental, or propaganda.

[Weebs]

> Everything else is just either incidental, or propaganda.

After seeing a few of your replies on this thread I'd like to comment on this: what I see is someone who's using their own personal beliefs as justification on why something isn't useful, failing to understand others have their own beliefs and situations that make the technology useful to them.

For me, and others, there is a deep value in a decentralized, fault tolerant, fast, global, user controlled, immutable ledger of payments and store of value. You might argue that we have existing centralized solutions to these problems, which you believe are better, but that doesn't invalidate the inherit value I (and others) attribute to such a system. Being able to transact across the world in seconds for less than a bank wire and without a central authority is useful. Yes a centralized authority like PayPal can do it faster and with less resources, no that doesn't mean the decentralized method is useless.

Holdings: 5% of my net worth in various proof of stake coins, hoping to recoup money I lost to inflation not playing the equities game so I can afford a home.

[cslarson]

> The multi-level marketing ponzi scheme things would still be present.

Yes, there are scams. But even in 2017 ICO days these were easy to spot - wailing and teeth nashing over ICO scams was dumb then and still is now.

> Yes, but "crypto" means something else.

I'm sorry but words mean what people who use them want them to mean in order to communicate ideas between them. Meanings evolve and words are co-opted and probably people should get over that.

> It's not. It's about greed and creating money for yourself. Currencies are just more direct.

I guess I can agree if what you mean by greed I replace with self-interest based mechanism design. I don't believe this needs to be zero sum, though. Maybe we'd differ on that.

[ddevault]

>Yes, there are scams. But even in 2017 ICO days these were easy to spot - wailing and teeth nashing over ICO scams was dumb then and still is now.

https://signal.org/blog/help-us-test-payments-in-signal/

[tim333]

I think in 2017 you could mostly spot an ICO scam by looking if it included the term 'ICO.'

[knorker]

> I'm sorry but words mean what people who use them want them to mean

Yup, which is why I use the words how I want them to mean. See?

> I don't believe this needs to be zero sum, though.

Absolutely not. I'm a capitalist.

But bitcoin is clearly negative-sum. And (I don't want to retype too much from other comments) so's other cryptocurrencies.

And negative-sum is clearly bad.

[whywhywhywhy]

> It's not. It's about greed and creating money for yourself

Am I not supposed to be doing this? I mean I have rent to pay and food to buy.

[knorker]

Capitalism is about rewarding people for creating value. It's the best economic theory ever invented, because it aligns your goals with the goals of everyone else.

Bitcoin speculation does not create value.

The stock market does (e.g. see research on potato and onion futures).