[Kapura]

> It's easy, when you see lots of people making absurd claims, to go beyond just refuting those claims, and to slip into purely dismissing everything without ever checking to see if there's something of value there.

> But there is good, interesting stuff going underneath the madness frothing on twitter around crypto. Deep behind the apparent wall of film-flam artists, there's work going on in super weird math, formal software proving with billions of dollars on the line, new programming languages, new ways of scaling consensus, and lots of art being created.

I'm reminded of a tweet: "drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not,"[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762

[mysecretaccount]

Remove "drunk" from that tweet and the opposite point is made: why must we demand that a thing is all bad or all good?

Edit: not sure why this is being downvoted. I am not defending NFTs, just saying that a comparison to something clearly wrong like drunk driving needs to be established with more evidence than hyperlinking dril.

[meepmorp]

All you're saying is that if you leave out a crucial word in the initial statement, the meaning changes. Fine, but so what?

[mysecretaccount]

That is a very uncharitable interpretation of my comment. Here is an explanation for you:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29281263

[Kapura]

So are you defending drunk driving because it helps people get to work on time?

[azundo]

Not at all, they're suggesting that even clear benefits like driving have some negative outcomes. Whether NFTs/Crypto is more like driving (positives outweigh the negatives) or more like drunk driving (negatives outweigh the positives) is the question.

[_dain_]

is the dril tweet even wrong though?