I thought the writing and editing were excellent and well thought out. Can you give a specific example of when a logical fallacy was employed in the video?
Take the part 2: Personal comments on Vitalik, an history of scams during the period Ethereum was created but not directly related, a 100k grant Vitalik got which I fails to see the relevance too, a broad critic that can apply to any entrepreneur/programmer having a dunning kruger thinking they can easily disrupt an industry with software. Conclusion:
> In terms of improvment over Bitcoin, Ethereum has many. It's not hard. Bitcoin sucks.
Ethereum solves none of them and introduce a whole new suite of problems driven by technofetishistic egotism of assuming that programmers are uniquely suited to solve society's problem.
It's nice prose but for me that part was really mostly appeal to emotions/ridicule and association/composition fallacies. To clarify the latter: scams and ridiculous marketing are a problem, but unfortunately that's not enough to make a logical point. Their proportion neither.
Again there are good points, but it's weirdly positioned. For me it's a rant, but instead it's presented as a calm scientific/neutral content which I don't find very honest (and quite ironic given the subject). But I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe it's just me misinterpreting the tone.
It is a rant, a well argued one, with a lot of salient points, IMO.
And ridicule is part of the point of text (not subtext) of the essay. Dan is making an emotional argument as much as he's making a logical one, because a lot of people will hear the emotional one where the logical one would just bounce off. Making something harmful actually seem uncool is a valid tactic, IMO.
Like, calling out Vitalik as a butthurt Warlock main is an attempt to make his origin story around the EVM seem to have a pathetic origin. Instead of applying himself to getting better at the new warlock meta, he went off and created a thing that has enabled a lot of real economic harm.
And pointing out the connection to Peter Thiel is as much about pointing out the involvement of big money in cryptocurrency as any specific character of Vitalik.
And it's not like Vitalik hasn't had a lot of chances to go "damn, the EVM is being used for a lot of harm. Maybe it wasn't worth it?"
Or maybe he has, and I (and Dan, because I think he'd have brought that up) have missed it?
> In terms of improvment over Bitcoin, Ethereum has many. It's not hard. Bitcoin sucks. Ethereum solves none of them and introduce a whole new suite of problems driven by technofetishistic egotism of assuming that programmers are uniquely suited to solve society's problem.
It's nice prose but for me that part was really mostly appeal to emotions/ridicule and association/composition fallacies. To clarify the latter: scams and ridiculous marketing are a problem, but unfortunately that's not enough to make a logical point. Their proportion neither.
Again there are good points, but it's weirdly positioned. For me it's a rant, but instead it's presented as a calm scientific/neutral content which I don't find very honest (and quite ironic given the subject). But I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe it's just me misinterpreting the tone.