[pixelbro]

Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case and the parent comment is right to point that out.

[baobabKoodaa]

> Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case and the parent comment is right to point that out.

You're either trying to confuse others intentionally, or if I'm interpreting charitably, you are merely confused yourself. In neither case is this attitude warranted. You just re-explained that the crux of the issue is useful work vs non-useful work. This is exactly the same point that Josde explained. This point was contested by lottin. I don't understand why they would contest it, as they very clearly agree with that point (based on reading other messages they wrote in this thread). According to you, lottin is not "pretending to disagree", they are "merely providing further context". This is very obviously not true. Either you are lying on purpose or you are confused, maybe you didn't read their message properly. Here it is again for you to read:

> It's worse than that, they're aren't solving anything at all. They're taking part in a lottery, in which participants have to guess a number, and the winner gets to update the ledger. Nobody is solving complex mathematical problems.

Does that sound to you like "yes, I agree, and here is some further context"? Obviously not. That message is expressing strong disagreement, not further agreement.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

[pixelbro]

> Obviously not. That message is expressing strong disagreement, not further agreement.

Not obvious to me. But sure, I'm confused all right. Confused at how lottin's comment could be interpreted as contesting Josde's, when it reads as a reinforcing restatement to me. Confused at your hostility and accusations of misinformation.

Perhaps you're confused about how online conversations work? Sometimes people reply with a restatement when they feel the original doesn't go quite far enough. I mean, lottin's comment was arguably ineloquent, but he wasn't "muddying the waters". Do you perhaps have some expectation that the act of replying implies disagreement? Is it the strongly negative tone that gave you that impression? It certainly isn't the content, since you correctly interpreted my own restatement of lottin's comment as agreement.

I'm not trying to confuse others, I'm trying to enlighten you, specifically, about what happened here so that you might reconsider next time before jumping on someone for something they didn't say.

[baobabKoodaa]

Ok, you and one other person said that lottin's comment doesn't read as disagreement, so maybe you're right and I'm the one reading it incorrectly. I'll take your feedback. Seems like I might be in the wrong here.

[detaro]

> Does that sound to you like "yes, I agree, and here is some further context"?

Yes, very much.