Why is this unhealthy obsession so common on HN? Expressing some concern or doubt about crypto is perfectly reasonable, but it seems odd to me that a forward looking site that's tech-focused has such intense emotionality against crypto.
I am all fine for anyone to disagree with cryptocurrency projects and the idea of putting everything on-chain or a social network fully on-chain is also a bad idea which I also think that makes no sense. But the extreme idea of banning all of them or thinking all these projects will survive or using a false generalization towards all cryptocurrencies if one of them has an inefficiency in its consensus mechanism, then this is where I disagree with that.
It's interesting to see on a site that calls itself 'Hacker News' where the whole point is being curious about upcoming startup projects or technologies.
Theranos turned out to be a scam with many investors losing their money, does that mean all startups are scams? No. So given that many companies like Stripe, MoneyGram, Namecheap, etc have re-entered into cryptocurrencies, perhaps they are also aware that some of the ones they have chosen to use have a use case?
For somebody with such an unhealthy obsession with consensus based trust, you're certainly disturbed by the consensus on Hacker News that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and the widespread and uniform distrust of people who shill them.
What's so bad about consensus and trust, again?
Is the only kind of consensus you trust the kind of consensus that's arrived at by burning tons of coal?
Very often on HN, we see new stories about how Payment Provider X stole $$$ from some individual/group/business, ruining their lives. Or we see governments blocking bank accounts from doubleplusungood protesters.
I cannot understand how people see this kind of thing happen all of the time and then rationalize that there's no conceivable use cases for crypto.
There's also stories about lost wallets, crypto scams, contracts gone wrong, damage to the environment, shortage of chips and graphic cards, and so on.
It’s not emotionality, it’s rationalism. web3 is a naked pyramid grift, and most people promoting it are hoping to get rich from the “greater sucker” or have been subsumed into a cult-type mindset.
HackerNews is a high-quality rational discussion medium. The problem is not with this community, it is with the propaganda bubble of web3.
>The underlying technology is still innovative and enables novel solutions.
The only situations where blockchain provides novel solutions is where you need something to be absolutely trustless, and even then the trustlessness is limited to things that happen on the blockchain. The moment the blockchain has to interact with the real world outside of the blockchain you get back to problems of trust.
The range of problems that such technology is capable of solving is incredibly small. 99% of problems that I see people claiming are "solved" by blockchain were already solved by a boring old normal database like Postgres, or a distributed database like CockroachDB, or a distributed consensus algorithm like Raft. All of which are several orders of magnitude faster and more efficient than using a trustless, distributed blockchain.
Please name a single real-world problem that you believe blockchain "solves."
Even the speculation part, which admittedly is the vast majority of crypto activity, is not that easily dismissed.
The use case for speculation is making money. Making money is a pretty compelling use case. Most crypto traders are perfectly aware of the risks and play the game anyway.
I mean, the owners of this very site fund a thousand startups only to see 10 succeed. Pure speculation.
Yes, let's have an intellectualky honest and objevtive debate about if the world is flat. No, stop wasting people's time and energy with your obvious pyramid scheme.
You just proved that it's low quality as well as irrational.
On a complex topic with an enormous scope, you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, and present it as factual. That's pretty much impossible on any topic of high complexity.
You present zero evidence to justify such extreme conclusion. That's low quality and irrational.
To come to a high confidence conclusion on the whole of web3, one would have to actually read hundreds of articles at least, and spent significant time actually using the many products. I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test.
So you have zero evidence and presumably zero knowledge or experience. And you're the rational one?
> To come to a high confidence conclusion on the whole of web3, one would have to actually read hundreds of articles at least, and spent significant time actually using the many products. I would doubt that you did so, and couldn't even pass the most basic test.
But then, above,
> Further, when you use Stephen Diehl as a source, you already lost. This guy has an unhealthy obsession with hating crypto fueled by his own crypto startup failure.
Please get your story straight; all I am getting is ad hominems.
If we are going that route, please provide me with enough reason to not believe that you are one of the hordes of bagholders who bought into a pyramid scheme covered in layers of jargon in 2021 and are now trembling with fear after losing half of your gambling money that you were promised will double in no time; and are now desperately trying to draw in new marks for your decentralized MLM by advertising and name calling on hackernews.
What exactly isn't "straight" about my position on crypto? The only thing I'm saying is that for such a vast and complicated space, both the absolutes (100% bad, 100% good) are suspicious, intellectually lazy and likely made by commenters with near-zero knowledge or experience.
A character like Diehl is a "crypto is 100% bad" guy. Or more like 500% bad. It's a personal crusade. A crypto-bro shitcoin promoter is a "crypto is 100% good" guy.
I reject both positions and characters.
I regret to inform you that I own zero web3 tokens, nor do I have any other stake in any web3 project whatsoever.
I'm not here to promote or defend crypto specifically. I'm here to defend (in vain) nuanced discussion and seeking truth. We could be having this same discussion about "JavaScript sucks" or "Elon Musk sucks" and I would do the same thing: reject simplistic absolutes by people who don't even know anything about said topic.
> reject simplistic absolutes by people who don't even know anything about said topic.
Precisely. That is the whole point of what I am also saying.
Absolutist positions on either side: the "All crypto should 100% die" from the anti-crypto crowd and "All crypto projects will 100% take over the current system" by crypto-bros and maximalists are both wrong. If they were to 100% die, they would have banned all of them a long time ago and not all of these projects are guaranteed to succeed, they can also fail as well, even after regulations a few projects will succeed.
Given it is ridiculous to reject all electric vehicles because there are too many petrol and diesel vehicles currently burning up the planet, then it is also ridiculous to generalize and reject all cryptocurrencies because some of them use proof-of-work, even when not all of them use that.
I predict we will see the same arguments, refutations and we will continue to see this in the next HN post about something about crypto again.
Do you see any sense of irony here when looking at some of the crypto-proponents on this page arguing that the entire history of currency is bunk and can be discarded without knock-on effects?
> On a complex topic with an enormous scope, you claim to have an absolute and extreme answer, and present it as factual. That's pretty much impossible on any topic of high complexity.
This, on its own, is a pretty good reason not to trust a community that regularly messes up pegging stablecoins. I do not buy that purposefully making something complex is the same thing as making it robust. If anything, it's the opposite, complex systems are more likely to have fundamental flaws and are more likely to fall down and blow up than simple systems.
But if we are looking at complexity, current fiat currencies are already unbelievably complicated and multi-faceted. The way that inflation works, the way that currencies get issued, how trust in currencies grows, how countries coordinate and handle currency exchanges and debt, you could get multiple doctorates in every one of those areas. So if you're saying that GP is telling on themselves by dismissing cryptocurrencies out of hand because the math being hard means that quick dismissal of the social impact isn't allowed, how do you not immediately get really large red flags when you look at crypto-communities talking about how those economists are all just obviously wrong and crypto prices aren't tied to overall market effects, or that inflationary assets are just bad design, or that everyone's energy criticisms are just overstated, or that digital artists that hate NFTs just don't understand them, or that stock markets are exactly the same as cryptocurrency speculation, and so on and so on?
The idea of cryptocurrency proponents saying, "wait a second, this system is complex, we can't just dismiss it out of hand" just seems like it's missing a tiny bit of self awareness. Cryptocurrency by and large is a dismissal of complex systems and was primarily made and popularized by people who looked at economic/currency theory and thought, "yeah, I can do that, how hard could it possibly be?"
I'm not talking about the technical complexity of crypto. I'm talking about statements that cannot possibly have a binary answer, as any reasonable answer lies on a spectrum.
You can apply that to any complex divisive topic. Even harmless ones...
"JavaScript sucks"
Position 1: JS is pure evil, it should be eliminated or even banned.
Position 2: Everything should be built in JS, no matter the problem.
Both positions are absolute and extreme. They should both be distrusted as absolute statements tend to be false by default. In the rare case where they are true, extraordinary evidence needs to be presented and the commenter needs to be extremely knowledgeable and experienced on the topic at hand.
Applied to crypto, a statement like "web3 is a scam" should be translated to:
"I don't know anything about web3. I've never read any whitepapers. I've never used any of its products. I've never engaged with the community. I don't stay on top of news. Yet I did hear it is bad so I'll just parrot that and present it as fact."
I mean, look at the original article: "keep the web free".
...which incorrectly assesses how "free" the current web actually is, but aside from that: what part of web3 is taking away the current free web? Does the author think that web3 will uninstall the HTTP protocol? There is no threat, it's entirely imagined.
This risks falling into a tautology. The reason why it's naive to completely dismiss Javascript or to use it for everything is the same reason why it's a complicated topic -- because there are a lot of obviously useful applications, a lot of obvious flaws, because it managed to win marketshare over alternatives in a practical (not just speculative) way that led to genuine improvements to a lot of products that we use. Not to mention that a lot of incredibly smart people have ended up with nuanced takes that go in both directions.
If what you mean by "complicated" is "this is inherently nuanced", then saying "complicated things are inherently nuanced" isn't really saying anything. It's just saying that nuanced things are nuanced, it isn't proof or evidence of anything about Web3.
If you're not talking about the tech and systemic complication, then the question is whether or not Web3 really is actually complicated in the specific way you are using the word -- ie, is it actually a nuanced topic, or is it mostly a buzzword that companies like Facebook have latched onto?
And it is important to ask that question. Most things are useless, Javascript is the exception. If somebody comes up to you and tries to get you to learn a new language, you want to be immediately asking, "who else uses this? What evidence do you have that this isn't a scam?" And if that's not your default reaction, you'll end up buying into a lot of questionable technologies and frameworks that are error prone or that have bugs.
> as absolute statements tend to be false by default
This is also a little bit over-literal. Absolutes tend to be rare, yes, but that does not mean everything is always in the middle of two extremes. Sometimes it's off to the side, sometimes something is mostly useless but has one or two small ideas.
Even something like Theranos, there are lessons you can take away from that company about marketing, there's some degree of nuance there -- but it was still very definitely a scam and still very definitely did more harm than good. Crypto does not need to be entirely useless across the board or have no good ideas at all in order for Web3 to be a scam.
And again, going to the above point, if you go into every opportunity or proposal that someone makes online as if it's probably got a roughly equal number of good points and bad points, then you are going to get taken in by a lot of scams. If you demand extraordinary evidence in order to not trust someone, then you are ripe picking for Internet scams.
Is it OK for people to point at technologies like Google AMP or DRM and say that they should be rejected or that they're bad for the Internet?
> what part of web3 is taking away the current free web?
Web3's lack of threat to the open web is largely predicated on the fact that it's mostly useless and that it won't take off in a serious way. But if a lot of Web3's applications (NFTs, crypto-based voting, code-as-law, etc, etc) did take off, the negatives would outweigh the positives that did exist.
I don't think that's an absolute statement either, I'm not saying there's literally nothing good about Web3, just that the negatives very solidly outweigh the positives and the concept of universal commodification of all digital representation, IP, and content is mostly the opposite of what most open web proponents want.
This is not just cherry-picking examples either, I'm not saying that because one or two specific Web3 games are bad that the entire ecosystem is bad. I'm saying that the actual underlying ideas are bad. As you so correctly mention there are very few absolutes but in general the commodification of individual actions in a game is toxic design and should be avoided -- it shouldn't be the standard that we build a market on. In general, taking fungible game assets and making them non-fungible and limited makes games worse. There are some very rare exceptions, but they don't justify remaking the market to accommodate them.
Likewise, when we look at company plans around the Web3 metaverse, many of those plans are by design purposefully turning away from a lot of the things that would make a metaverse interesting in the first place -- they're prposing strict control of IP, scarce assets for things like land. It would be toxic and negative if those ideas took hold, and the only reason why they might not be dangerous is because it is unlikely that Web3 is going to play out the way that those people want.
> There is no threat, it's entirely imagined.
Again, do you see any irony in saying this after you just complained about people making absolute statements? When a significant chunk of proponents for the open web are saying that Web3 is toxic to the open web's ideals, does that give you hesitation, or are you saying you've read more books and spent more time researching software freedom than these people?
"It's just saying that nuanced things are nuanced, it isn't proof or evidence of anything about Web3."
Web3 deserves this nuance for its enormous scope and rapid pace of changes. There's hundreds if not thousands of projects, so it's pretty much impossible to make any absolute statements about it. Even more so when the typical commenter has never even interacted with any of it.
You could fairly easily prove that 90% of crypto projects fail, but so do > 90% of startups. Do startups suck altogether now? Another nuance is failure versus scams. Whereas 90% may fail, that doesn't mean 90% are a scam. There's lots of scams, but also just really bad ideas. A scam and a bad idea are not the same thing.
I think you take the JS example a bit too literal, or maybe it was a poor example. My point was that anything of significant complexity tends to not have absolute binary answers. You can apply to JS, political ideas, almost anything.
As for the open web, in a way it's dead as it is. All attention and monetization lies in the hands of a handful of companies. I don't see how any web3 project would threaten the current status quo.
If NFTs become mainstream...so what? You're not forced to buy one. Same for crypto gaming. If it doesn't make sense and make games crappier, it will be widely rejected.
> You could fairly easily prove that 90% of crypto projects fail, but so do > 90% of startups. Do startups suck altogether now?
90% of them fail, and you should be very cautious about investing into them or relying on them. You should be altering your behavior in a market where the majority of "products" fail. You should be approaching everyone who comes to you with their startup idea at least initially as if their startup idea is probably either bad or a grift -- and you should dismiss them unless they come up with evidence that makes them worth paying attention to. You should not accept complexity as an argument to invest in a company.
> My point was that anything of significant complexity tends to not have absolute binary answers.
I think my problem here is that it feels like you're equating "there's not an absolute binary answer" with "you can't dismiss it". And I don't think that's true. There are lots and lots of proposals and ideas people have that are not uniformly 100% bad that still should be dismissed out-of-hand absent some kind of tangible evidence that they're good.
This is a skill that people should practice because nuanced things often fall apart horribly. Remember that nuance is a continuum, the only two options aren't "binary good/bad" or "impossible to tell". Sometimes (often) things are mostly bad in obvious ways, and usually things that are worth paying attention to have at least a few obviously good qualities. Learning how to say, "okay sure, maybe there are one or two interesting things here, but it doesn't look like they matter" can save people from a lot of headaches -- particularly in the tech sector where people are inundated with frameworks, and products, and profit models, and "revolutions."
> As for the open web, in a way it's dead as it is.
Once again, I'm really glad we're being nuanced about things.
I don't agree that the open web is dead, and I do think that's a pretty un-nuanced take, but I do think that the open web has a lot of problems and that they are important to solve. The thing is though that the core ideas behind NFTs/crypto-gaming/identity-management/etc exasperate the same (real) problems you're looking at with the modern tech/web landscape. It's not just that they aren't good solutions, they are a more concentrated version of the web's current problems.
The biggest corporate proponents of Web3/metaverse products are envisioning a world that (despite being placed on the blockchain) is still effectively more centralized and more commoditized than the current world, and where the majority of funding, consumption, and creation happens under the supervision of people who bought in early to a set of scarce deprecating resources. That's bad for everyone if it does happen.
Luckily, it's probably not going to happen, because it turns out that NFTs are not really a great tool to build that dystopian world either, and a lot of the people trying to corporatize the Internet are (in my opinion) probably going to eventually figure out that there are easier ways to do that than with NFTs and smart contracts.
But that's kind of the optimistic take. If the articles and think-pieces from companies and investors with actual money and products in this space are indicative of their plans, then their plans are bad and shouldn't be realized. To say that no one will force you onto to Web3/NFT platforms if they do succeed is naive; these people are pretty straightforward about the fact that they want people to be forced onto the platforms and they want their platforms to be the dominant way that people interact with digital "assets". Scarce digital assets are a great way to encourage the exact same consolidation that we see today.
Many of the most interesting proposals in the Web3 space don't work unless they become dominant platforms in their respective industries. Certainly once we get to the societal applications that get proposed in these spaces, stuff like voting on a blockchain doesn't work unless it's the only way to vote. Thankfully, the optimistic take is that it's very likely never going to get there because the majority of the crypto market is about speculative investing, not changing the world.
----
And just to restate one more time, if it bothers you to hear someone say that the majority of cryptocurrency right now is a speculative bubble and the majority of it isn't fulfilling any real purpose -- it should also make you really nervous that crytocurrency itself was built out of a belief that the dominant expert narratives about monetary policy and asset management were just straight-up wrong.
If I take your complexity theory at face value and if I really buy into that model for how to think about complexity, then there really isn't a lot of reason to believe that a bunch of VCs, Internet hackers, hobby investors, and Anarchists know more about monetary policy than the Fed. Monetary policy is enormously complicated and constantly moving. Part of the reason why it's hard to take "it's complex so don't dismiss it" seriously is that if I agreed with that take I still wouldn't really see that as a defense of cryptocurrency.
If a bunch of non-experts, even tens of thousands of them, get together and make hundreds and thousands of projects, but the vast majority of them are predicated on the idea that traditional ideas about finance are wrong and that a bunch of people who have never gotten an economics PHD know better, then all you really have is tens of thousands of people who are themselves ignoring complexity.
So the only thing that I think makes sense is to examine Web3 based on the actual claims it makes, and those claims seem pretty bogus to me as someone who has been involved in trying to make the web open for a pretty long time. And they seem bogus to a lot of other experts who care about free culture and free expression, experts that I have over time learned to somewhat trust. Which doesn't mean that there's literally nothing good about Web3, but it can be as nuanced as it wants on the edges while the majority of it still consists of bad ideas, grifts, scams, and pure speculation. And unless those edges get a lot more prominent really quickly, then it's probably a good idea to dismiss the whole thing and let the good ideas come back in another medium or form that doesn't have quite so many toxic attributes.
web3 is being hailed as changing the world. So far all it has done is create countless scams.
However I am open to change my mind. Could you provide a single example of a popular and useful project that has been done using the revolutionary technology of web3?
Given the long and blemished history of failure, grifts and outright lies coming out of the cryptocurrency community, that is a ridiculous position.
Please stop wasting your time trying to defend cryptocurrency. At this point nothing you say will be believe because cryptocurrency bros have a long history of hype that goes nowhere. If you want to show the world that cryptocurrency is useful, go figure out a way to make it useful that doesn't involve breaking laws or wouldn't be better solved by using a DB instead of the block chain.
But no, I will waste my time any way I please. Luckily that decision is decentralized.
I'm not even a crypto promoter nor do I own a single web3 token. I was defending nuance in debate, quite ironical that you double down in the opposite direction, but not unexpected.
Well, it's a garbage-in / garbage-out kind of thing.
You call my position ridiculous (without even understanding it). As is evident from your next point where you state I'm "defending" crypto. I've made it obvious multiple times that I agree that at least 90% of crypto projects fail and have no (mainstream) utility. The nuance I added is to not forget about that 10% and that regardless of success/failure, crypto in itself has interesting ideas.
Ideas that are fun to reason about as they touch many aspects: economical, philosophical, technical, political.
The only thing I said really is to be intellectually curious and to keep an open mind, and that this should be considered normal in a tech community like HN.
Even for the bad parts of crypto (the 90% speculation) I'd encourage intellectual curiosity, as it's driven by important macro conditions for young people. Why not try to understand that better?
For the above position you call me ridiculous and imply I'm a crypto bro. You continue that you will believe nothing that I will say. In a bad faith discussion like that, don't expect high quality replies. After all, you don't believe anything anyway.
> The nuance I added is to not forget about that 10%
which you won't/can't provide a single example of...
> be intellectually curious and to keep an open mind, and that this should be considered normal in a tech community like HN.
Being open minded is not about believing whatever people tell you, it is being willing to consider ideas you disagree with you. I disagree with you, but I am willing to consider your ideas. You refuse to provide any actual details or facts to support your claims and instead insist that I simply believe you because that would be "open minded", That isn't how it works.
> Even for the bad parts of crypto (the 90% speculation)
If you think that speculation is the "bad part of crypto" then you simply have no idea what you are talking about. The bad parts or the fraud, grift, extortion that pervade the industry and make up the majority of it's non-speculative uses.
I do believe there is some value in cryptocurrency but if I were to pull a number out of my ass it would be that way <1% of the valuation of the cryptocurrency ecosystem comes from non fraud/grift/extortion/laundering. I am hopeful that number will rise but things seem headed in the opposite direction.
Purely on speculation and anecdotal pointers seen in my own social rings, there's a lot of "missed-the-train-dissonance" happening.
Many of the people in tech I meet, knew about Bitcoin very early. They even saw the potential. Some acted on that (with hindsight this may seem the "smart" move, but really, it was a gamble with lot of downside potential. Still is). Most did not -which actually, financially or investment-wise, was probably the smart move-.
Those people now must find ways to deal with this internally. The simple thing is to keep convincing yourself that web3, crypto, etc is bad - a conviction that isn't too hard to base in fact, really.
I gave talks in Bitcoin on tech meetups back in 2012. I've had numerous people from back then, tell me that they are really bummed that they didn't really believe me back then, to at least dabble around a bit with some spare change. Or just the tech. I strongly believe there are far more people in the tech scene who aren't this honest, not even to themselves, and instead strongly and loudly "hate" on all crypto.
I made several tens of thousands of dollars on BTC, buying a small stake when it was $10. I'm still HODLing some crypto though I've sold most of it, and I'm definitely one of the haters because it hasn't shown any evidence that any of it will ever deliver on its promises, and I've seen so many scams over the years. The whole ecosystem is just a mass of speculation and competing scams.
I am. And there are a lot of good arguments brought up on why web3 is not delivering, a scam, cannot work, churning out C02 and so on.
But the many, lazy oneline comments, even on HN, like "Crypto is a scam" lacking any arguments, body or even basis, do show me an unhealthy amount of "hate" on HN.
Why is this unhealthy obsession so common on HN? Expressing some concern or doubt about crypto is perfectly reasonable, but it seems odd to me that a forward looking site that's tech-focused has such intense emotionality against crypto.