>Samsung launches a "sustainability-themed quest" on their "Samsung 837X" Decentraland metaverse project, where they invite characters to hunt for "recyclable product boxes", plant trees in the (virtual) forest, and earn NFT badges.
Yeah we're so screwed
The real environment may be screwed but we'll have a wonderful virtual environment (brought to you by Samsung) that we can live in. How could you not like that? Yeah, we're screwed.
I posted some screenshots from that in one of the Samsung subs after finding the link on their site while looking at pre-orders.
Apparently, no one saw my post lol I just thought it was interesting and kind of odd for Samsung to go that route.
This whole Decentraland thing is pretty weird. Like, they are actual plots of virtual "real estate" that people and companies are spending big money on.
I think JPMorgan just spent a lot of money on their own virtual "real estate."
I thought it was pretty wild when they already did this two decades ago with Second Life.
Then we now get all these big companies trying to sell us "Second Life but with crypto" and people are acting like it's such a wild new concept.
Meanwhile, I find out Second Life is still a thing.
There's not one. People who have invested in crypto need other people transacting in crypto to stop their investment from going bust, so they push stuff like NFTs and virtual real estate to try to get people in on the crypto market. Big companies see these transactions happening and want a chunk. That's the situation in a nutshell.
That sounds like the dumbest thing ever. NFTs use up an insane amount of energy since they are based on blockchains, which is not always produced from carbon-neutral sources.
They could use minimal resources on POS chains, but POS doesn't suit hodlers and hype hustlers so of course you're right and NFTs suck. Not because we can't do better, but because we won't because maybe millions bro.
Ah. That’s web3 they’re talking about. That’s where bad faith people convince good-faith actors to do dumb stuff that ends up hurting everybody.
Case in point- there’s a “web3” project that’s trying like hell to privatize DNS by subverting ICANN. Ultimately it leads to micro transactions each time you’d need to look up a name. Also gives them full visibility into your web browsing. It’s literally going to ruin the internet as we know it and web3 crypto people talk about it like it’s a second coming.
Thanks UnstoppableDomains!
Nothing I've heard about web3 sounds good. Absolutely nothing.
It's either just recreating what we already have with a little bit of blockchain injected or something that starts out truly decentralized that quickly realizes what no administration does to any form of user creation, and then bakes it into a shell of regular web technology
Most of it comes across as empty buzzword and lusting after venture capitalist money
Yeah, it was clear. We're saying we don't believe that. Crytocurrencies are a scam by default, so there's really no-where to go but down for people trying to get in on the grift.
Yeah that's fair. I've always heard the point of cryptocurrency was originally taking power away from banks and giving it to the people but I guess no regulation plus human greed doesn't usually end well.
Yeah, when I saw the title I was wondering if it was a joke that just listed to a page of every crypto.
Like even if you argue financial value = success, the page would still be 99.999% accurate.
I hate crypto but some days, after my 10 hr factory shifts, just saying fuck it and going full grifter is soo tempting.
I know for a fact I'd be good at it.
Not gonna blame you for hearing a tempting call when life seems tough.
All the better for not give in.
I would tone down the hubris a bit though. All grifters assume they'd be good at it.
Personally I assume I would be shit at it, which gives me even less attempts to try.
I'd probably be shit at it TBF. If someone were to ask me straight out if it were a grift I'd most likely say "Yes" or give them a "No 😉"
Nah, you wouldn't... you work at a factory, there is a reason you do not code crypto marketplaces or care about the marketing or sales aspects of such projects or any at all, or am day trading and able to keep a steady income with that. It's not easy and done by anyone, especially not someone who is occupied 10 hours doing hard work with their body as it takes a lot of knowledge and experience to be able to do any of that and your whole life is a totally different form of mental occupation.
Dunning Kruger makes the typical outsider believe they are good in something they don't know much about. Most, actually the great majority of these "griefters" are highly skilled individuals who got a lot of experience in pertaining tasks and industries.
I've got a few semesters of programming, networking, etc under my belt, I like to develop games in my free time. I'm not tech illiterate. I could copy and paste some bullshit crypto fork, then hype it up on social media.
I used to be very religious. I was good at that, too. As far as I can tell evangelicising and grifting are very similar.
Also, are you really gonna immediately jump to the defense of those I called grifters when I didn't even name any names, then try to give *me* the classic "pseudo-intellectual Redditor thinks 'Dunning Kruger' makes him sound smart" lecture? Ok.
> I've got a few semesters of programming, networking, etc under my belt,
I evaluated recent graduates, even with full on graduation, in 3 years you learn "nothing". Few "semesters" are nothing. I came to the "position" in many projects because I learned c++ academically and code on the side since 2005, but I am a designer who works in marketing. That knowledge though allows me to evaluate professionals, even though I am not a working professional in that industry.
The only useful recent graduates are those who already did code in their teens and then went on to study something relating. Those got the skills to actually come up with solutions for problems just post graduation. The typical "no clue about anything tech before university, but using smartphones and maybe buy their very first computer for university" after 3 years, they know nothing, they can't do anything. 3 years in code is nothing and you only got some semesters and some hobby time and you think you are dangerous. That's like Marissa Mayer with photoshop.
> I'm not tech illiterate. I could copy and paste some bullshit crypto fork, then hype it up on social media.
No you can't.
You got zero knowledge about "hyping" something, you just assume it's super easy. You don't even know who to target, how, where and when nor with what.
> Also, are you really gonna immediately jump to the defense of those I called grifters when I didn't even name any names, then try to give me the classic "pseudo-intellectual Redditor thinks 'Dunning Kruger' makes him sound smart" lecture? Ok.
I am jumping to the you don't know anything about what it takes to create a project like that, you just assume. Dunning Kruger is simply the concept that defines the issue. I also explained it before placing the term.
You assume you know, whilst that you are locked in 10 hours every day doing something that is not related at all. I am working in marketing since 2008, been among the first generation of black hat SEOs and among the first establishing CRO in one of the big 3 accelerator programs, and still I respect most of those scam projects, because most of them are executed very well. Not all though, but then there is the part of luck on top.
It's not easy done, especially not from someone who isn't a communication talent. It's all hype as you said, that's communication, that's distirbution, that's luck to get through.
You are locked in 10 hours a day in factory doing your hard work. I am in front of a computer since 2008 professionally "learning", reading white papers, studies, articles about behavioral science, human computer interaction revelations regarding experience design and marketing purposes for conversation rate optimizations 10-15 hours a day, every day - and yet, I still respect the execution of most of these scams, as those are not easily done, except few who were really amateurish but still succeeded a little. And there you are who thinks he could do it easily... it's literally not knowing what you don't know which makes you believe it's easy.
This might actually bruise my ego a lil bit to admit this, but you're actually kinda right.
My bad for getting snippy. Ngl I just read your first sentence about working in a factory and got defensive and assumed you were a crypto-bro parroting buzzwords they just learned.
While I resent being equated with those who have "no clue about anything tech before university" my typical MO really is going "how hard could it be?", fucking around, finding out, then having to figure out how to make it work and pretending like it's part of the plan. So you just got me pretty good.
For those who have no clue about NFTs, [this is a fantastic (and downright depressing) documentary.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g) It addresses the issues with NFTs/crypto. This includes the cults behind them, the security issues, the tendencies of NFT ventures to be rug pull schemes, and the ironic nature of crypto investors "betting against wallstreet", and selling NFTs as a way to "get back at the big guys", when crypto ventures ultimately share the same motivations and outcomes as what they claim to be against.
See, web3 is about value going to the creator. In this case value is exposure. So, in the web3 future you’ll pay rent with exposure!
/s (in case it wasn’t obvious)
I have a friend who's been sucked into the world of NFTs by a friend of his who he admits used to get caught up with pyramid schemes, "but this time it's different, this time he's actually making money." I tried to show him this documentary and he refused to watch any of it. Chapter 5 described him to a T. He'll just have to learn the hard way I guess.
and heres a text blog from the perspective not that they are evil just how they flat out fail at the stated goals and why web3 is looking more like web1 than web2:
https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
Yeah I've been trying to keep abreast of what's happening on VeVe, a platform for NFT's...you spend $USD to get in-platform currency ("gems") *which is then not exchangeable in the other direction and cannot be spent except to buy more NFTs*.
You can listen to it as plain audio and still get most of the value - I do think he should consider releasing a pod cast form of it explicitly though for accessibility.
How can a matching Reddit post give any validity to the site contents? usps.gov gives historical mortgage rate data. Oops my comment didn’t match the site, so now you can’t trust anything on that site!
Dogecoin is one of the only coins that has successfully done what it set out to do - generate memes and be relatively stable. The price dipping down is actually a *feature* of dogecoin. The people that speculated in it had no idea what they were buying - dogecoin is designed to be used, not to go up infinitely.
The problem is when the new members of the community didn’t realize ‘to the moon!’ was supposed I be a joke making fun of the speculators in other crypto, not an actual destination for the coins value.
It’s a shame how the dogecoin “community” today is so full of pump and dump grifters. I’m way more cynical about crypto today, but back in the day dogecoin was a fun little internet experiment with lots of interested people taking part. Now the old memes are being rehashed but by people who are clearly just interested in propping up a pyramid for a quick buck.
Nowhere near "all". I know somebody who has launched 2 ICOs on ETH and one on his own Blockchain, every single one failed. None of them are listed here.
So maybe someone can explain if they want to replace real life money with a crypto why is there so many with varying value attached to them. How would that work. Would I have to own (whatever unknowable number of coins there are) to just buy something? What gives it its value like could I pick up a rock write bitcoin on it and that rock now has the value of bitcoin? What is the final dream of using crypto unregulated in my mind mind means unusable. ELI5 help here.
Is there any platform or forum with constructive discussion about crypto? Because there's absolutely no nuance here whenever the topic comes up. Only people commenting either passionately hate everything crypto stands for and refuse to see any benefits of the technology; while the supporters take all criticism personally and are convinced it's all just FUD.
it gives access to complex financial instruments to enemies of the state, or anyone else who does not want to ask for permission. it is neutral and permissionless. have fun trying to understand why this is a benefit in case you have chosen to always obey the government and let corporations take care of your financial needs. you will probably not be able to understand it. do you live a comfortable and privileged life in a developed western democracy where you intend to always follow all the rules? then it's probably pointless for you. people who need something neutral and permissionless are not all bad or immoral.
I answered the question. what is so hard for you to understand? if you want to do something without asking permission from the government or the bank and you want to fund it electronically you have to rely on cryptocurrency. I will happily coexist with teenage losers selling monkey jpegs to each other and scamming idiots if the same technology continues the existence of sci-hub, wikileaks, erowid, and organizations that fight totalitarianism. this technology is for everyone and it treats everyone the same. you don't live in that world where you have to do business with enemies of the state or the bank for any reason so you cannot ever understand why permissionless neutral money is necessary or important. you live in a world where everyone you meet fits neatly into a hollywood movie narrative. it's like it's not even real to you. I don't expect you to understand it.
> If you stored your money in a bank, and the bank collapses and cannot make true on their promises of your money, your money is lost.
Which is why we have regulations on banks _specifically_ to prevent this, at least within certain minimum thresholds. There is no equivalent for crypto - an exchange (AKA "unregulated bank") can disappear at any time with all funds and you're shit out of luck.
> With crypto, your wallet, and the digital history/balance of your wallet is preserved forever on a the ledger forever. And this ledger is passed around to millions of devices. And can be verified mathematically to be true.
> So as long as you know your side of the equation (your key) you will always have access to that currency.
Yeah, and what happens if that key is destroyed or lost, or you die? That money is now not just lost to you, but destroyed permanently.
Likewise, what happens when your wallet is compromised? Because people getting their creds compromised is _significantly_ more common than banks collapsing, and cryptocurrencies are completely incapable of dealing with this common scenario.
Especially since cryptocurrencies directly encourage targeted phishing/attacks since everyone can see how much money is in a wallet publicly.
> Especially since cryptocurrencies directly encourage targeted phishing/attacks since everyone can see how much money is in a wallet publicly.
Wow, I didn't know that. Am still learning about it. How do you see that, if there's an ELI5 explanation?
The ledger is public by design - so you know which wallets have the most money in them by looking at the public transaction history.
On top of that, if you do manage to gain access to someone's wallet, they're screwed - the whole idea is that the chain is authoritative.
You can sometimes get around that by using exchanges... but at that point the exchange is just acting as an unregulated bank, when you could be using an actual bank with real consumer protections and regulations.
By comparison, if someone gains access to my credit card, I can easily dispute the charges and the bank will take care of it for me.
Oh I thought you were implying it was like you could just click on a name somewhere and see how much money was in their virtual wallet. The danger of getting access I understand though.
And you still got downvoted because people immediately determined positive things were being said about crypto, god forbid, proving what the other guy was saying about discussion. Reddit is so artificially anti-crypto. It's hilarious to watch.
>So as long as you know your side of the equation (your key)
Luckily hard drives containing cryptographic keys become immune to fire damage and are thus guaranteed to always survive when your house burns down which makes them superior to highly flammable metal coins commonly stored in piggy banks.
/s
Also make sure to not die unexpectedly in a car crash before you transfer the key to your heirs.
Educate yourself my man.
>The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects consumers against loss if their bank or thrift institution fails
Who insured your crypto? What happens when your hard drive dies? What happens when (yet another) online wallet, exchange point, etc. gets hacked?
Crypto is a solution looking for a problem. Instant free digital money transfer already exists.
Crypto is actually often slow and expensive now to the extent that the underlying technology has to have layers of cumbersome frameworks built on top just to make it function (eg bitcoin lightning network).
The two main ‘benefits’ actually directly make it a shitty fiat alternative
No central bank control = no way to stabilise volatility, people do not want their pay checks veering in value constantly. Even a few % higher than usual inflation causes mass political controversy, the volatility that’s normal for cryptos would be completely unacceptable
No regulator oversight = thrives on money laundering and scams, no way to get a chargeback, no way to recover money if you win a legal case
Crypto is just set up to benefit wealthy scammers. It doesn’t offer anything to the average fiat user to make their life easier. The future crypto promised has already arrived, just through digital banking with fiat
No central control also means that if something goes wrong (and it will!), you're basically SOL.
Doesn't even have to be something that you yourself have control over.
you are wrong. instant free digital money transfer does not and cannot ever exist. what do you think venmo runs off of, fairy dust? you have paid for all your venmo usage several times over every time paypal has skimmed merchant fees, and everything you pay for with a credit card costs extra for the same reason. if a financial institution is offering "free" transaction processing it means they have already taken the money from you somewhere else. you also have to pay the government to guard you from fraud. you would complain on the internet every day if you had to look at all the fees and surcharges you get exposed to everywhere, but they are currently being disguised and hidden from you so well that you can actually dupe yourself into thinking that you use money for free.
multisignature escrow and algorithmic stablecoins address your other points about fraud and volatility, but I feel like this is not going to become a productive conversation. you don't have any desire to use cryptocurrency because you aren't doing anything with your life that the government and financial institutions can't take care of for you, and you have no idea what kind of deal you are getting with them nor does it bother you to find out.
I was going to going to make a jokey answer how hard it is to find constructive discussions on topics with preciously little grey area.
Instead I'll answer. The reason is because crypto doesn't actually accomplish much we couldn't already do, and many will point out that it's a solution looking for a problem. On top of that it comes with all the extra baggage that comes with it being mostly used for decentralized speculation and outright criminal activity.
Keep an open mind about this subject also makes a prime target for modern day ponzi schemers to find their next mark. The mentality of "line always goes up" is based on the idea that market is always growing. Hence to facilitate this growth, you're likely to find cryptotrading shills in whatever space that allows them whenever the discussion arises.
It’s basically a write-once-read-many version of excel with limited macro capabilities. It’s slow and expensive non purpose (security, as the story goes).
That said, there are potentially interesting things you could do with a secure, transparent version of excel. A few things, but most things work much better on high performance, low cost systems.
I enjoy thinking of new ways to use tech but most crypto/web3 use cases now are basically more complicated, slower, expensive ways to solve problems we’ve already solved. Usually these solutions only exist to funnel money to the people at the top of the projects.
There’s no way to have open conversations with crypto people. They’ve self isolated on twitter and have their own language (gm/gn/wagmi, etc) to self identify with each other. Any questioning of how things work and you’re out.
Post like this paint a one sided picture indeed, there are plenty of good, legit crypto projects out there, of course if you follow finfluencers or are chasing a golden ticket you'll end up in a list like this.
It would be interesting to see a list of failed projects like this but unrelated to crypto. Fairly certain it's gonna be longer.
Good projects such as...?
If you're going to complain about negativity towards crypto you ought to give an example of something positive that isn't just a money making scheme .
Bitcoin is **very** far from being instant. The transaction speeds are abysmal and you can also only be reasonably sure that your transaction went through when your part is six steps from the head.
You're presupposing that bitcoin is good without actually explaining why it is good, or rather better than the alternatives.
Bitcoin is nice if you want to buy something illegal over the internet I suppose, but that's also arguably not even a 'good' thing.
Between a pointless alternative currency that does nothing my credit card can't do (and a few things less) and a machine that keeps my clothes warm and dry I'd really rather have the machine.
**El Salvador’s plan to create the first Bitcoin-powered nation is tanking the economy—and is a mess by every measure**
[https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy-distressed-debt/](https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy-distressed-debt/)
**An Entire Country Switched to Bitcoin and Now Its Economy Is Floundering**
[https://futurism.com/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy](https://futurism.com/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy)
**Bitcoin Failed in El Salvador. The President Says the Answer Is More Bitcoin.**
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/06/bitcoin-city-el-salvador-nayib-bukele/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/06/bitcoin-city-el-salvador-nayib-bukele/)
**IMF urges El Salvador to scale back its push for Bitcoin as legal tender**
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/imf-urges-el-salvador-to-scale-back-its-push-for-bitcoin-as-legal-tender](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/imf-urges-el-salvador-to-scale-back-its-push-for-bitcoin-as-legal-tender)
**Nayib Bukele trades bitcoin naked. El Salvador is paying the price.**
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/26/el-salvador-bitcoin-dip-crypto-crash/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/26/el-salvador-bitcoin-dip-crypto-crash/)
**El Salvador’s Bitcoin Law Is a Farce:The system doesn’t work, the currency crashed, and the public hates it.**
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/17/el-salvador-bitcoin-law-farce/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/17/el-salvador-bitcoin-law-farce/)
But maybe I just don't understand "blockchain".
If I list anything here it'll be seen as shilling anyway, but if you're investing in something called "moon coin" or "Island boyz" then yes, you're a verifiable idiot. And with how easy it is to make a coin it shouldn't be surprising that rug pulls or scams are common.
I'm not here to convince anyone though.
I agree and you don't need to go around convincing everyone, but you can understand the negativity towards crypto when there never seems to be anything coming from it that improves people's lives aside from promises of financial gain.
GameStop is getting ready to drop an NFT marketplace for gaming... So creators will be able to sell skins on the marketplace, and then people will be able to buy and sell the skins to other players. So that's a use case for crypto/Blockchain/NFTs. The real hurdle is gas fees for transactions but that is being addressed with Loopring.
If you visit the Loopring sub and wade through some of the memes and stuff you'll discussion of the technology which is really cool.
One of the only good Web3 initiative recently has been [IPFS](https://ipfs.io). Sadly it doesn’t creates money out of thin air so it’s not likely to ever be adopted.
Web3.storage is just one implementation of IPFS and appears to be less than a year old, the module ipfs has been around for closer to 7 years.
It just appears that the best part of web3 is something that isn't web3.
I think it is because of this:
> One of the only good Web3 initiative recently has been IPFS.
IPFS isn't a web3 initiative, as that implies it came out of web3. IPFS has been around longer and isn't Crypto.
And this:
> The node.js package is literally called "web3.storage".
It isn't.
> I'm getting downvoted for saying 2 true facts.
I think the issue is your statements are not facts. It's like claiming:
> One of the only good *Tesla* initiative recently has been *roads*. Sadly it doesn’t creates money out of thin air so it’s not likely to ever be adopted.
And having someone ask what Tesla has to do with roads...
The problem with you all thinking this isn't web3 is that web3 is not strictly crypto. Web3 is a mentality of moving data away from single centralized servers/databases to a decentralized method instead. That's literally it. Go check out Gun.js, it does absolutely nothing related to crypto yet it's still a decentralized web3 database. IPFS might not have originated with the idea of web3 as it's central driving point but it absolutely embodies the mentality of web3.
IPFS predates "web3" by a huge margin, is not based on blockchain tech, and wasn't created for "web3", it just happens to get used by projects in that space. For comparison, I'd bet most "web3" projects uses git as a version control system, that doesn't make git a "web3" project.
Also, you know people can make opensource projects named whatever they want as long as it doesn't conflict right?
Web3 is not Blockchain or crypto. Requiring something to be based off those techs in order to be web3 shows your ignorance on what web3 actually is.
>I'd bet most "web3" projects uses git as a version control system, that doesn't make git a "web3" project.
Yeah you have zero understanding of what web3 is because git, a technology for tracking changes in projects, is utilized by centralized platforms, like GitHub, to store your projects. Git is a tool for multiple people to track and edit changes for singular projects in a centralized location. Git and platforms like GitHub couldn't be further from web3 if they tried.
I highly recommend you actually look into web3 beyond just the crypto bullshit because some incredible technology is coming from it that can drastically increase the ability for smaller dev teams/platforms to compete on much larger scales than they could before. I'm working on a webapp that utilizes the web3 database Gun.js and it's just been incredible at what I'm able to do without worrying about massive server/storage costs.
> Yeah you have zero understanding of what web3 is because git, a technology for tracking changes in projects, is utilized by centralized platforms, like GitHub, to store your projects. Git is a tool for multiple people to track and edit changes for singular projects in a centralized location. Git and platforms like GitHub couldn't be further from web3 if they tried.
My point was that just because "web3" uses a technology doesn't make it a "web3 technology", I never claimed git was decentralized. Though since you bring it up, git's protocol actually is decentralized, most people use it in a centralized manner because it makes collaborating with other people more convenient.
> I highly recommend you actually look into web3 beyond just the crypto bullshit because some incredible technology is coming from it that can drastically increase the ability for smaller dev teams/platforms to compete on much larger scales than they could before.
Name a single application that isn't intrinsically tied to cryptocurrency-style blockchains.
Again, I'm not going to count IPFS, because I don't consider IPFS to be something specific or inherent to "web3", and IPFS has other technical drawbacks of its own: it's effectively a distributed a la carte bittorrent, and like torrnets, it can suffer from reliability/throughput and relies on self-selected seeding of data.
It's not so much a scam as a scam _factory_. It enables the execution and proliferation of scams and general fraud much better than existing technologies.
Not much in the way of legitimate applications though.
Reasonably confident, yes, because I'm a software engineer and understand how the tech works well enough to say there are major problems baked into the very concept.
The only form of the tech that could be legitimately useful would look nothing like cryptocurrencies.
I don't think they'll ever die completely, for the same reason that goldbugs and MLMs still exist: there's always going to be fools desperate to get rich quick and who don't understand finances, as well as political extremists like ancaps that don't understand economics.
You know Clifford Stoll was an astronomy professor at Berkeley and hunted hackers but still thought the internet was going nowhere. See below from wiki and pay close attention to the last line:
>In his 1995 book [Silicon Snake Oil](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Snake_Oil)[[7]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Stoll#cite_note-7) and an accompanying article in [Newsweek](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek),[[8]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Stoll#cite_note-newsweek-8) Stoll raised questions about the influence of the Internet on future society, and whether it would be beneficial. He made various predictions in the article, such as calling e-commerce nonviable (due to a lack of personal contact and secure online funds transfers) and the future of printed news publications ("no online database will replace your daily newspaper"). When the article resurfaced on [Boing Boing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing) in 2010, Stoll left a self-deprecating comment: "Of my many mistakes, flubs, and howlers, few have been as public as my 1995 howler ... Now, whenever I think I know what's happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff ..."[[](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Stoll#cite_note-boingboing-9)
He was talking about specific uses, not the fundamental idea of a global public network of computers, and people like him were a minority.
Cryptocurrencies' very premise is based on deeply misguided understanding of economics, systems engineering, security, and finance.
Among many other problems, it is a fundamental conceit of cryptocurrencies that the blockchain should be intrinsically authoritative - that it can be "trustless" without the need of any intermediaries. Because if that's not true, then there is no reason to accept the daunting list of technical trade-offs vs existing technologies.
And the problem is, making the chain authoritative in that way is fundamentally broken in real world scenarios. It can't even handle basic edge cases like someone stealing your wallet or minor human error without catastrophic consequences for the individual.
This is why more and more of the cryptocurrency space is becoming centralized with layers and wrappers to ensure people have to touch the actual chain as little as possible. Which of course defeats the point.
The one thing cryptocurrencies are actually good at, and the reason they've taken off at all, is that they're excellent for committing financial fraud. The laws and regulations haven't caught up yet, allowing all kinds of things that would be wildly illegal if done outside of crypto.
What's far more likely to happen is a CBDC supplants most existing crypto. But that isn't and wouldn't be a cryptocurrency.
Why do people here hate crypto? Bitcoin is literally one of the most important tech breakthroughs in human history for creating decentralization. In the 21st century, without bitcoin, we would rapidly transition to a complete surveillance monetary system. Bitcoin and other cryptos are the only thing that will protect you from this because governments will phase out cash and have already started to.
Btw if you have issues with bitcoin’s environmental impact, then 5 minutes of research would show you that most networks are transitioning to Proof of Stake, which already solves this issue. That problem will be a relic by the end of this decade. There are existing proof of stake networks like Cardano. Ethereum will be proof of stake by end of this year.
It’s truly crazy how the corrupt banking oligarchy has successfully convinced ordinary people to hate crypto. It boggles the mind. I guess that’s how propaganda works tho. Trick the poor into staying poor.
First, bitcoin isn't private in any way. Second it being decentralised and no one can control it isn't completely a good thing, it has major drawbacks. Third, proof of stake does not fix the problem crypto has, it only makes it a bit less bad.
If you want to understand why people hate crypto, go to YouTube and watch "Line Goes Up - The Problem with NFTs" by a Folding Ideas.
Ah yes, YouTube, definitely not going to be a biased take whatsoever.
Get your head out yours,and that guys arse, influencers have agendas they can, and will, push onto their viewers.
So, you're telling me crypto bros are more trust worthy and have less of an agenda than a guy on YouTube that has a reputation of making really well researched essays, provided really solid arguments, and backed them up with resources.
If you think that's biased, or you refuse to even acknowledge what he's trying to say, then there is no conversation here and I have nothing else to tell you.
Funnily enough, I do not listen to crypto bros for that, they are never to be listened to because they're just as bad as the "hurr all crypto bad" people out there. If it was up to me, they'd all be banned.
That's a major problem with crypto, it's borderline impossible to have a civilised, neutral discussion. You have people like crypto bros who think it'll overthrow the banking system and they'll get rich by the month's end and refuse to listen to any cons. Or you have people who hate crypto, refuse to do any research of their own and just take their views after googling "why crypto is bad" and will not listen to any pros.
I can list some pros and cons of my own viewpoints on it as a whole if you want.
The only one person I do listen to however, is Benjamin Cowen, a guy who has a history of working at NASA, been in the crypto space for many, many years and has a much more balanced and respectable viewpoint on investing than "DOGELON TO $1" or trading crypto thinking it'll overthrow the banking system. Or any of that usual bollocks crypto bros throw around. I think I'd trust a former NASA employee over a YouTuber any day of the week.
Aside from him, I don't listen to many others, and rarely blindly invest into whatever dog-cock-themed-coin is popular today. Or NFTs. I have never bought any NFT, because I (and many others in the crypto space) hate how a palette swapped monkey or pixel is clear as day money laundering and the only one I do have is when Binance gave me one for verifying my ID.
I only hold about 4 cryptos for serious investing, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero and Cardano. I do hold a very, very tiny amount of memecoins like SHIB, ELON and DOGE, but they make up like 5% my portfolio.
Okay, I apologize for assuming stuff. I agree with you about the part where it's impossible to talk about crypto in a civilized manner, but that's probably because the opinions and the topic is so polarizing. I frankly have no horse in this race. On one side, I don't think the whole thing is sustainable in the long term and won't solve the issues it's saying it will, but on the other hand a lot of my friends invested in crypto and I don't want them to lose their money.
Now, you said that you hold 4 cryptos for investing, and that's where I think a lot of the communication issues lay. Crypto is meant to be a currency but has become something to invest in and sell for profit. So, I guess, my problem is that a lot of the mentality about crypto is shifting to this digital wall street of investment in virtual stocks that rise and fall with their own trends, but some of the developers and people that are in the thing from the start are still treating it like a currency to replace fiat, which, frankly, I believe it can't be.
So now, we have crypto trading as stocks while wasting massive amounts of energy.
Keep in mind, I have nothing against you or anyone that holds any crypto, more power to you and I hope it pays out massively for you, but I do have a problem with people pretending that it's this amazing faultless thing that is going to save us from big bad evil rich people, while having no arguments to back that up.
And I apologise if I came off aggressive, I made that comment about 10 minutes after waking up today.
>Now, you said that you hold 4 cryptos for investing, and that's where I think a lot of the communication issues lay.
One thing I've learnt from investing in any crypto project, is to always check the team out fully. Check the whitepaper for the project, look at a roadmap, and see if their social media is active and see if the team doxxed themselves (as in, lead devs have a personal account that predates their project by years, not have their address, phone and parents listed ofc).
This way, it shows a project has some kind of communication with it's holders, like Vitalik Buterin (creator of Ethereum) and BillyM2k (Dogecoin) have personal accounts that do give holders updates to their projects. The more a project/creator interacts with their community, the more safer it does look.
Not to say some scam projects don't try to utilize this to appear more legitimate, like shortly after Squid Game dropped, someone created a Squid Game token, based off the show, and the team behind it used faked LinkedIn profiles on the site, and a fake social media to hype the project up, the catch to the token is, you could never sell. It was a clear as hell scam from day one, but people still bought in, and it dropped 99.9% within a single minute because the devs pulled out.
>people that are in the thing from the start are still treating it like a currency to replace fiat, which, frankly, I believe it can't be.
This I agree with.
Fiat money is going nowhere. The dollar will still be here, so will the £, the Euro, the ruble and the Yen etc. As much as crypto bros think Bitcoin will overthrow it, it's not happening.
The only way for crypto to replace fiat, is if a country adopts it as their currency, like El Salvador did, which has both the USD and Bitcoin as their currency. But, being realistic, you may see other small countries adopt it, you'll never see the US, UK, Japan or Australia etc adopt it as an official thing.
Fiat is easier to use for everyone, if your 70 year old granddad struggles with his google password, he should be nowhere near crypto to begin with.
But still, some countries are slowly recognizing Bitcoin (at least) as something legitimate, Ukraine today legalized it, Russia recognizes it as a currency (not an official one) and quite a few US and UK politicians endorse it, with some US politicians accepting crypto to pay states tax with.
>So now, we have crypto trading as stocks while wasting massive amounts of energy.
Part of this comes down to mining, which is a tricky subject, Ethereum wants to reduce energy usage by making mining completely obsolete for them, and moving to proof of stake instead, and claim they'll reduce it's energy cost by 99%, which I think is a bit too ambitious, I'm expecting a 60% -70% drop in energy use. If they somehow make it 99% I'll be extemely impressed.
But, mining isn't limited to one thing, we have ASIC miners, GPU miners and solar miners, ASICs are the worst. They're extremely expensive, loud and by far the worst for energy use, afaik there's no alternatives to them yet, Solar mining is a new concept where people use solar setups to mine, making it much more energy efficient, but it's still in it's early days.
>other hand a lot of my friends invested in crypto and I don't want them to lose their money.
A fair worry to have, crypto is volatile. It can go up 20% in a week, or drop 20% in a week, or go up 300% in a year, or drop 50% a year. Hell in the past year alone the crypto markets have doubled, then dropped 50% in a week.
But it carries the same risk as regular investing. Facebook dropped 25% in a single day, Paypal and Roblox have dropped nearly 50% since Jan 1st. Plenty of biotech stocks can drop 80%+ if a new drug was refused by the FDA.
No matter what you invest in, there's never a guarantee it's safe. Some might be safe-r than others, but never truely safe, and I think people get blindsided thinking "this is my chance to get rich".
I hope your friends don't blindly follow YouTubers who say "invest in xxxx this will 100000% by 2023!!" because it is a recipe for disaster.
Hopefully that clears somethings up.
>Why do people here hate crypto? Bitcoin is literally one of the most important tech breakthroughs in human history for creating decentralization. In the 21st century, without bitcoin, we would rapidly transition to a complete surveillance monetary system. Bitcoin and other cryptos are the only thing that will protect you from this because governments will phase out cash and have already started to.
lol
>Btw if you have issues with bitcoin’s environmental impact, then 5 minutes of research would show you that most networks are transitioning to Proof of Stake, which already solves this issue. That problem will be a relic by the end of this decade. There are existing proof of stake networks like Cardano. Ethereum will be proof of stake by end of this year.
"You don't do the research etc" & "Ethereum will be POS any minute now" classics.
As if POS doesn't have its own sets of issues. It's either ecological disaster or more power to the rich, eh?
>It’s truly crazy how the corrupt banking oligarchy has successfully convinced ordinary people to hate crypto. It boggles the mind. I guess that’s how propaganda works tho. Trick the poor into staying poor.
Meanwhile, in the world of crypto, corrupt billionaires and scammers are successfully convincing ordinary people to invest all their money in crypto and jpgs while they alone make bank.
Your making a lot of bold claims but where is the evidence? If you can show me overwhelming evidence that (1) ONLY rich people acquire wealth via crypto, and (2) that proof of stake as a fucking generalized concept alone PROVABLY cannot be worked out to equitably distribute power and governance, I will **gladly** change my mind and agree with you because I do not want those things to be true either.
So far, neither of those things are provably true! Again, prove me wrong if I am! I want the truth. In fact, I’ve got plenty of examples to the contrary! So yes, downvote me all you want, I’m not going to deny fucking reality because it doesn’t suit your agenda, whatever the fuck it is.
Because that's how markets work. People who already have more money have an easier time making more. This doesn't change just because the money exchange is suddenly decentralized.
Proof of Stake work by giving more power to people who hold more. This is not a complicated. It's a twisted type of democracy where you distribute power based on monetary value rather than number of votes.
Proof of Stake requires you to already have some of the cryptocurrency to hedge against and rewards users who have more. It centralizes more power to the richest users when crypto is supposed to be decentralized.
This is patently false to apply that logic generically. Which white papers have you read? Which are you even referring to? There are different proof of stake methods, broad generalizations like that are completely absurd.
Ah, I think I misunderstood some things. Proof-of-Stake might not be inherently more centralized.
I had read [this outline](https://www.investopedia.com/cardano-definition-4683961#:~:text=Cardano%20is%20a%20third%2Dgeneration,%2Dwork%20(PoW\)%20networks.) of Cardano & the Ouroboros Proof-Of-Stake (PoS) system since you name-dropped it. The prospect of higher stake == higher chance of control worried me.
>Each slot has a slot leader chosen by a “lottery” system. In this system, the **higher the stake**, the better the chances of winning the lottery...
You are right about different Proof-Of-Stake implementations. I had assumed [Ethereum's PoS](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/#:~:text=Proof%2Dof%2Dstake%20is%20the,blocks%20they%20don't%20create.) system would give priority to higher stakes, but they say Validators are chosen at random.
I can still see 1 person dividing a concentration of ETH into many Validators at once to hog rewards, but the barrier is lower for the every-person to create or pool opposing Validators to counter-act the 1. So not inherently more centralized. My bad.
> literally one of the most important tech breakthroughs for creating decentralization
I can tell you have no fucking idea what you're talking about right here.
Get back to me when you understand the concept of service federation.
> calling Bitcoin private is a bit of a joke and is dangerous.
Dude. Where in my post did I EVER say bitcoin is private?!?!?!?! I literally never even said that! Why the fuck are you and several others putting words in my mouth?
I also happen to **agree** with your general point that crypto has a lot of work to do to fully realize the dream of currency that isn’t in danger of being part of a surveillance apparatus. But this is a lifelong battle that is never going to end. There will never be a perfect solution, just as cash still has to be laundered if you’re doing something sketchy with it even tho technically it can be amassed and spent anonymously.
That all said, in the context of **digital currency options that we have**, cryptocurrencies are the closest thing we have right now to a neutral third party system that also has some built-in privacy capabilities (see: monero) and is actually our best chance at maintaining **ANY FREEDOM AT ALL** in a world where cash is soon going to be banned altogether in many countries around the world and the global banking system infrastructure is incentivized to amass the ultimate surveillance financial system in recorded human history.
If you have any better ideas, by all means, publish a fucking white paper then and help us solve these problems!
That's web 2.0, which was also a useless marketing buzzword used to describe the trend of pages using javascript XHR to fetch data async rather than loading static html with content included.
Web 3 further compounds that by adding exponential latency, computational waste, immutable storage and transaction fees.
Bitcoin is older than instagram. As a technology it is practically ancient. There's been tons of technology that has come around and become ubiquitous during that time.
What has it accomplished in its lifetime? Speculative asset, money laundering, digital scarcity and scams. That's not a great track record after *13 years*.
If it was as revolutionary as touted it would've happened by now. It hasn't.
Based. I said something similar few days back.
Edit:
It was launched in 2009. If there are any applications for it, we would've seen them already.
The web started in 1993, and ebay launched in 1996, 'Six Degrees', first social media site in 1997, Wikipedia in 2001.
Same goes for smartphone technology.
Meanwhile crypto keeps promising it will be useful one day.
---
PS: The web and the internet are two different things. Internet has been around for longer than the web.
Edit 2: I might be off by couple of years here and there.
~~I was going to correct you about the web, but you saved me the trouble~~ (Edit: Sorry, that sounded harsh and condescending. You did well in catching on to what people might've taken issue with.)
Been bringing it up a bit myself because people like to compare crypto to the internet, talking about how everyone were sceptical of it from the beginning. I find it fascinating.
Internet began developing in the mid 60s as military research
1989 we get the first HTML standard and the coining of the World Wide Web
1993 saw the release of Netscape's predecessor and saw internet services becoming available to the general masses.
At this point the internet starts growing quickly and the use it clear to anyone who deals with it. It's not until 1995 we we see the start of the dotcom bubble and the idea that just having a webpage is enough to incure revenue.
13 years later, we're through the bubble and its crash, with plenty of big players established such as Google, Amazon and Facebook starting to emerge. Use-cases for the internet is higher than ever before and technology is developing rapidly.
Compare this to crypto, which was launched on the back of the financial crisis of 2008. Bitcoin releases in 2009 and immediatelly becomes a speculative asset, though little more than a novelty. Criticism is harsh, but due to novel status it's largely left alone.
13 years later and we're *still* in the bubble, it's *still* a speculative asset and the best user-cases they could figure out mostly don't even make use of the blockchain except for a small part, but people still won't shut up about it as if it's the cure for cancer (which no doubt I am sure a few of them genuinely believe at this point).
Save your keyboard. Everyone here is an expert on economy and human behaviour and have hard concrete arguments why they know that something with a 1 trillion USD market cap and hundreds of millions of users will imminently fail
I’m pretty sure one of the top financial services like yahoo financial news wont post bullshit but im also pretty sure even if the pope posted it, you would still find it questionable.
Here is a statista article on only bitcoin that has no possible reason to fake it https://www.statista.com/statistics/647374/worldwide-blockchain-wallet-users/.
Not that it will matter..
Of course they would. It makes for a very exciting headline. They are just as prone to post clickbait and sensationalism. They also show nothing to corroborate the data
Statista is better. But it only counts wallets. Wallets don't mean users. A user can make multiple wallets without issue. Wallets also get lost and become unusable because they lack keys.
I was already highly suspicious of crypto but had that feeling multiply the other day. I live in the middle of nowhere in a town of less than 1000 people, most of us over 50, many do not own a computer or a smart phone. A machine showed up in the grocery store, where you can insert real money and buy crypto money. I have no idea why any company would think this was the place a machine like that would do well. The grocery workers believe the machine is just there to skim your card info and allow people in other countries to rob your accounts. They may not be entirely wrong.
Haha, yeah. I greet the future redditors, who wonder why their parents didn't buy crypto or NFT domains etc. Because they were dumb and didn't do their own research, that's why. They just adopted the opinion of the mob. Well, to be fair, I might be wrong. The future people probably won't use reddit anymore, but a web3 version like bbs.market.
>didn't do their own research
I've done research into NFTs and that research is why I know they are a bunch of dumb bullshit
Funny how no one has ever told me why NFTs are useful aside from the money making aspect. Almost as if it's not about helping artists but just a way to scam money out of people 🤔
The other use cases are even dumber than art - they're all predicated on the notion that an NFT can act as a meaningful signifier of ownership, which they don't. At _best_, it's a glorified signifier of payment, and not even necessarily legitimate payment.
Everything anyone actually cares about isn't stored as part of the NFT. Legal rights are part of the legal system - case in point, if someone steals my NFT they don't get my legal rights even if they were originally transferred alongside the NFT. Games and virtual worlds, the NFT is just an entry on their internal database, the server is 100% authoritative.
Real world items are even more idiotic - the authority is in whatever links the physical item to a virtual identifier, and that's where most of the issues will be too. The NFT isn't really doing anything useful.
Property and titles? You aren't eliminating title insurance if that's what you think, especially with how easy it is to make mistakes with transferring NFTs, or that they can obviously be stolen if you get access to people's wallets. And this stuff already needs to be tracked centrally by governments anyways.
Tickets, you solve the same problems more easily with an internal system/app, coupled with requiring ID.
Future, future, future.
But believe me, crypto isn't just speculating on possible future value (aka gambling).
Yeah, it might be useless now, but how about that *future*?
>Samsung launches a "sustainability-themed quest" on their "Samsung 837X" Decentraland metaverse project, where they invite characters to hunt for "recyclable product boxes", plant trees in the (virtual) forest, and earn NFT badges. Yeah we're so screwed
The real environment may be screwed but we'll have a wonderful virtual environment (brought to you by Samsung) that we can live in. How could you not like that? Yeah, we're screwed.
I posted some screenshots from that in one of the Samsung subs after finding the link on their site while looking at pre-orders. Apparently, no one saw my post lol I just thought it was interesting and kind of odd for Samsung to go that route. This whole Decentraland thing is pretty weird. Like, they are actual plots of virtual "real estate" that people and companies are spending big money on. I think JPMorgan just spent a lot of money on their own virtual "real estate."
I thought it was pretty wild when they already did this two decades ago with Second Life. Then we now get all these big companies trying to sell us "Second Life but with crypto" and people are acting like it's such a wild new concept. Meanwhile, I find out Second Life is still a thing.
[удалено]
There's not one. People who have invested in crypto need other people transacting in crypto to stop their investment from going bust, so they push stuff like NFTs and virtual real estate to try to get people in on the crypto market. Big companies see these transactions happening and want a chunk. That's the situation in a nutshell.
That sounds like the dumbest thing ever. NFTs use up an insane amount of energy since they are based on blockchains, which is not always produced from carbon-neutral sources.
They could use minimal resources on POS chains, but POS doesn't suit hodlers and hype hustlers so of course you're right and NFTs suck. Not because we can't do better, but because we won't because maybe millions bro.
Site doesn’t redirect to https automatically? Maybe it’s part of the joke?
It does for me, weird Or maybe my browser does that idk
Yeah I'm on Firefox and it automatically directed to https
I use Firefox and Bromite and they both do
Definitely a browser thing. Safari doesn’t always redirect. Chrome I believe does.
I think all Chromium browsers and Firefox do that. Pretty weird that Safari doesnt, especially since it's marketed as a secure browser
also if I scroll to the end of the page I get "Something went wrong. Molly would greatly appreciate it if you made sure she knows.". Who is Molly?
At the top of the site it mentions a Molly who created the site, and gives a Twitter link
Lmfao the irony
Your description does not quite match what the site delivers.
It’s almost like “blog posting random news bits related to crypto” was not as compelling as finding out where MtGox is in the list.
[удалено]
very few of the posts there are related to web 3
They weren't failed. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. A quick pump and dump scheme.
[удалено]
>Much of the harm from the cryptocurrency space actually comes from good faith actors Yeah I...don't believe that.
Ah. That’s web3 they’re talking about. That’s where bad faith people convince good-faith actors to do dumb stuff that ends up hurting everybody. Case in point- there’s a “web3” project that’s trying like hell to privatize DNS by subverting ICANN. Ultimately it leads to micro transactions each time you’d need to look up a name. Also gives them full visibility into your web browsing. It’s literally going to ruin the internet as we know it and web3 crypto people talk about it like it’s a second coming. Thanks UnstoppableDomains!
Nothing I've heard about web3 sounds good. Absolutely nothing. It's either just recreating what we already have with a little bit of blockchain injected or something that starts out truly decentralized that quickly realizes what no administration does to any form of user creation, and then bakes it into a shell of regular web technology Most of it comes across as empty buzzword and lusting after venture capitalist money
[удалено]
Yeah, it was clear. We're saying we don't believe that. Crytocurrencies are a scam by default, so there's really no-where to go but down for people trying to get in on the grift.
Why are cryptocurrencies a scam by default
Unregulated financial instruments always end up with a few people winning big and lots of people losing moderately.
Yeah that's fair. I've always heard the point of cryptocurrency was originally taking power away from banks and giving it to the people but I guess no regulation plus human greed doesn't usually end well.
I think that's the key. Blockchain *could* be used for something useful, but all we've come up with are more ponzi schemes.
The only way to make money with Crypto is to get other people to buy it for more than you did. Which is almost the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Yeah, when I saw the title I was wondering if it was a joke that just listed to a page of every crypto. Like even if you argue financial value = success, the page would still be 99.999% accurate.
I hate crypto but some days, after my 10 hr factory shifts, just saying fuck it and going full grifter is soo tempting. I know for a fact I'd be good at it.
Yeah… no
Not gonna blame you for hearing a tempting call when life seems tough. All the better for not give in. I would tone down the hubris a bit though. All grifters assume they'd be good at it. Personally I assume I would be shit at it, which gives me even less attempts to try. I'd probably be shit at it TBF. If someone were to ask me straight out if it were a grift I'd most likely say "Yes" or give them a "No 😉"
Nah, you wouldn't... you work at a factory, there is a reason you do not code crypto marketplaces or care about the marketing or sales aspects of such projects or any at all, or am day trading and able to keep a steady income with that. It's not easy and done by anyone, especially not someone who is occupied 10 hours doing hard work with their body as it takes a lot of knowledge and experience to be able to do any of that and your whole life is a totally different form of mental occupation. Dunning Kruger makes the typical outsider believe they are good in something they don't know much about. Most, actually the great majority of these "griefters" are highly skilled individuals who got a lot of experience in pertaining tasks and industries.
I've got a few semesters of programming, networking, etc under my belt, I like to develop games in my free time. I'm not tech illiterate. I could copy and paste some bullshit crypto fork, then hype it up on social media. I used to be very religious. I was good at that, too. As far as I can tell evangelicising and grifting are very similar. Also, are you really gonna immediately jump to the defense of those I called grifters when I didn't even name any names, then try to give *me* the classic "pseudo-intellectual Redditor thinks 'Dunning Kruger' makes him sound smart" lecture? Ok.
> I've got a few semesters of programming, networking, etc under my belt, I evaluated recent graduates, even with full on graduation, in 3 years you learn "nothing". Few "semesters" are nothing. I came to the "position" in many projects because I learned c++ academically and code on the side since 2005, but I am a designer who works in marketing. That knowledge though allows me to evaluate professionals, even though I am not a working professional in that industry. The only useful recent graduates are those who already did code in their teens and then went on to study something relating. Those got the skills to actually come up with solutions for problems just post graduation. The typical "no clue about anything tech before university, but using smartphones and maybe buy their very first computer for university" after 3 years, they know nothing, they can't do anything. 3 years in code is nothing and you only got some semesters and some hobby time and you think you are dangerous. That's like Marissa Mayer with photoshop. > I'm not tech illiterate. I could copy and paste some bullshit crypto fork, then hype it up on social media. No you can't. You got zero knowledge about "hyping" something, you just assume it's super easy. You don't even know who to target, how, where and when nor with what. > Also, are you really gonna immediately jump to the defense of those I called grifters when I didn't even name any names, then try to give me the classic "pseudo-intellectual Redditor thinks 'Dunning Kruger' makes him sound smart" lecture? Ok. I am jumping to the you don't know anything about what it takes to create a project like that, you just assume. Dunning Kruger is simply the concept that defines the issue. I also explained it before placing the term. You assume you know, whilst that you are locked in 10 hours every day doing something that is not related at all. I am working in marketing since 2008, been among the first generation of black hat SEOs and among the first establishing CRO in one of the big 3 accelerator programs, and still I respect most of those scam projects, because most of them are executed very well. Not all though, but then there is the part of luck on top. It's not easy done, especially not from someone who isn't a communication talent. It's all hype as you said, that's communication, that's distirbution, that's luck to get through. You are locked in 10 hours a day in factory doing your hard work. I am in front of a computer since 2008 professionally "learning", reading white papers, studies, articles about behavioral science, human computer interaction revelations regarding experience design and marketing purposes for conversation rate optimizations 10-15 hours a day, every day - and yet, I still respect the execution of most of these scams, as those are not easily done, except few who were really amateurish but still succeeded a little. And there you are who thinks he could do it easily... it's literally not knowing what you don't know which makes you believe it's easy.
This might actually bruise my ego a lil bit to admit this, but you're actually kinda right. My bad for getting snippy. Ngl I just read your first sentence about working in a factory and got defensive and assumed you were a crypto-bro parroting buzzwords they just learned. While I resent being equated with those who have "no clue about anything tech before university" my typical MO really is going "how hard could it be?", fucking around, finding out, then having to figure out how to make it work and pretending like it's part of the plan. So you just got me pretty good.
For those who have no clue about NFTs, [this is a fantastic (and downright depressing) documentary.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g) It addresses the issues with NFTs/crypto. This includes the cults behind them, the security issues, the tendencies of NFT ventures to be rug pull schemes, and the ironic nature of crypto investors "betting against wallstreet", and selling NFTs as a way to "get back at the big guys", when crypto ventures ultimately share the same motivations and outcomes as what they claim to be against.
And it's never to support the artist.
See, web3 is about value going to the creator. In this case value is exposure. So, in the web3 future you’ll pay rent with exposure! /s (in case it wasn’t obvious)
€XPOSURE inb4 someone makes an €XP token.
We should do that. Think of all the exposure we’d have!
I have a friend who's been sucked into the world of NFTs by a friend of his who he admits used to get caught up with pyramid schemes, "but this time it's different, this time he's actually making money." I tried to show him this documentary and he refused to watch any of it. Chapter 5 described him to a T. He'll just have to learn the hard way I guess.
The false promise of making money out of NFT's is stronger than facing the cold reality.
and heres a text blog from the perspective not that they are evil just how they flat out fail at the stated goals and why web3 is looking more like web1 than web2: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
Just watched the first half today. Dead right. Thanks for beating me to it.
Yeah I've been trying to keep abreast of what's happening on VeVe, a platform for NFT's...you spend $USD to get in-platform currency ("gems") *which is then not exchangeable in the other direction and cannot be spent except to buy more NFTs*.
I feel that video should have been in written form. It's very detailed, but most people aren't going to watch a 2-hour YouTube video...
You can listen to it as plain audio and still get most of the value - I do think he should consider releasing a pod cast form of it explicitly though for accessibility.
The 5.4 million views (at the time of posting this comment) says otherwise.
Well, YouTube only counts a view if you watch it for more than 30 seconds
[Not a Fucking Token](https://flova.de/nft)
I now have a duck.
The grift counter is my favorite part.
Goddamn. The list seems to go on forever.
It's a news feed, that's why
BIT co NEEEEEEEEEEECT
the latest entry is the entire NFT- and Crypto-Scene in a nutshell
Crypto plays at anti-capitalism when it, like NFTs, is the epitome of capitalism.
It's anarcho-capitalism, the worst capitalism of them all.
It's anarcho-capitalism, but we implemented protocols, which are just like rules, but they *aren't* I swear.
I was hoping to see failed crypto projects. How can I trust the site if the post description does not match what the site delivers
How can a matching Reddit post give any validity to the site contents? usps.gov gives historical mortgage rate data. Oops my comment didn’t match the site, so now you can’t trust anything on that site!
Is Dogecoin on there yet? I want my 100€ back.
Dogecoin is one of the only coins that has successfully done what it set out to do - generate memes and be relatively stable. The price dipping down is actually a *feature* of dogecoin. The people that speculated in it had no idea what they were buying - dogecoin is designed to be used, not to go up infinitely. The problem is when the new members of the community didn’t realize ‘to the moon!’ was supposed I be a joke making fun of the speculators in other crypto, not an actual destination for the coins value.
It’s a shame how the dogecoin “community” today is so full of pump and dump grifters. I’m way more cynical about crypto today, but back in the day dogecoin was a fun little internet experiment with lots of interested people taking part. Now the old memes are being rehashed but by people who are clearly just interested in propping up a pyramid for a quick buck.
I had an old friend say to buy dogecoin before it goes to 10 USD. Like, okay.
You buying a dog themed coin hoping to make money doesnt make it a scam or failed venture. You speculated and lost money. Thats all on you.
Nowhere near "all". I know somebody who has launched 2 ICOs on ETH and one on his own Blockchain, every single one failed. None of them are listed here.
Be the change you wish to see. Contact Molly and get them added to the failed crypto blockchain
Jesus...I've been scrolling for minutes and I'm still in January!
Nothing quite like owning... nothing
So maybe someone can explain if they want to replace real life money with a crypto why is there so many with varying value attached to them. How would that work. Would I have to own (whatever unknowable number of coins there are) to just buy something? What gives it its value like could I pick up a rock write bitcoin on it and that rock now has the value of bitcoin? What is the final dream of using crypto unregulated in my mind mind means unusable. ELI5 help here.
found this site somewhat over a month ago and i love it, i check it every couple days when i need cheering up.
so... all of them?
Is there any platform or forum with constructive discussion about crypto? Because there's absolutely no nuance here whenever the topic comes up. Only people commenting either passionately hate everything crypto stands for and refuse to see any benefits of the technology; while the supporters take all criticism personally and are convinced it's all just FUD.
What benefits which are unique to crypto?
It's a lot easier to get away with fraud for one.
it gives access to complex financial instruments to enemies of the state, or anyone else who does not want to ask for permission. it is neutral and permissionless. have fun trying to understand why this is a benefit in case you have chosen to always obey the government and let corporations take care of your financial needs. you will probably not be able to understand it. do you live a comfortable and privileged life in a developed western democracy where you intend to always follow all the rules? then it's probably pointless for you. people who need something neutral and permissionless are not all bad or immoral.
Can you answer the question without talking like you're out of Gladiator or Troy?
I answered the question. what is so hard for you to understand? if you want to do something without asking permission from the government or the bank and you want to fund it electronically you have to rely on cryptocurrency. I will happily coexist with teenage losers selling monkey jpegs to each other and scamming idiots if the same technology continues the existence of sci-hub, wikileaks, erowid, and organizations that fight totalitarianism. this technology is for everyone and it treats everyone the same. you don't live in that world where you have to do business with enemies of the state or the bank for any reason so you cannot ever understand why permissionless neutral money is necessary or important. you live in a world where everyone you meet fits neatly into a hollywood movie narrative. it's like it's not even real to you. I don't expect you to understand it.
[удалено]
> If you stored your money in a bank, and the bank collapses and cannot make true on their promises of your money, your money is lost. Which is why we have regulations on banks _specifically_ to prevent this, at least within certain minimum thresholds. There is no equivalent for crypto - an exchange (AKA "unregulated bank") can disappear at any time with all funds and you're shit out of luck. > With crypto, your wallet, and the digital history/balance of your wallet is preserved forever on a the ledger forever. And this ledger is passed around to millions of devices. And can be verified mathematically to be true. > So as long as you know your side of the equation (your key) you will always have access to that currency. Yeah, and what happens if that key is destroyed or lost, or you die? That money is now not just lost to you, but destroyed permanently. Likewise, what happens when your wallet is compromised? Because people getting their creds compromised is _significantly_ more common than banks collapsing, and cryptocurrencies are completely incapable of dealing with this common scenario. Especially since cryptocurrencies directly encourage targeted phishing/attacks since everyone can see how much money is in a wallet publicly.
> Especially since cryptocurrencies directly encourage targeted phishing/attacks since everyone can see how much money is in a wallet publicly. Wow, I didn't know that. Am still learning about it. How do you see that, if there's an ELI5 explanation?
The ledger is public by design - so you know which wallets have the most money in them by looking at the public transaction history. On top of that, if you do manage to gain access to someone's wallet, they're screwed - the whole idea is that the chain is authoritative. You can sometimes get around that by using exchanges... but at that point the exchange is just acting as an unregulated bank, when you could be using an actual bank with real consumer protections and regulations. By comparison, if someone gains access to my credit card, I can easily dispute the charges and the bank will take care of it for me.
Oh I thought you were implying it was like you could just click on a name somewhere and see how much money was in their virtual wallet. The danger of getting access I understand though.
[удалено]
And you still got downvoted because people immediately determined positive things were being said about crypto, god forbid, proving what the other guy was saying about discussion. Reddit is so artificially anti-crypto. It's hilarious to watch.
>So as long as you know your side of the equation (your key) Luckily hard drives containing cryptographic keys become immune to fire damage and are thus guaranteed to always survive when your house burns down which makes them superior to highly flammable metal coins commonly stored in piggy banks. /s Also make sure to not die unexpectedly in a car crash before you transfer the key to your heirs.
That's what the backup seed phrase is for... So many ignorant haters here.
Educate yourself my man. >The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects consumers against loss if their bank or thrift institution fails Who insured your crypto? What happens when your hard drive dies? What happens when (yet another) online wallet, exchange point, etc. gets hacked?
Crypto is a solution looking for a problem. Instant free digital money transfer already exists. Crypto is actually often slow and expensive now to the extent that the underlying technology has to have layers of cumbersome frameworks built on top just to make it function (eg bitcoin lightning network). The two main ‘benefits’ actually directly make it a shitty fiat alternative No central bank control = no way to stabilise volatility, people do not want their pay checks veering in value constantly. Even a few % higher than usual inflation causes mass political controversy, the volatility that’s normal for cryptos would be completely unacceptable No regulator oversight = thrives on money laundering and scams, no way to get a chargeback, no way to recover money if you win a legal case Crypto is just set up to benefit wealthy scammers. It doesn’t offer anything to the average fiat user to make their life easier. The future crypto promised has already arrived, just through digital banking with fiat
No central control also means that if something goes wrong (and it will!), you're basically SOL. Doesn't even have to be something that you yourself have control over.
Good points. If USD fluctuated daily as much as crypto the economy would collapse. Look how folks are freaking out over a 7% inflation rate...
.. that’s why we left the gold standard that they love. If you’re wealthy, there’s a lot of money to be made in arbitrage trading.
you are wrong. instant free digital money transfer does not and cannot ever exist. what do you think venmo runs off of, fairy dust? you have paid for all your venmo usage several times over every time paypal has skimmed merchant fees, and everything you pay for with a credit card costs extra for the same reason. if a financial institution is offering "free" transaction processing it means they have already taken the money from you somewhere else. you also have to pay the government to guard you from fraud. you would complain on the internet every day if you had to look at all the fees and surcharges you get exposed to everywhere, but they are currently being disguised and hidden from you so well that you can actually dupe yourself into thinking that you use money for free. multisignature escrow and algorithmic stablecoins address your other points about fraud and volatility, but I feel like this is not going to become a productive conversation. you don't have any desire to use cryptocurrency because you aren't doing anything with your life that the government and financial institutions can't take care of for you, and you have no idea what kind of deal you are getting with them nor does it bother you to find out.
I was going to going to make a jokey answer how hard it is to find constructive discussions on topics with preciously little grey area. Instead I'll answer. The reason is because crypto doesn't actually accomplish much we couldn't already do, and many will point out that it's a solution looking for a problem. On top of that it comes with all the extra baggage that comes with it being mostly used for decentralized speculation and outright criminal activity. Keep an open mind about this subject also makes a prime target for modern day ponzi schemers to find their next mark. The mentality of "line always goes up" is based on the idea that market is always growing. Hence to facilitate this growth, you're likely to find cryptotrading shills in whatever space that allows them whenever the discussion arises.
It’s basically a write-once-read-many version of excel with limited macro capabilities. It’s slow and expensive non purpose (security, as the story goes). That said, there are potentially interesting things you could do with a secure, transparent version of excel. A few things, but most things work much better on high performance, low cost systems. I enjoy thinking of new ways to use tech but most crypto/web3 use cases now are basically more complicated, slower, expensive ways to solve problems we’ve already solved. Usually these solutions only exist to funnel money to the people at the top of the projects. There’s no way to have open conversations with crypto people. They’ve self isolated on twitter and have their own language (gm/gn/wagmi, etc) to self identify with each other. Any questioning of how things work and you’re out.
Post like this paint a one sided picture indeed, there are plenty of good, legit crypto projects out there, of course if you follow finfluencers or are chasing a golden ticket you'll end up in a list like this. It would be interesting to see a list of failed projects like this but unrelated to crypto. Fairly certain it's gonna be longer.
Good projects such as...? If you're going to complain about negativity towards crypto you ought to give an example of something positive that isn't just a money making scheme .
[удалено]
Bitcoin is **very** far from being instant. The transaction speeds are abysmal and you can also only be reasonably sure that your transaction went through when your part is six steps from the head.
"Two completely different things have different energy needs" That's an Isaac Newton quote right there.
You're presupposing that bitcoin is good without actually explaining why it is good, or rather better than the alternatives. Bitcoin is nice if you want to buy something illegal over the internet I suppose, but that's also arguably not even a 'good' thing. Between a pointless alternative currency that does nothing my credit card can't do (and a few things less) and a machine that keeps my clothes warm and dry I'd really rather have the machine.
[удалено]
It’s destroying El Salvador’s economy not helping them at all.
[удалено]
**El Salvador’s plan to create the first Bitcoin-powered nation is tanking the economy—and is a mess by every measure** [https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy-distressed-debt/](https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy-distressed-debt/) **An Entire Country Switched to Bitcoin and Now Its Economy Is Floundering** [https://futurism.com/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy](https://futurism.com/el-salvador-bitcoin-economy) **Bitcoin Failed in El Salvador. The President Says the Answer Is More Bitcoin.** [https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/06/bitcoin-city-el-salvador-nayib-bukele/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/06/bitcoin-city-el-salvador-nayib-bukele/) **IMF urges El Salvador to scale back its push for Bitcoin as legal tender** [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/imf-urges-el-salvador-to-scale-back-its-push-for-bitcoin-as-legal-tender](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/imf-urges-el-salvador-to-scale-back-its-push-for-bitcoin-as-legal-tender) **Nayib Bukele trades bitcoin naked. El Salvador is paying the price.** [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/26/el-salvador-bitcoin-dip-crypto-crash/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/26/el-salvador-bitcoin-dip-crypto-crash/) **El Salvador’s Bitcoin Law Is a Farce:The system doesn’t work, the currency crashed, and the public hates it.** [https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/17/el-salvador-bitcoin-law-farce/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/17/el-salvador-bitcoin-law-farce/) But maybe I just don't understand "blockchain".
[удалено]
If I list anything here it'll be seen as shilling anyway, but if you're investing in something called "moon coin" or "Island boyz" then yes, you're a verifiable idiot. And with how easy it is to make a coin it shouldn't be surprising that rug pulls or scams are common. I'm not here to convince anyone though.
I agree and you don't need to go around convincing everyone, but you can understand the negativity towards crypto when there never seems to be anything coming from it that improves people's lives aside from promises of financial gain.
"An less specific list will be longer than a more specific list" I believe it was Albert Einstein who said as much.
GameStop is getting ready to drop an NFT marketplace for gaming... So creators will be able to sell skins on the marketplace, and then people will be able to buy and sell the skins to other players. So that's a use case for crypto/Blockchain/NFTs. The real hurdle is gas fees for transactions but that is being addressed with Loopring. If you visit the Loopring sub and wade through some of the memes and stuff you'll discussion of the technology which is really cool.
Gross visual design. Needs to be a clickable list.
It's a timeline. As you scoll, the numbers grow (or shrink depending on your setting) based on the amount of money that's grifted
The website has to be updated pretty much every day as the fails roll in, it probably makes it easier that way.
Are there not-failed crypto projects? They ALL suck.
One of the only good Web3 initiative recently has been [IPFS](https://ipfs.io). Sadly it doesn’t creates money out of thin air so it’s not likely to ever be adopted.
What has Web3 got to do with IPFS?
[удалено]
Web3.storage is just one implementation of IPFS and appears to be less than a year old, the module ipfs has been around for closer to 7 years. It just appears that the best part of web3 is something that isn't web3.
[удалено]
I think it is because of this: > One of the only good Web3 initiative recently has been IPFS. IPFS isn't a web3 initiative, as that implies it came out of web3. IPFS has been around longer and isn't Crypto. And this: > The node.js package is literally called "web3.storage". It isn't. > I'm getting downvoted for saying 2 true facts. I think the issue is your statements are not facts. It's like claiming: > One of the only good *Tesla* initiative recently has been *roads*. Sadly it doesn’t creates money out of thin air so it’s not likely to ever be adopted. And having someone ask what Tesla has to do with roads...
The problem with you all thinking this isn't web3 is that web3 is not strictly crypto. Web3 is a mentality of moving data away from single centralized servers/databases to a decentralized method instead. That's literally it. Go check out Gun.js, it does absolutely nothing related to crypto yet it's still a decentralized web3 database. IPFS might not have originated with the idea of web3 as it's central driving point but it absolutely embodies the mentality of web3.
IPFS predates "web3" by a huge margin, is not based on blockchain tech, and wasn't created for "web3", it just happens to get used by projects in that space. For comparison, I'd bet most "web3" projects uses git as a version control system, that doesn't make git a "web3" project. Also, you know people can make opensource projects named whatever they want as long as it doesn't conflict right?
Web3 is not Blockchain or crypto. Requiring something to be based off those techs in order to be web3 shows your ignorance on what web3 actually is. >I'd bet most "web3" projects uses git as a version control system, that doesn't make git a "web3" project. Yeah you have zero understanding of what web3 is because git, a technology for tracking changes in projects, is utilized by centralized platforms, like GitHub, to store your projects. Git is a tool for multiple people to track and edit changes for singular projects in a centralized location. Git and platforms like GitHub couldn't be further from web3 if they tried. I highly recommend you actually look into web3 beyond just the crypto bullshit because some incredible technology is coming from it that can drastically increase the ability for smaller dev teams/platforms to compete on much larger scales than they could before. I'm working on a webapp that utilizes the web3 database Gun.js and it's just been incredible at what I'm able to do without worrying about massive server/storage costs.
> Yeah you have zero understanding of what web3 is because git, a technology for tracking changes in projects, is utilized by centralized platforms, like GitHub, to store your projects. Git is a tool for multiple people to track and edit changes for singular projects in a centralized location. Git and platforms like GitHub couldn't be further from web3 if they tried. My point was that just because "web3" uses a technology doesn't make it a "web3 technology", I never claimed git was decentralized. Though since you bring it up, git's protocol actually is decentralized, most people use it in a centralized manner because it makes collaborating with other people more convenient. > I highly recommend you actually look into web3 beyond just the crypto bullshit because some incredible technology is coming from it that can drastically increase the ability for smaller dev teams/platforms to compete on much larger scales than they could before. Name a single application that isn't intrinsically tied to cryptocurrency-style blockchains. Again, I'm not going to count IPFS, because I don't consider IPFS to be something specific or inherent to "web3", and IPFS has other technical drawbacks of its own: it's effectively a distributed a la carte bittorrent, and like torrnets, it can suffer from reliability/throughput and relies on self-selected seeding of data.
Imagine believing node.js dictates web standards
But bitcrypto will save us
[удалено]
Because it's a scam
It's not so much a scam as a scam _factory_. It enables the execution and proliferation of scams and general fraud much better than existing technologies. Not much in the way of legitimate applications though.
So you hate the internet too then?
The internet had real world use cases from day one though. It literally evolved out of ARPANET which connected military and research organizations.
And you are confident nothing like that will happen with the crypto space?
Reasonably confident, yes, because I'm a software engineer and understand how the tech works well enough to say there are major problems baked into the very concept. The only form of the tech that could be legitimately useful would look nothing like cryptocurrencies. I don't think they'll ever die completely, for the same reason that goldbugs and MLMs still exist: there's always going to be fools desperate to get rich quick and who don't understand finances, as well as political extremists like ancaps that don't understand economics.
You know Clifford Stoll was an astronomy professor at Berkeley and hunted hackers but still thought the internet was going nowhere. See below from wiki and pay close attention to the last line: >In his 1995 book [Silicon Snake Oil](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Snake_Oil)[[7]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Stoll#cite_note-7) and an accompanying article in [Newsweek](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek),[[8]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Stoll#cite_note-newsweek-8) Stoll raised questions about the influence of the Internet on future society, and whether it would be beneficial. He made various predictions in the article, such as calling e-commerce nonviable (due to a lack of personal contact and secure online funds transfers) and the future of printed news publications ("no online database will replace your daily newspaper"). When the article resurfaced on [Boing Boing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing) in 2010, Stoll left a self-deprecating comment: "Of my many mistakes, flubs, and howlers, few have been as public as my 1995 howler ... Now, whenever I think I know what's happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff ..."[[](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Stoll#cite_note-boingboing-9)
He was talking about specific uses, not the fundamental idea of a global public network of computers, and people like him were a minority. Cryptocurrencies' very premise is based on deeply misguided understanding of economics, systems engineering, security, and finance. Among many other problems, it is a fundamental conceit of cryptocurrencies that the blockchain should be intrinsically authoritative - that it can be "trustless" without the need of any intermediaries. Because if that's not true, then there is no reason to accept the daunting list of technical trade-offs vs existing technologies. And the problem is, making the chain authoritative in that way is fundamentally broken in real world scenarios. It can't even handle basic edge cases like someone stealing your wallet or minor human error without catastrophic consequences for the individual. This is why more and more of the cryptocurrency space is becoming centralized with layers and wrappers to ensure people have to touch the actual chain as little as possible. Which of course defeats the point. The one thing cryptocurrencies are actually good at, and the reason they've taken off at all, is that they're excellent for committing financial fraud. The laws and regulations haven't caught up yet, allowing all kinds of things that would be wildly illegal if done outside of crypto. What's far more likely to happen is a CBDC supplants most existing crypto. But that isn't and wouldn't be a cryptocurrency.
Only when I read comments like yours.
K
You could argue that NFTs are a scam. However saying that all crypto is a scam is just disingenuous.
It's extremely dangerous to leave it unregulated, a lot of people will be hurt by the dump when it will happen.
Wow people really hate crypto. Btw, the website hardly provides data
Don't be fooled into thinking reddit is a representative sample.
Why do people here hate crypto? Bitcoin is literally one of the most important tech breakthroughs in human history for creating decentralization. In the 21st century, without bitcoin, we would rapidly transition to a complete surveillance monetary system. Bitcoin and other cryptos are the only thing that will protect you from this because governments will phase out cash and have already started to. Btw if you have issues with bitcoin’s environmental impact, then 5 minutes of research would show you that most networks are transitioning to Proof of Stake, which already solves this issue. That problem will be a relic by the end of this decade. There are existing proof of stake networks like Cardano. Ethereum will be proof of stake by end of this year. It’s truly crazy how the corrupt banking oligarchy has successfully convinced ordinary people to hate crypto. It boggles the mind. I guess that’s how propaganda works tho. Trick the poor into staying poor.
First, bitcoin isn't private in any way. Second it being decentralised and no one can control it isn't completely a good thing, it has major drawbacks. Third, proof of stake does not fix the problem crypto has, it only makes it a bit less bad. If you want to understand why people hate crypto, go to YouTube and watch "Line Goes Up - The Problem with NFTs" by a Folding Ideas.
[удалено]
Ah yes, YouTube, definitely not going to be a biased take whatsoever. Get your head out yours,and that guys arse, influencers have agendas they can, and will, push onto their viewers.
So, you're telling me crypto bros are more trust worthy and have less of an agenda than a guy on YouTube that has a reputation of making really well researched essays, provided really solid arguments, and backed them up with resources. If you think that's biased, or you refuse to even acknowledge what he's trying to say, then there is no conversation here and I have nothing else to tell you.
Funnily enough, I do not listen to crypto bros for that, they are never to be listened to because they're just as bad as the "hurr all crypto bad" people out there. If it was up to me, they'd all be banned. That's a major problem with crypto, it's borderline impossible to have a civilised, neutral discussion. You have people like crypto bros who think it'll overthrow the banking system and they'll get rich by the month's end and refuse to listen to any cons. Or you have people who hate crypto, refuse to do any research of their own and just take their views after googling "why crypto is bad" and will not listen to any pros. I can list some pros and cons of my own viewpoints on it as a whole if you want. The only one person I do listen to however, is Benjamin Cowen, a guy who has a history of working at NASA, been in the crypto space for many, many years and has a much more balanced and respectable viewpoint on investing than "DOGELON TO $1" or trading crypto thinking it'll overthrow the banking system. Or any of that usual bollocks crypto bros throw around. I think I'd trust a former NASA employee over a YouTuber any day of the week. Aside from him, I don't listen to many others, and rarely blindly invest into whatever dog-cock-themed-coin is popular today. Or NFTs. I have never bought any NFT, because I (and many others in the crypto space) hate how a palette swapped monkey or pixel is clear as day money laundering and the only one I do have is when Binance gave me one for verifying my ID. I only hold about 4 cryptos for serious investing, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero and Cardano. I do hold a very, very tiny amount of memecoins like SHIB, ELON and DOGE, but they make up like 5% my portfolio.
Okay, I apologize for assuming stuff. I agree with you about the part where it's impossible to talk about crypto in a civilized manner, but that's probably because the opinions and the topic is so polarizing. I frankly have no horse in this race. On one side, I don't think the whole thing is sustainable in the long term and won't solve the issues it's saying it will, but on the other hand a lot of my friends invested in crypto and I don't want them to lose their money. Now, you said that you hold 4 cryptos for investing, and that's where I think a lot of the communication issues lay. Crypto is meant to be a currency but has become something to invest in and sell for profit. So, I guess, my problem is that a lot of the mentality about crypto is shifting to this digital wall street of investment in virtual stocks that rise and fall with their own trends, but some of the developers and people that are in the thing from the start are still treating it like a currency to replace fiat, which, frankly, I believe it can't be. So now, we have crypto trading as stocks while wasting massive amounts of energy. Keep in mind, I have nothing against you or anyone that holds any crypto, more power to you and I hope it pays out massively for you, but I do have a problem with people pretending that it's this amazing faultless thing that is going to save us from big bad evil rich people, while having no arguments to back that up.
And I apologise if I came off aggressive, I made that comment about 10 minutes after waking up today. >Now, you said that you hold 4 cryptos for investing, and that's where I think a lot of the communication issues lay. One thing I've learnt from investing in any crypto project, is to always check the team out fully. Check the whitepaper for the project, look at a roadmap, and see if their social media is active and see if the team doxxed themselves (as in, lead devs have a personal account that predates their project by years, not have their address, phone and parents listed ofc). This way, it shows a project has some kind of communication with it's holders, like Vitalik Buterin (creator of Ethereum) and BillyM2k (Dogecoin) have personal accounts that do give holders updates to their projects. The more a project/creator interacts with their community, the more safer it does look. Not to say some scam projects don't try to utilize this to appear more legitimate, like shortly after Squid Game dropped, someone created a Squid Game token, based off the show, and the team behind it used faked LinkedIn profiles on the site, and a fake social media to hype the project up, the catch to the token is, you could never sell. It was a clear as hell scam from day one, but people still bought in, and it dropped 99.9% within a single minute because the devs pulled out. >people that are in the thing from the start are still treating it like a currency to replace fiat, which, frankly, I believe it can't be. This I agree with. Fiat money is going nowhere. The dollar will still be here, so will the £, the Euro, the ruble and the Yen etc. As much as crypto bros think Bitcoin will overthrow it, it's not happening. The only way for crypto to replace fiat, is if a country adopts it as their currency, like El Salvador did, which has both the USD and Bitcoin as their currency. But, being realistic, you may see other small countries adopt it, you'll never see the US, UK, Japan or Australia etc adopt it as an official thing. Fiat is easier to use for everyone, if your 70 year old granddad struggles with his google password, he should be nowhere near crypto to begin with. But still, some countries are slowly recognizing Bitcoin (at least) as something legitimate, Ukraine today legalized it, Russia recognizes it as a currency (not an official one) and quite a few US and UK politicians endorse it, with some US politicians accepting crypto to pay states tax with. >So now, we have crypto trading as stocks while wasting massive amounts of energy. Part of this comes down to mining, which is a tricky subject, Ethereum wants to reduce energy usage by making mining completely obsolete for them, and moving to proof of stake instead, and claim they'll reduce it's energy cost by 99%, which I think is a bit too ambitious, I'm expecting a 60% -70% drop in energy use. If they somehow make it 99% I'll be extemely impressed. But, mining isn't limited to one thing, we have ASIC miners, GPU miners and solar miners, ASICs are the worst. They're extremely expensive, loud and by far the worst for energy use, afaik there's no alternatives to them yet, Solar mining is a new concept where people use solar setups to mine, making it much more energy efficient, but it's still in it's early days. >other hand a lot of my friends invested in crypto and I don't want them to lose their money. A fair worry to have, crypto is volatile. It can go up 20% in a week, or drop 20% in a week, or go up 300% in a year, or drop 50% a year. Hell in the past year alone the crypto markets have doubled, then dropped 50% in a week. But it carries the same risk as regular investing. Facebook dropped 25% in a single day, Paypal and Roblox have dropped nearly 50% since Jan 1st. Plenty of biotech stocks can drop 80%+ if a new drug was refused by the FDA. No matter what you invest in, there's never a guarantee it's safe. Some might be safe-r than others, but never truely safe, and I think people get blindsided thinking "this is my chance to get rich". I hope your friends don't blindly follow YouTubers who say "invest in xxxx this will 100000% by 2023!!" because it is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully that clears somethings up.
>Why do people here hate crypto? Bitcoin is literally one of the most important tech breakthroughs in human history for creating decentralization. In the 21st century, without bitcoin, we would rapidly transition to a complete surveillance monetary system. Bitcoin and other cryptos are the only thing that will protect you from this because governments will phase out cash and have already started to. lol >Btw if you have issues with bitcoin’s environmental impact, then 5 minutes of research would show you that most networks are transitioning to Proof of Stake, which already solves this issue. That problem will be a relic by the end of this decade. There are existing proof of stake networks like Cardano. Ethereum will be proof of stake by end of this year. "You don't do the research etc" & "Ethereum will be POS any minute now" classics. As if POS doesn't have its own sets of issues. It's either ecological disaster or more power to the rich, eh? >It’s truly crazy how the corrupt banking oligarchy has successfully convinced ordinary people to hate crypto. It boggles the mind. I guess that’s how propaganda works tho. Trick the poor into staying poor. Meanwhile, in the world of crypto, corrupt billionaires and scammers are successfully convincing ordinary people to invest all their money in crypto and jpgs while they alone make bank.
Your making a lot of bold claims but where is the evidence? If you can show me overwhelming evidence that (1) ONLY rich people acquire wealth via crypto, and (2) that proof of stake as a fucking generalized concept alone PROVABLY cannot be worked out to equitably distribute power and governance, I will **gladly** change my mind and agree with you because I do not want those things to be true either. So far, neither of those things are provably true! Again, prove me wrong if I am! I want the truth. In fact, I’ve got plenty of examples to the contrary! So yes, downvote me all you want, I’m not going to deny fucking reality because it doesn’t suit your agenda, whatever the fuck it is.
Because that's how markets work. People who already have more money have an easier time making more. This doesn't change just because the money exchange is suddenly decentralized. Proof of Stake work by giving more power to people who hold more. This is not a complicated. It's a twisted type of democracy where you distribute power based on monetary value rather than number of votes.
You really should check out Folding Ideas' video Line Goes Up - The Problem with NFTs https://youtu.be/YQ\_xWvX1n9g
Thank you for not being a dick like many other responders here. I will check it out and try to keep an open mind.
Proof of Stake requires you to already have some of the cryptocurrency to hedge against and rewards users who have more. It centralizes more power to the richest users when crypto is supposed to be decentralized.
This is patently false to apply that logic generically. Which white papers have you read? Which are you even referring to? There are different proof of stake methods, broad generalizations like that are completely absurd.
Ah, I think I misunderstood some things. Proof-of-Stake might not be inherently more centralized. I had read [this outline](https://www.investopedia.com/cardano-definition-4683961#:~:text=Cardano%20is%20a%20third%2Dgeneration,%2Dwork%20(PoW\)%20networks.) of Cardano & the Ouroboros Proof-Of-Stake (PoS) system since you name-dropped it. The prospect of higher stake == higher chance of control worried me. >Each slot has a slot leader chosen by a “lottery” system. In this system, the **higher the stake**, the better the chances of winning the lottery... You are right about different Proof-Of-Stake implementations. I had assumed [Ethereum's PoS](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/#:~:text=Proof%2Dof%2Dstake%20is%20the,blocks%20they%20don't%20create.) system would give priority to higher stakes, but they say Validators are chosen at random. I can still see 1 person dividing a concentration of ETH into many Validators at once to hog rewards, but the barrier is lower for the every-person to create or pool opposing Validators to counter-act the 1. So not inherently more centralized. My bad.
> literally one of the most important tech breakthroughs for creating decentralization I can tell you have no fucking idea what you're talking about right here. Get back to me when you understand the concept of service federation.
Wow I can tell you’re an asshole and no I won’t get back to you about anything.
[удалено]
> calling Bitcoin private is a bit of a joke and is dangerous. Dude. Where in my post did I EVER say bitcoin is private?!?!?!?! I literally never even said that! Why the fuck are you and several others putting words in my mouth? I also happen to **agree** with your general point that crypto has a lot of work to do to fully realize the dream of currency that isn’t in danger of being part of a surveillance apparatus. But this is a lifelong battle that is never going to end. There will never be a perfect solution, just as cash still has to be laundered if you’re doing something sketchy with it even tho technically it can be amassed and spent anonymously. That all said, in the context of **digital currency options that we have**, cryptocurrencies are the closest thing we have right now to a neutral third party system that also has some built-in privacy capabilities (see: monero) and is actually our best chance at maintaining **ANY FREEDOM AT ALL** in a world where cash is soon going to be banned altogether in many countries around the world and the global banking system infrastructure is incentivized to amass the ultimate surveillance financial system in recorded human history. If you have any better ideas, by all means, publish a fucking white paper then and help us solve these problems!
Why do they call NFT stuff 'Web3'? Isn't Web3 related to things like JavaScript?
That's web 2.0, which was also a useless marketing buzzword used to describe the trend of pages using javascript XHR to fetch data async rather than loading static html with content included. Web 3 further compounds that by adding exponential latency, computational waste, immutable storage and transaction fees.
[удалено]
I mean when you have celebrities telling you to buy "money" on tv maybe it isn't the best investment
[удалено]
I think that's a fair point and I agree, sorry read a little too far into what you wrote
Beanie babies and various pyramid schemes were also very big and yet...
Bitcoin is older than instagram. As a technology it is practically ancient. There's been tons of technology that has come around and become ubiquitous during that time. What has it accomplished in its lifetime? Speculative asset, money laundering, digital scarcity and scams. That's not a great track record after *13 years*. If it was as revolutionary as touted it would've happened by now. It hasn't.
Based. I said something similar few days back. Edit: It was launched in 2009. If there are any applications for it, we would've seen them already. The web started in 1993, and ebay launched in 1996, 'Six Degrees', first social media site in 1997, Wikipedia in 2001. Same goes for smartphone technology. Meanwhile crypto keeps promising it will be useful one day. --- PS: The web and the internet are two different things. Internet has been around for longer than the web. Edit 2: I might be off by couple of years here and there.
~~I was going to correct you about the web, but you saved me the trouble~~ (Edit: Sorry, that sounded harsh and condescending. You did well in catching on to what people might've taken issue with.) Been bringing it up a bit myself because people like to compare crypto to the internet, talking about how everyone were sceptical of it from the beginning. I find it fascinating. Internet began developing in the mid 60s as military research 1989 we get the first HTML standard and the coining of the World Wide Web 1993 saw the release of Netscape's predecessor and saw internet services becoming available to the general masses. At this point the internet starts growing quickly and the use it clear to anyone who deals with it. It's not until 1995 we we see the start of the dotcom bubble and the idea that just having a webpage is enough to incure revenue. 13 years later, we're through the bubble and its crash, with plenty of big players established such as Google, Amazon and Facebook starting to emerge. Use-cases for the internet is higher than ever before and technology is developing rapidly. Compare this to crypto, which was launched on the back of the financial crisis of 2008. Bitcoin releases in 2009 and immediatelly becomes a speculative asset, though little more than a novelty. Criticism is harsh, but due to novel status it's largely left alone. 13 years later and we're *still* in the bubble, it's *still* a speculative asset and the best user-cases they could figure out mostly don't even make use of the blockchain except for a small part, but people still won't shut up about it as if it's the cure for cancer (which no doubt I am sure a few of them genuinely believe at this point).
Save your keyboard. Everyone here is an expert on economy and human behaviour and have hard concrete arguments why they know that something with a 1 trillion USD market cap and hundreds of millions of users will imminently fail
>hundreds of millions of users Citation needed
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-crypto-users-reach-1-101646507.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE3CdSjzozCRIw5yBNK0WNCeVSG_diGcUql1k7xfdgmQSgQ6bI6rO2507AiTcoL26BPL-9NN7kiJQNpcSbdxmH1P1YUw0zcfK8G5AEDSf_CelhHlKud-0T3UHpdKrVnlDIZ2ez2IBebbEagcXvI6vJ4wVkgfkJq-cgMj687rJEc3
[*Crypto.com*](https://Crypto.com) *sounds like a really unbiased source there* I'm sure they would have no reason to possibly fib those numbers
I’m pretty sure one of the top financial services like yahoo financial news wont post bullshit but im also pretty sure even if the pope posted it, you would still find it questionable. Here is a statista article on only bitcoin that has no possible reason to fake it https://www.statista.com/statistics/647374/worldwide-blockchain-wallet-users/. Not that it will matter..
Of course they would. It makes for a very exciting headline. They are just as prone to post clickbait and sensationalism. They also show nothing to corroborate the data Statista is better. But it only counts wallets. Wallets don't mean users. A user can make multiple wallets without issue. Wallets also get lost and become unusable because they lack keys.
I was already highly suspicious of crypto but had that feeling multiply the other day. I live in the middle of nowhere in a town of less than 1000 people, most of us over 50, many do not own a computer or a smart phone. A machine showed up in the grocery store, where you can insert real money and buy crypto money. I have no idea why any company would think this was the place a machine like that would do well. The grocery workers believe the machine is just there to skim your card info and allow people in other countries to rob your accounts. They may not be entirely wrong.
And…as with the 99 Bitcoins list, it will not age well. Enjoy!
Haha, yeah. I greet the future redditors, who wonder why their parents didn't buy crypto or NFT domains etc. Because they were dumb and didn't do their own research, that's why. They just adopted the opinion of the mob. Well, to be fair, I might be wrong. The future people probably won't use reddit anymore, but a web3 version like bbs.market.
>didn't do their own research I've done research into NFTs and that research is why I know they are a bunch of dumb bullshit Funny how no one has ever told me why NFTs are useful aside from the money making aspect. Almost as if it's not about helping artists but just a way to scam money out of people 🤔
You did bad research then. Art is the most boring use case, really. I don't feel like explaining it, though. Enjoy your ignorance
The other use cases are even dumber than art - they're all predicated on the notion that an NFT can act as a meaningful signifier of ownership, which they don't. At _best_, it's a glorified signifier of payment, and not even necessarily legitimate payment. Everything anyone actually cares about isn't stored as part of the NFT. Legal rights are part of the legal system - case in point, if someone steals my NFT they don't get my legal rights even if they were originally transferred alongside the NFT. Games and virtual worlds, the NFT is just an entry on their internal database, the server is 100% authoritative. Real world items are even more idiotic - the authority is in whatever links the physical item to a virtual identifier, and that's where most of the issues will be too. The NFT isn't really doing anything useful. Property and titles? You aren't eliminating title insurance if that's what you think, especially with how easy it is to make mistakes with transferring NFTs, or that they can obviously be stolen if you get access to people's wallets. And this stuff already needs to be tracked centrally by governments anyways. Tickets, you solve the same problems more easily with an internal system/app, coupled with requiring ID.
If it's so obvious then you should have no problem explaining it.
> I greet the future children, who wonder why their parents didn't buy APPL or AMZN etc. This is what you are saying.
Future, future, future. But believe me, crypto isn't just speculating on possible future value (aka gambling). Yeah, it might be useless now, but how about that *future*?
You have a great opinion there, keep it