it's a fixation on the extremes, no?

the people making jokes like "I'm surprised everyone wasn't wearing sunglasses already, their future is so bright" (ok, it was me, right now) are those who had witnessed some form of the extreme cryptobro asserting anyone not on board is mentally disabled.

i'd assert there's nothing unhealthy or immoral about laughing at the poetry of the stereotypical actor doing a sterotypical action and it paralleling the generalization regarding the trope of the failures of NFTs: "a declared cool reality shifter, but potentially harmless fad meeting physical reality with a literally harmful event."

sociopathic, of course, but to those not considering internet based social media "society" it's in containment

in customer experience design the user's perception is objective reality.

so it's not "i have no data but here's my bias," it's "anecdote IS the singular of data, not only that, but data doesn't matter: what matters is what happened to me."

i can't imagine going to a movie theater and getting your arm lopped off by a whirling sawblade, but since you have no data on the frequency of it, your anecdote is an inaccurate overgeneralization, and you should not dare to assert that an entity that throws raves that burn and blind people are more likely to jump into trends recklessly with such limited information.

I don't have a spreadsheet handy, but I will say that entities that consider these types of happenings as good investments are trying to embody the "don't miss out on being cool at the cool party" moreso than the "there is no party because we are interested in having a conservative and responsible image to bolster our solid technological foundation" side of the spectrum.

I'll get back to you after I get back from the ayahuasca + squirrel wingsuit base jump retreat my retirement fund manager is holding

Nano is a great example against your point as well.

Its design flaw is the ORV system requiring someone who just wants the elevator pitch and their life to be wildly more efficient via using digital currency that's faster, safer, cheaper than their debit card having to educate themselves on what-even-is an ORV, how does the voting work, how do you know what a good representative is, and so on. And, as with a lot of the cryptos working on different vectors of what efficiency means, it's also its strength. It's, you know, how it's fast.

So yes, o boy, if people just adopted it, informed themselves about it, and used it in volume "phase 2" could commence and as with crypto it comes in the form of major traffic revealing scalability necessities. Unfortunately who is going to do that to see in X years what the issues are, when there are the grandfather cryptos that do what they do and work how they work (sidestepping the "how they were meant to work/layer2 protocols don't count/cup of coffee as priority or no" dramatics).

And so its largest general population adoption, friction creating flaw is that people do not want to be their own bank. This is absolutely where the smugness from the tech sector comes from regarding the unwashed masses clicking excel macros from email scammers and uninformed people not having a functioning BS-detector and opting in to be the greater fool because they know there is bound to be many more greater fools than themselves.

The other bit that was omitted in your "we fixate on bitcoin and nfts and failures and dismiss the advancements smugly" is how many more declared-better-than cryptos have there been that didn't even make it to the scalability discussion that mature cryptos have and have modified and built systems around the transaction issues?

Case in point, you say "genuinely fair distribution" but that's a massive *citation needed. Back to genpop, they will never think it is fair if they didn't know about it and someone they consider their peer was able to obtain it with relatively less work or cost than they'd have to right now.

One of the key features of bitcoin (and maybe a small handful others) were that there was no ICO, and no opportunity to be unfair past you were either there and aware or you weren't. Now that more people are aware of the space in general, you cannot simply flip the switch without bad actors doing their thing. That era will never happen again, it was those people (or mmm intel agencies) at the forefront of dropping the tech in the wild interacting with it.

That said, there-and-aware with those early cryptos had a relatively massive near decade-long runway. I honestly would not know where to begin with assessing all cryptos around in 2020 to form an opinion on viability for 2030. Those good ol' days had what, 6-12 to sort out and work on?

Between 2018 and 2022 there are around 1,000 dead cryptos alone. I don't have the time to parse them all out and barely have the knowledge to assert that one that is dead should not be and has something worth pursuing.

I don't want my jadedness of being in the space for 15+ years at this point to lead me by the nose, but my bias would definitely be "if it was worth pursuing, one of the big ones' communities would pursue it as it means more value and a better product" (conspiracies about new world order digi-currency agenda aside).

Case in point, NFTs. Those in the know understand the potential value of an NFT and how they're not just "goofy internet jpgs" and have built in versions of systems accomodating them, or, you know, let parallel tech be the guinea pig. I can see use cases for them regarding licensing, but I can also see very little incentive for any entity to lose their centralized power to accomodate a tech that directly usurps it over time.

> Its design flaw is the ORV system requiring someone who just wants the elevator pitch and their life to be wildly more efficient via using digital currency that's faster, safer, cheaper than their debit card having to educate themselves on what-even-is an ORV, how does the voting work, how do you know what a good representative is, and so on.

It doesn't though. It requires installing a wallet app.

> And so its largest general population adoption, friction creating flaw is that people do not want to be their own bank

Maybe you didn't see that story here yesterday about banks simply closing people's accounts for no reason. Maybe you missed Mastercard and Visa blocking Wikileaks and OnlyFans payments. Maybe you missed the bank bailouts, and the housing crisis, and the Epstein funding, and the Panama papers, etc.

If you've ever seen a bank run, you know that there are times when people absolutely do want to be their own bank.

> my bias would definitely be "if it was worth pursuing, one of the big ones' communities would pursue it as it means more value and a better product"

That's not how a status quo works. When you talk about digital cash, you're stepping on some very sensitive and powerful toes, conspiracy or no.

> I can also see very little incentive for any entity to lose their centralized power to accomodate a tech that directly usurps it over time.

Well now you've hit the nail on the head. Fortunately, accommodation might not be a requirement to success.

the two core, dare i say intrinsic, values of cryptocurrency are 1) immutable, public ledger requiring no single point of authority and 2) that authority having zero bias or regulatory oversight on any transaction outside of its protocol.

1's value being a traceable permanent record and 2's value is no direct stepping in between a transaction or control over a holding.

both of those, to many skeptics, are actually negatives and give more control and power to sovereign entities, not less.

i am not including the pseudoanonymity of it for two reasons, 1) depending on the crypto, currently the level of sophistication to transact in a manner that any given address cannot personally identify you requires massive amounts of personal responsibility / knowledge and most importantly to most people, effort and 2) because the major way the current digital fiat channels handle the transaction volumes that they do is that they're built on a foundation of authentication linking to personal identification, and so the theorycraft of "sure it has a huge ecological footprint but it could replace the many-many-many times larger ecoprint of the entire fiat banking system" is disingenuous to me because in order to actually replicate that, any main network would be a duplicate of the current authentications backed by men with guns, it would just allow that sidechannel of p2p to have it's wild west.

i do find it a touch humorous that those who want to shatter the fiat-police complex are quick to engage the legal system to protect and recoup from bad actors.

astrange had the right context but characterized it not-so-correctly. Modern agriculture's origin involved power structures where farmers were forced to be unable to be self-reliant, and would instead trade their crops at a market to get the other things they needed. The powers that be then had a nice, centralized place to take their cut and exchanges to offramp goods into currency. we're seeing it all over again with crypto via fiat reliance

Uh, no.

A user probably already has email, thus it usually isn't required. Unlike openID

Not at all. Look up Effective Altruism.

We need to stop the apologia for people who do minor tweaks to existing properties and have a "dilemma" about if they should profit over it.

You seem to be unaware how so much of what seems "original" to you is derived from prior art. This is strange, because you describe (and deride) the phenomenon moments before you ignore it.

Oh dear, the children are downvoting you. This is the inevitable consequence of an educational system where copying and pasting from the web counts as original work. These people actually believe that copying is being creative.

"I didn’t feel good about keeping it private, since it was heavily based off of someone else’s work."

Isn't that the opposite? Shouldn't you have kept it private since it was based off of someone else's work?

I think he's referring to the source code, rather than the game itself.