Going from unknown to known is the biggest hurdle for pretty much anything. Negative attention on an unknown thing can still bring it into the realm of the known, and result in a net benefit for the thing itself.
For example, a musician you’ve never heard of makes news for some awful performance. I absolutely guarantee they get more streams on Spotify that day.
But yes, you are correct. Once someone is already in the realm of the known, and being unknown is no longer a fear, negative attention is bad attention. If there’s a story about a well known food chain making people sick, that could result in a permanent loss of trust and customers.
Oh yeah, if you’re big enough to need a PR person or Firm, you’re in a different ball-game to small-timers who are in obscurity. Whole different level.
I agree pretty much all crypto is hype and speculation that wastes resources, but at least ethereum has a base level utility above alt-currency for illegal stuff.
I just wondered if you guys had thoughts on Smart Contracts and Dapps which was more why I was bringing it up.
I don’t see many real use cases for this technology that aren’t better served by centralized or managed systems (e.g., databases). How often do you have a real use case for trustless transactions except for transfer of actual currency that you intend, at some point, to convert into a “real” currency?
They are used almost exclusively as currencies. Most other use cases are toys, are theoretical, or are tied to some company’s hyped IPO or new product release with the tech bolted on.
E.g., game companies are trying to make skins and assets that are registered in some sort of blockchain, so they can be traded off-platform.
Why? What purpose does that possibly serve except, again as a means to speculate on these assets and involve “real” currency on a platform other than the game itself? What legitimate purpose does any of that serve compared to Steam’s internal marketplace or the skins inside of Overwatch?
Intrinsic assets bring a lot of problems. They can be stolen. They can be speculated on. They bring real world economies into game economies.
It is my opinion that games doing this are doing so solely for alternative monetization and not for any other purpose.
I never heard either of these terms before just now, just googled them.
Dapps seems to just be coin-speak for distributed application. There are plenty of perfectly good ways to make distributed applications that are not reliant on blockchains. All the major web applications are distributed applications. Google is only centralized in that one company owns and operates all the computers that run the application. It’s still distributed across many machines around the world without any blockchain required. There have historically been many distributed applications that are not based on blockchains, see SETI@HOME and BOINC, etc.
The idea of a smart contract is not new or really that interesting. Based on my reading it seems that what people do is upload some source code into the blockchain. Then people send coins, and that causes that code to execute, like a crypto vending machine. In what way is this superior or better than just a normal old e-commerce store?
Basically what I said on the show still stands. The core principle of wanting something that is decentralized and beyond the control of authorities is alluring for many reasons, but blockchain is not a good computational solution for basically any use case.
I know why it can look this way, but I assure you, that is not the case. Many people here disagree on many things. Just look around. The code of conduct is very clear on what is and what is not allowed. I suggest you read it carefully or your stay here will be very short-lived.
I’m not sure why you are claiming it’s not the case. As someone who has listened to your show for over a decade (please review Hunter x Hunter, btw), you view right wing ideology as evil. Cato and Reason certainly espouse mainstream laissez faire free-market views that are contrary to your progressive views. If I’m wrong, then provide an examples of where forum users cite something from libertarian sources that you disagreed with but don’t moderate. If you considerate these “rightwing” organizations as evil as you say repeatedly on your show, then moderate away, but try to be transparent and acknowledge that you don’t tolerate libertarian/conservative political views that you disagree with.
A limited-scope experiment in an already-volatile country is not an actual experiment from which one can conclude the viability of cryptocurrency for a developed economy. The experiment is subject to considerable bias from existing economic instability - in other words, the experiment is fundamentally flawed because one cannot adequately control for background economic instability. The instability from cryptocurrency will essentially be masked by the existing economic issues.
This limits the applicability of the experiment to an actual stable economy.
Unless you can post an actual scientifically controlled experiment that demonstrates the viability of cryptocurrency, the claims here are specious at best.
I’m a professional scientist with 16 years of experience in actual experimental design and research. I am more than willing to be convinced by facts and truthful analysis which controls variables. Reason.com does not do such a thing.
The Reason pieces were to show how bitcoin was used to help people get basic supplies in unstable countries with unreliable money. Whether bitcoin is or can be a currency is another question. Obviously there have been unstable currencies that have existed for long periods of time so stability isn’t the threshold question. Some economists over at Cato like Larry White have written interesting things comparing gold to bitcoin and the long term viability of it but apparently that is considered offensive material by the moderator or else I would link to it.
Libertarianism is inherently evil because it only benefits those who already have social power, who are almost exclusively white men. It’s “Fuck you got mine”, the philosophy, and anyone who espouses it should be shamed until they either recant it, reject it, or hide it.
Is this really happening? Is this a fact or is it just made up? The only source of information you have that says this is happening is an untrustworthy publication. I have no reason to believe this is actually happening if you can’t provide another more reliable source for this information. You say it’s happening, so the burden of proof is on you. Prove that this is real by citing another source. If you can’t find even one other source for this information, then there is no reason to believe it’s true.
The code of conduct requires argument and debate to be constructive.
The only debating you seem to be doing right now is crying about some sort of persecution of moderation and not actually defending your points in any way.
Here’s my counterpoint. If your argument is so strong and we’re just biased against you, why can you not find one other article, from any other publication, to back your argument? Why are you doubling down on making Reason and Cato Institute authoritative?
I read a story online, once, about a dive bar owner who had to chase out a nazi punk not causing any trouble because the “respectable” ones, who come in and don’t make a ton of waves, are the wedge that the assholes use to force their way into a space.
I’m not saying that you’re a nazi, but I am saying that you’re an oddly conservative person trying to force a progressive space to respect your bullshit.
The only debating you seem to be doing right now is crying about some sort of persecution of moderation and not actually defending your points in any way.
No crying…just pointing out arbitrary and capricious nature of your rules.
You keep deleting anything I post that doesn’t support your political viewpoint including NY Times. Here’s one from BBC:
“Many Venezuelans are using Bitcoin to convert their bolivars, which are being permanently devalued by hyperinflation, to keep something of value,” says economist Asdrubal Oliveros of Caracas-based consultancy Econanalitica…
Mr Carrasco sells small amounts of Bitcoin on Localbitcoins.com and other exchanges, and receives money in bolivars to his Venezuelan account. He is then able to buy goods with his card as and when he needs to.
Here’s my counterpoint. If your argument is so strong and we’re just biased against you, why can you not find one other article, from any other publication, to back your argument? Why are you doubling down on making Reason and Cato Institute authoritative?
Sorry Neito, I doubt you are here to have a sincere and substantive discussion at this point.
Was that so hard? Ok, let’s read that and discuss what it says?
It’s hard when you’re trying to figure out what is and is not allowed on this site especially when libertarian political views and sources are mostly banned outright.
I must admit, I’m too busy admiring the sheer sand of highlighting a sentence to try and add to his argument they’re using bitcoin, when it immediately follows one saying that the guy just makes money by selling small amounts of bitcoin on exchanges, and cashes them out to the local currency they’re supposedly not using, and then is able to buy things with the currency he’s supposedly not using.
That’s a speculation market, not using it as a currency.
February saw trading levels reach £6.84m ($8.76m) per week and nearly £1m per day
That’s not nothing, but it’s also such a small fraction of the total economic activity of Venezula as to be insignificant. This is not some mega trend. It’s on the same level of niche fad we are seeing in the US. With those numbers, the overwhelming majority of people in the country are not using bitcoins.
Also, the vast majority of people seem to be using it not for actual currency purposes, like everyday purchases. The grocery stores are not taking bitcoins. Instead, they are using it as a way to get around the wire transfer fees of companies like Western Union.
While that is a good thing, I again repeat the central point we made in the show. Just because coins do something good doesn’t mean they are good. You could just use Google Pay, PayPal, Venmo, or several other such services. They’re going to do the same thing, only better, safer, faster, not destroying the environment-er. There is nothing that the cryptocurrency does that isn’t just better done some other way.
The only advantage of the cryptocurrency is the allure of the core principles, none of which it has successfully fulfilled. Even the idea that bitcoin provides a currency outside the grasp of traditional authorities has proven to be false. Time and time again we see governments seizing bitcoin assets, most famously this one.
