Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

wired.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 326 posts

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#151

Post by chx »

leashless wrote: post #9

I've crossed swords with Molly a couple of times. I was the release coordinator for Ethereum, and I've been active in the space a long long time. Here's what it boils down to: freedom is messy. The early days of the dotcom space were filled with carnage of a type which makes crypto look pretty normal. Amazon stock dropped >90% and a trillion and a half in value vanished from the market overall. https://en.wikipedia.o…

Nope.

The only mess here is the snake oil.

There's no freedom. There are no big goals.

It's a scam, end to end.

It can not be anything else. It never was and for the foreseeable future it will not be anything else because as long as there are transaction fees it's a negative sum game. (And no, cash, stocks and golds are each not such.)

Everything else is just talk trying to cover this. The very nature of a negative sum game requires you to talk up the game. Talking of freedom, big goals etc. that's just required by any scam of this sort.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#152

Post by paulgb »

penguin_booze wrote: post #125

Michael Lewis interviewed her recently on his 'Against the rules' podcast. Michael, apparently, is writing a book on FTX and SBF.

TIL Michael Lewis has a podcast. I found a link: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/against-the-rules/on-backgro...

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#153

Post by notahacker »

htormey wrote: post #96
chasing wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Web hit the scene in 1991. By 2003 how we shopped, worked, consumed media, communicated with friends and family, and interacted with information was in the process of changing radically. A million "little ambitions" to replace catalogue shopping and how hotel reservations were made were transforming how the world worked. Bitcoin hit the scene in 2011. By 2023 crypto's mostly a failed get-rich-quick scheme with a…

I don’t think comparing the timelines of vastly different technologies like this is helpful. Prior to the web, in the 1960s/1970s we had packet-switching networks, such as ARPANET which were the basis of modern computer networking. The original ARPANET (precursor to the internet)was just used to connect computers at research institutions. I.e it wasn’t used by that many people relatively speaking. It took another 20…

Whilst it's certainly a valid point that different technologies don't have exactly the same adoption curves, we're not talking about decades of behind closed doors innovation to make microcomputers people would want to use packet switching technology to share stuff on, we're talking about adoption curve of the most-hyped thing since the "information superhighway" of the 1990s, something which involves stadium sponsorship deals, Sand Hill Road and more electricity consumption than most countries. And generally the "it's like the early days of the web" stuff is coming from pro-crypto people, usually those who are pretty keen on stressing that their portfolio is not an experiment as doomed to obsolescence as a 1960s comms network (and that POS and faster transaction throughput on different blockchains isn't "better"). The issues the present crypto industry suffer from for the most part aren't scaling or lack of technology, they're philosophical.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#154

Post by bombcar »

bmoxb wrote: post #129
snapcaster wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're using legitimate to mean "legal and most reasonable people would be okay with it" whereas the post you're responding to meant "legitimate" to mean an actual real technological advancement that wasn't doable with previous technologies

> wasn't doable with previous technologies But anonymous London shell companies have been available for years!

Setting up an entire shell company to buy a dime bag is not an efficient use of money.

Of course, apparently fees on bitcoin are so high that buying a dime bag there isn't useful, either.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#155

Post by [deleted] »

EGreg wrote: post #92
drewbeck wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you're trying to get at here, and your intent for posting this. Can you elaborate?

Sure, of course. I wanted to show that Molly White doesn’t seem to be open to a discussion about the broader issues, and her blog is certainly very one-sided, which I actually appreciate (I love one sided stuff, because it tends to go out of its way to find the best arguments for its side, as long as you balance it with the other side). We are in a unique position to share our experience with her. We spent years quie…

[deleted]

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#156

Post by MrMan »

molly0x57 wrote: post #127
leashless wrote: post #9

I've crossed swords with Molly a couple of times. I was the release coordinator for Ethereum, and I've been active in the space a long long time. Here's what it boils down to: freedom is messy. The early days of the dotcom space were filled with carnage of a type which makes crypto look pretty normal. Amazon stock dropped >90% and a trillion and a half in value vanished from the market overall. https://en.wikipedia.o…

"crossed swords" indeed: https://twitter.com/leashless/status/1513695569528692738 https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1516610542588284931

[dead]

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#157

Post by quickthrowman »

p4bl0 wrote: post #147
quickthrowman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are responding to someone who is attempting to replace existing land ownership recording systems with a blockchain based replacement, you aren’t going to persuade them as they are financially and emotionally invested in the success of cryptocurrency. Here is the thread where they talk about it and reject every single problem that others bring up with their blockchain title system. They also lie extensively about…

I really don't get how people can believe a single second that this kind of projects can make any sense. What is the purpose of a blockchain for this? You cannot get rid of a central authority, because the transmission of land or really anything that exists outside of the blockchain you're planning to use cannot be transferred by simply writing something on the said blockchain. That only works for crypto-tokens becau…

> I really don't get how people can believe a single second that this kind of projects can make any sense.

I don’t either, given that

> writing anything else on a given blockchain only guarantees that this something else is written on this given blockchain, and if you don't have any external authority that can make it true (for example, the justice system to which you can go if the person to whom you have paid for a piece of land do not deliver) it has absolutely no value.

Thus,

> you don't need a blockchain. You just need a database.

I have come to the same conclusion as you. Perhaps leashless aka ‘once in a generation transformative intelligence guy’ (his own words[0]) can tell us why we’re wrong.

[0] https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1516610542588284931?s=...

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#158

Post by bombcar »

snapcaster wrote: post #52
eli wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"avoiding laws" is not a "legitimate" use

I think you're using legitimate to mean "legal and most reasonable people would be okay with it" whereas the post you're responding to meant "legitimate" to mean an actual real technological advancement that wasn't doable with previous technologies

Exactly. Legitimate can mean "conforming to the laws" in which case law avoidance can't (usually) be legitimate, but I was taking the secondary meaning of "able to be defended with logic or justification" e.g., it allows something that couldn't otherwise be done (currently).

A government that fully supported an actual digital cash that was untraceable (perhaps this is best done with crypto, but you can do it without a blockchain) would serve the same purpose.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#159

Post by philipwhiuk »

leashless wrote: post #9

I've crossed swords with Molly a couple of times. I was the release coordinator for Ethereum, and I've been active in the space a long long time. Here's what it boils down to: freedom is messy. The early days of the dotcom space were filled with carnage of a type which makes crypto look pretty normal. Amazon stock dropped >90% and a trillion and a half in value vanished from the market overall. https://en.wikipedia.o…

Maybe you should have smaller goals, because you're achieving squat.

Your personal biggest problems appears to be that the person doing it is you.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#160

Post by boringg »

EGreg wrote: post #92
drewbeck wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you're trying to get at here, and your intent for posting this. Can you elaborate?

Sure, of course. I wanted to show that Molly White doesn’t seem to be open to a discussion about the broader issues, and her blog is certainly very one-sided, which I actually appreciate (I love one sided stuff, because it tends to go out of its way to find the best arguments for its side, as long as you balance it with the other side). We are in a unique position to share our experience with her. We spent years quie…

I don't understand your logic - you specifically target someone who is highlighting all the scams that is being uncovered in the crypto world. You ask them to come on your show to talk about crypto (generating content for you and increasing your viewership) and then you think that because they aren't interested in helping you out your specific interests that somehow equates to she isn't interested in broad conversations?

You want to bring her on the show to generate your own clout under the guise or maybe honestly finding solutions and are airing personal emails to tarnish their reputation.

I don't think that's the greatest way to treat potential guests.

Post reply on HN