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

“The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#21

Post by huijzer »

kaycey2022 wrote: post #17

Seeing people still argue about the legitimacy of the crypto space, after FTX, after so many hacks and rug pulls gives me more hope for the future of this space than anything else. Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN.

> Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN.

You seem to suggest that the technology behind cryptocurrencies is too difficult for HN people to understand. While that might be true, it is still not an argument in favor of cryptocurrencies. That something is more complex does not automatically imply that it is more valuable.

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#22

Post by piva00 »

hnfong wrote: post #10
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #6

It would not matter if this title were changed to "The biggest fraud of all time": why Ben Mckenzie became a crypto critic yet HN commenters will often zero-in on the name "Ponzi". I always enjoy when HN commenters defend crypto by focusing on the definition of "Ponzi Scheme". It illustrates a commenter's moral and ethical blindspot. Perhaps the victims and critics of cryptocurrency only care that fraud is being comm…

Of course it matters. You can't just call a bank robber a rapist and label everybody who corrects your statement a morally and ethically flawed person.

But every Ponzi scheme is a fraud, and crypto has multiple flavours of fraud using the misnomer of Ponzi but it's still adjacent (or part of the same superset "fraud").

So if it's to be pedantic, your analogy is also rather flawed since a bank robber and rapist do not share much of a superset except for the larger "criminal" set (which "fraudster" is also part of).

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#23

Post by glimshe »

huijzer wrote: post #21
kaycey2022 wrote: post #17

Seeing people still argue about the legitimacy of the crypto space, after FTX, after so many hacks and rug pulls gives me more hope for the future of this space than anything else. Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN.

> Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN. You seem to suggest that the technology behind cryptocurrencies is too difficult for HN people to understand. While that might be true, it is still not an argument in favor of cryptocurrencies. That something is more complex does not automatically imply that it is more valuable.

One example is traditional alchemy. Sometimes extremely smart people find an outlet for the intelligence and end up building enormous intellectual edifices for the sake of building them, irrespective of actual practical value. Cryptocurrencies are like a giant puzzle game where players solve problems designed by their own community.

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#24

Post by kaycey2022 »

huijzer wrote: post #21
kaycey2022 wrote: post #17

Seeing people still argue about the legitimacy of the crypto space, after FTX, after so many hacks and rug pulls gives me more hope for the future of this space than anything else. Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN.

> Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN. You seem to suggest that the technology behind cryptocurrencies is too difficult for HN people to understand. While that might be true, it is still not an argument in favor of cryptocurrencies. That something is more complex does not automatically imply that it is more valuable.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Just that there are technically sophisticated developments taking place in the space but most of the conversation that surfaces here is just related to politics or law or just personal opinion.

There is hardly any discussion here about zk, or wallet abstraction, or even breakdowns of the hacks.

Once the hivemind takes a position in social media, deeper technical discussions have no point. So even serious people in the space would just avoid it outside of some limited spaces.

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#25

Post by huijzer »

kaycey2022 wrote: post #24
huijzer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN. You seem to suggest that the technology behind cryptocurrencies is too difficult for HN people to understand. While that might be true, it is still not an argument in favor of cryptocurrencies. That something is more complex does not automatically imply that it is more valuable.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Just that there are technically sophisticated developments taking place in the space but most of the conversation that surfaces here is just related to politics or law or just personal opinion. There is hardly any discussion here about zk, or wallet abstraction, or even breakdowns of the hacks. Once the hivemind takes a position in social media, deeper technical discussions have no poi…

There are an infinite amount of impressive technical things that we could be talking about. I'd rather focus on the things that are providing value to most people. The only value that I see cryptocurrencies provide is to people in non-liberal countries, but even there it's just a matter of time for the governments to block these currencies. Cryptocurrencies are just a hack even there.

> Once the hivemind takes a position in social media, deeper technical discussions have no point. So even serious people in the space would just avoid it outside of some limited spaces.

What is the point exactly?

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#26

Post by lostmsu »

huijzer wrote: post #21
kaycey2022 wrote: post #17

Seeing people still argue about the legitimacy of the crypto space, after FTX, after so many hacks and rug pulls gives me more hope for the future of this space than anything else. Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN.

> Actual developments in the space are quite technically dense, so I don't expect to see those discussed in HN. You seem to suggest that the technology behind cryptocurrencies is too difficult for HN people to understand. While that might be true, it is still not an argument in favor of cryptocurrencies. That something is more complex does not automatically imply that it is more valuable.

> That something is more complex does not automatically imply that it is more valuable.

I believe the statement is that there are valuable things (in parent opinion), but they are not discussed on HN due to being technically difficult. This statement doesn't claim 1st half is implied by 2nd half at any point.

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#27

Post by kayamon »

smt88 wrote: post #9
curiousgal wrote: post #5

> Bitcoin and crypto is only marketing. It’s only a story It's interesting when people make such blanket statements because then all you need is one counterexample to prove them wrong. When I was a teeneager in a third world country with a pegged and tightly controlled currency, Bitcoin was the only way I could pay for books and servers online. It was thanks to Bitcoin that I truly felt connected to the rest of the w…

You've described a valid use case for cryptocurrency, but you haven't described a valid reason people should invest in it. Useful currencies are inflationary and good investments are deflationary.

Inflation is an exploit used to grant more money to the bank admins any time they feel like it. A correctly functioning trading economy has zero net inflation.

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#28

Post by FabHK »

tasuki wrote: post #20
monero-xmr wrote: post #3

This is the guy that lost several hundred thousand dollars trying to time the market shorting crypto (as an enthusiast, I think you have to be crazy to use perpetual futures for anything except hedging strategies). Since then he has pivoted from being a journeyman actor to joining the anti-crypto speaking circuit. There are a lot of people in government that despise crypto, and these people get elevated at committee…

Also, I did not know this was a thing: > a 24-part online course on cryptocurrencies, taught by the current US Securities and Exchange Commission chair Gary Gensler As much as I love the SEC, they're going to be ever slightly biased against crypto currencies...

So, you're saying that understanding cryptocurrencies well enough to be able to teach a course about it (at MIT, no less) will bias one against it?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#29

Post by flangola7 »

hnfong wrote: post #18
flangola7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't just call a bank robber a rapist and label everybody who corrects your statement a morally and ethically flawed person. Yes, but that isn't what is happening here. It sounds like you might be one of the people with the aforementioned blindspot.

Yes, but I'm still wrong, without elaboration, and add then a touch of gaslighting? Jez.

You're an adult, people aren't going to spoon-feed every tiny thing in the world to you.

Re: “The biggest Ponzi of all time”: why Ben McKenzie became a crypto critic

#30

Post by matt-attack »

FabHK wrote: post #16
curiousgal wrote: post #5

> Bitcoin and crypto is only marketing. It’s only a story It's interesting when people make such blanket statements because then all you need is one counterexample to prove them wrong. When I was a teeneager in a third world country with a pegged and tightly controlled currency, Bitcoin was the only way I could pay for books and servers online. It was thanks to Bitcoin that I truly felt connected to the rest of the w…

You say the currency was tightly controlled? So, presumably, the fact that it was hard to obtain foreign exchange or pay for things abroad was a deliberate choice by your government, and not a technical problem? The use case of crypto is the circumvention of regulation. Your story seems to confirm it.

Calling it circumvention presupposes that the government is the defacto controller of currency. The position is already heavily biased.

The standard means of currency was historically just rare materials with natural scarcity. I could easily say that government backed currencies are themselves a “circumvention” of trading scarce elements.

Post reply on HN