Isn’t that pretty obvious at this point, though? Like how saying that mixing amphetamine with chocolate is a very effective way of boosting the endurance of soldiers isn’t an endorsement of actually doing it? I suppose this is yet another instance of Poe’s law. Also a matter of taste—I personally value this kind of juxtaposition of aesthetic and algorithmic forms.
The following bit seems to be quite explicitly negative:
Like many old-school Ponzi schemes, Bitcoin does not produce any surplus; it is a fundamentally unproductive asset (in fact, Bitcoin produces negative value because proof of work consumes substantial hardware and energy). Like Sarah Howe’s Ladies’ Deposit Company, Bitcoin can only make some people rich at the expense of others.
hmm. perhaps. I think I disagree that the algorithmic content in this post even casts judgement; I would be looking for a guide to human netcode that may improve scam resistance. perhaps that simply needs to be another post.
Isn’t that pretty obvious at this point, though? Like how saying that mixing amphetamine with chocolate is a very effective way of boosting the endurance of soldiers isn’t an endorsement of actually doing it? I suppose this is yet another instance of Poe’s law. Also a matter of taste—I personally value this kind of juxtaposition of aesthetic and algorithmic forms.
The following bit seems to be quite explicitly negative:
hmm. perhaps. I think I disagree that the algorithmic content in this post even casts judgement; I would be looking for a guide to human netcode that may improve scam resistance. perhaps that simply needs to be another post.
My hope is to make this the first in a series on crypto. So yes, I will write about “scam resistance” in the future.