> I feel ppl like you act in very bad faith, but you also claim crypto isn’t even financial infrastructure, so perhaps you’re just clueless.
You did not present any argument in your defense beyond "I looked at it, trust me br0", and then claimed the person you're responding to is acting in bad faith.
However, the Bayesian in me says that (from a simple search on, say, youtube or twitter), anyone who is extolling the virtues of crypto is highly likely to be selling me something worthless, and thus acting in bad faith. How do you expect people to reconcile these facts?
I mean, ignorance is worthless too. You’re still getting scammed by trusting the skeptics blindly, you just get scammed intellectually instead of financially.
> You did not present any argument in your defense beyond "I looked at it, trust me br0"
Neither did the other person.
> However, the Bayesian in me says that (from a simple search on, say, youtube or twitter), anyone who is extolling the virtues of crypto is highly likely to be selling me something worthless, and thus acting in bad faith. How do you expect people to reconcile these facts?
Wouldn't expect bagholders to know the difference.
However, if you read my comments carefully, you'll see that I described an experiment that anyone can repeat and reproduce to come to their own conclusion.
> An activity derived from anecdotes and confirmation bias is many things, but a useful experiment ain't among them.
Thankfully I'm not a bagholder whose sinking bags rely on shilling and pump and dumping 24/7 on online forums, otherwise I would never have developed observational/experimental skills.
Just as a helpful summary, this is the conversation we're having:
A: Crypto Twitter/YouTube is full of shills and scammers.
B: But that's just like, your opinion, man!
A: Actually no, anyone can experience it for themselves.
B: Ehh, that's still SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. I only bow to OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
I mean, yes, that is quite literally just your opinion, man. Ain't nowhere else for this conversation to go, really. Would you like to try having a discussion with some semblance of good faith instead of insisting "everything I don't understand is a scam and my subjective experiences are objectively correct and perfectly reproducible because I say so"?
Ah, the classic "Few understand" attack of the buttcoin pumpers. I fear this may be hopeless, but for anyone else following this thread, I've worked at a DeFi startup during the now famed DeFi summer, and resigned soon after the company narrowly escaped the Terra Luna meltdown despite my repeated warnings.
So I understand the nature of this scam very well, probably better than the shiller above.
> Ah, the classic "Few understand" attack of the buttcoin pumpers.
You can actually demonstrate proper understanding of things rather than continue the same old tired "I can cherrypick a couple scammers therefore the literal entirety of a whole category of technology and financial instruments must be a scam" at your leisure.
> I've worked at a DeFi startup during the now famed DeFi summer, and resigned soon after the company narrowly escaped the Terra Luna meltdown despite my repeated warnings.
Good for you. That doesn't mean your experience is representative. Not sure how many times you have to be informed that anecdotes are fundamentally flawed evidence-wise before it starts to stick.
> probably better than the shiller above.
You can name the thing I'm allegedly "shilling" at your leisure.
In the meantime, anyone else following this thread can see full well that you have no substantial argument here other than "crypto bad, my anecdotes matter more than your anecdotes, anyone who disagrees with me is a bagholder shill". If you've got nothing else to add beyond the same bullshit folks have been parroting for more than a decade now, then I rest my case.
Crypto crowd suffers from confirmation bias and are a classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Any research that doesn't conclude the greatness of crypto is not valid research.
Anti-crypto crowd suffers from confirmation bias and are a classic example of Dunning-Kruger effect. Any research that doesn't conclude the worthlessness of crypto is not valid research.
You did not present any argument in your defense beyond "I looked at it, trust me br0", and then claimed the person you're responding to is acting in bad faith.
However, the Bayesian in me says that (from a simple search on, say, youtube or twitter), anyone who is extolling the virtues of crypto is highly likely to be selling me something worthless, and thus acting in bad faith. How do you expect people to reconcile these facts?