No, originally I said “Bitcoin is great if you don’t use the blockchain”, mocking the lightning networks existence because blockchain on its own is terrible for transactions. I never said they were almost comparable. They’re not. One is a database that’s been proven to work for all kinds of things, and the other is a techbros fantasy that wastes energy and is basically just tech stocks at this point.

Keep up.

I never said bots were the problem. I said people caring more about popularity is the problem and that once you realize this it’s super easy to program bots to imitate people by up voting/down voting what you want. But yes, call me dense when you’ve misconstrued my argument from day one.

Edit: didn’t look like my previous comment posted so I rewrote it. Considering how dense you are tho, maybe two versions will help you finally understand, so I’ll just leave it.

Because I never said bots are to blame. People are and once you realize that, programming a bot to do what people can do is super easy.

I get offended when people try to tell me I made an argument I never made. But thanks again buddy 👍

Remind me again where Bitcoin is actually used vs actual databases. It didn’t solve anything and did it in an energy hungry way. It’s not “almost sort of comparable”. All of the scams that immediately came about because it doesn’t have the numerous regulations regular financial instruments have is proof. For the last decade Bitcoin has been struggling to reach parity with financial regulations. Ffs, the US PRESIDENT JUST PULLED A RUG PULL.

Blockchain is just digital speculation.

“They tried to break free but it didn’t work”.

You know we call that a failure, right? You’re the one attaching emotion to it. Did it succeed? No. Thus it failed.

It’s not semantics. It’s basically logic. Maybe don’t try and be a sophist. I never said it couldn’t be tried again. In fact I said quite the opposite: you need to see this as a failure, address why, and make changes before trying again. But you’re just stuck on the word “failure” and your own preconceptions. No one thinks this was a test of “just Bitcoin”. The dark markets already tested Bitcoin thoroughly over a decade ago. This was a test of real world application of Bitcoin as a a government backed currency in the hopes of avoiding outside influence. Outside influence came in and managed to remove Bitcoin - the exact thing that was trying to be proved it was immune to.

But cope harder if it helps you sleep at night.

Try reading the whole thing and comprehending it as a complex thought with nuance. I’ll wait. Might take you awhile but I’ll wait.

You realize “it’s so energy and time consuming that we had to create a secondary layer to try and make it actually usable” isn’t the defense you think it is, right?

You ended your comment saying you completely disagree with me after reiterating what I’d just said as if it were your own thought.

You really need to work on your communication and reading comprehension buddy.

Yeah, and Zelle, Cashapp, venmo, PayPal all do the same and don’t have that environmental impact you so easily dismissed.

It’s been great watching Bitcoin grow from this digital currency for buying drugs online to having all these layers added on to almost sort of make it comparable to the systems we already have. By the time you guys actually make something that isn’t just stocks with no backing but faith, we’ll have moved on to a post-money society(probably not but I have more faith in that than blockchain ever being a useful currency.

Again, for the people in the back:

The experiment was whether or not they could be independent monetarily. Not whether or not blockchain works. But whether, in actual practice, if it could provide the monetary independence some people claim it has the power to do.

Outside influences were strong enough to overwhelm Bitcoin adoption and it succumbed to those outside influences. As an experiment seeking to test whether or not Bitcoin could resist these influences it failed.

This is how experimentation works. Now you can tweak your experiment and try again, but acting like failing at the exact thing you were trying to accomplish is somehow not an experimental failure is just delusional.

So they experimented with resisting the US and IMF and it was not successful.

We call that an experimental failure.

You really don’t get it. “Blockchain” was not the experiment. “Utilizing blockchain in the global economy” was the experiment.

And it failed.

So when I wrote about bots, I was describing them as an effect created by a cause. You went and reversed the two and are thinking I blamed bots.

No.

What I said was that voting based moderation is a popularity contest. An easy way to win popularity contests is to stuff the ballot. On the internet, you can do this with bots. Ergo, the rise in bots all over the Internet is a consequence of our popularity based algorithms and systems. That type of moderation just doesn’t work. But please, keep misunderstanding people and then blaming others. I’m sure that’ll help.

If you’re gonna disagree with my idea, at least get it right. You’re not being downvotted heavily for not agreeing with the hive mind in the right way. You’re being downvotted for lacking reading comprehension and going off on a crazy sounding tangent.

The experiment was to move beyond external parties. They were not able to do so and returned to using external parties. Ergo “the experiment failed”.

“Bitcoin is great if you don’t use the block chain”

That’s what you just said. So why even use it in the first place?

Ahhh, the rallying cry of “just downvote it”. I’d insert the “this your first time?” gif here if I could. Leaving a community to self moderate invariably turns into a popularity contest, and then when one group eventually takes over, an echo chamber usually filled with the same regurgitated spam. “If you don’t like it just downvote it” or it’s reverse “well it has a lot of upvotes, so someone must like it”(welcome to why we have so many bots today…) always ends up catering to the terminally online at the detriment of the average person. People far too often will speak with absolute confidence about things they have never even experienced, but because it’s well formatted, it’s sent to the top. The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect describes this in part.

I was thinking this for a second, but is this really plausible? Normally when we talk about corporations we talk about how powerful they are and how they use different nations to locate headquarters and offices in order to mitigate legal and tax obligations. We regularly talk about how governments can’t reign them in and how they act with impunity.

But now? “They HAVE to capitulate. They are just doing it to survive.” Really? Do we really believe that? Or is it more likely that this is what they want and if they didn’t, they’d be fighting tooth and nail to stop it? I’m with the second option honestly.