[Priem19]

>“This article has some substance to it that is worth discussion”

Thank you, I appreciate that.

>“sheer amount of ad hominem in it.”

I wouldn't say sheer, but admittedly yes, I couldn't help myself since that's part of the reason I opted out. I just don't like to invest in things associated with shady people. And if calling Saylor shady is an ad hominem, then I'll live with that. Rebuke accepted.

>“The USD is also owned by terrible people, and is used to fund terrible things.”

This is whataboutism which I mention in the article as well.

>“but to project their own case of that on all Bitcoin enthusiasts is completely unfair.”

I'm not doing that, or at least it wasn't my intention. That's why I opened with “Realizing the extent”. By using “extent” I mean a lot, not everyone. That why I also added: “So, governments are not without faults, but likewise not the evil bogeymen as many people make them out to be, and neither are bitcoin enthusiasts.” I am definitely aware that not everyone is toxic. Although I could've given it some more weight throughout the article. But I stand by my observation that cryptocurrencies really are the most toxic communities I've ever encountered, on par with religious fanatics. Anyway, I'll look where I can add some extra nuance.

>“Some of the smartest engineers I know work on Bitcoin”

Anyone can say about anyone that they're the smartest people they know. It carries zero validity. I'll just copy-paste my reaction to an identical comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448833:

«“you'll see some of the smartest engineers of our generation working real hard”

“I've been reading those cheap empty words way too much lately. Unless they are the likes of John von Neumann I'll just assume they're people of average intelligence working on things that look incredibly intimidating to outsiders.”

Also, an excerpt from Marcus Aurelius - Meditations: “How corrupt and two-faced is one who claims, 'I intend to be fair and honest in my dealings with you.' What are you up to, my friend? There is really no need for this preamble. The matter will soon become plain. It should be written on your face,* it should ring out immediately in your voice, and shine out at once in your eyes, as the loved one at once knows everything about his lovers from the manner of their glance. In short, a good and honest person should resemble one who smells like a goat in this respect, that anyone who comes near him is immediately aware of it whether he wishes it or not. But the mere pretence of simplicity is like an open blade. There is nothing more odious than the friendship of the wolf for the lamb; avoid this above all. A good, straightforward, and kindly person reveals these qualities in his eyes, and they will not escape you.”»

That being said, I appreciate your civility. Have a great one.

[wbobeirne]

The whataboutism you mentioned in your article was around the energy discussion, and I agree that's a really weak argument for Bitcoin's energy usage, especially when there are many other better arguments. But I don't think it's fair to apply that to what I said about USD. I'm not saying that because the USD is used for / the US government does bad things, that we should excuse both it and Bitcoin and that it's a wash. I'm saying that making a choice about what to put your value in based on who else uses it, or who works on it isn't the best way to judge the usefulness of it.

On the smartest engineer front, I'll grant you that it's an overused platitude, but I'd consider any engineer I know who's in the 80th percentile to be "one of the smartest engineers I know", which to be fair is going to be quite a few people. But my point there wasn't to give Bitcoin credit by association, but more to demonstrate that I have no doubt that those people are smart enough to land lucrative jobs at big tech companies. So if they're just in it for the money, why haven't they?

[pdimitar]

To answer your last, people working on something out of passion and/or belief in its future carries zero correlation about how exciting (or good) the thing is.

I've known my fair share of programmers that make me look like a blabbering cretin. I still don't think what they worked on was something special though.

So this line of argumentation IMO leads to nowhere [productive]. Sure there are extremely smart people working on BTC. But the same could be said in literally any area, right?