Comment by 2817635
6 days ago
Didn't Ben Evans previously shill for bitcoin, which is now omitted in the graphs for "disruptive technologies"?
This is a marketing Gish Gallop talk that pretends to invalidate counterarguments with a couple of fantasy graphs.
[flagged]
Yeah, beyond this mumbo-jumbo non-answer of yours, did you or did you not push crypto? Because if you did...it could kind of not speak for your analytical competence.
'these charts are fantasies' is a non-criticism from an anonymous moron. If there is an actual criticism of an actual point, make it.
Back when people were interested in Blockchains, I explained why people in tech were interested. I'm happy to explain that again now, if anyone cared. If someone thinks that's bad, they're a fool.
1 reply →
[dead]
Unflagged as I don't feel this comment deserves to be flagged. The call for reposting with a real name is unnecessary though - if an internet comment is incorrect or overstates the case, just reply to correct it or ignore it.
not to be too pedantic but sourced doesn't usually mean accurate. sourced can very well be fantasy. it will be a 'sourced fantasy' in that case or hallucination if you used a LLM.
Sure. So which chart does our anonymous coward think is a fantasy, and why?
Hah wow, what a way to confirm what he posted.
Why do you need this persons name?
The implication is that it's a bot saying this, not a person.
12 replies →
It is an indisputable fact that you spent years shilling crypto. Why even deny that or threaten(!) someone pointing it out? It was/is a huge, verifiable chunk of your public output.
No, it's a really stupid lie. You can look at all my essays and presentations online.
I've spent some time discussing why people are interested in blockchains as software platforms, and what would be good and bad arguments around that. But I've never suggested anyone buy a token - indeed, I was pretty vocal in pointing to speculative bubbles and silly ideas, like NFTs.
15 replies →