What do they “make”? They control for the risks in social economic interaction with potentially adversarial parties. Ethereum is proof of stake, it doesn’t burn up tons of fossil fuels. And the contracts aren’t subject to human interpretation after being authored, they’re deterministic at the protocol level (save for the entire network deciding to revoke the contract).

Why are you making fundamental mischaracterizations of the technology while acting like an expert? What you’re doing is dishonest.

Capitalism does not “collapse” with 0 or negative GDP growth. I don’t know where people got this idea. You only really see any sort of “collapse” if the social structure breaks down - the basic behaviors of trading continue even in extreme crises, insofar as a society operates with property assigned to individuals like that. Not counting “bubbles” and such as a “collapse”.

Yes, work. Smart contracts are designed, programmed and, if they’re done right, rigorously audited for correctness. Then you have user-facing interface and everything surrounding that as well. Look at the documentation of AAVE, for one example.

And this isn’t even getting into the protocol level (L1 or L2) work either. Bitcoin was relatively simple, Ethereum is not. They’ve spent years crafting these systems to function for PoS, L2 support, sharding, rollups, etc., at scale.

Anyone else see Reddit’s stock tank 20% yesterday?

Yes, for the limited subset of ERC20s or whatever you describe as “ponzicoins”. Things that actually do nothing, particular not doing anything more than L1 cryptos but “this is yet another token”, are not really adding any value. But I would be really surprised if you can name any more complex contracts than ERC20s (or ERC721s), which is where the work in the space actually goes.

I reckon most of that already is. A real estate escrow smart contract is maybe 200-300 lines long in Solidity, depending of course on what it supports (contingencies and such). You may want to actually go look around, because there’s I don’t know how many millions of lines of Solidity already written. It doesn’t all get as much publicity as NFTs.

“Greatest fool” description relies on the precept of its utility or demand returning to zero in a near-future timeframe. If people have utility for “the thing”, that won’t be the case.

Also they have some smart contract capabilities which I suppose Ethereum people think are important. But I’ve never seen any practical use for that stuff.

Anything you need complicated multi-party interactions for that you want guarantees on. Real estate escrow comes to mind first. Depository accounts with yield. An immutable archive of records. Multi-signature corporate treasuries. Whatever. It’s programmable money. It’s not even necessarily monetary, because smart contracts can just deal with arbitrary data.

Never impressive to see a technical audience shit all over Ethereum for internet points. By far the least scammy crypto people have actually dedicated years into building something real on.

“Did you stop beating your wife yet?”

I am already remembering why I walked away the last time I made the mistake of talking to this guy.

Because the direction “left” doesn’t actually have any inherent relationship to political ideologies, but people strive for some kind of ideological purity, especially to draw a contrast with a fundamentally unjust society?

Getting bugged that that’s the median and not the average/mean

Not attacking a strawman, I asked him to clarify and then talked about the context.

“Conspiracy theorists” often look at an event that’s heavily covered by the media, that serves a perceived state interest, and investigate it further. Particularly if it receives disproportionate emphasis, like the various mass casualty events that were referenced so often they’re just referred to by dates (“9/11”, “7/7”, “Oct. 7”, etc.). Sandy Hook served a perceived state interest (popular disarmament), and people perceived “weird things about it”, so to speak, so interpretations of the event differed. Sometimes people try to explain the formation of these theories in terms of fulfillment of an emotional need (“they can’t accept this would just happen so they need to pretend someone is in control”), which is just inaccurate. They have a mental model, whether accurate in a given case or not, where there’s an antagonistic power structure of some kind orchestrating events or narratives for its own benefit, and are simply applying that lens to understand new events and narratives.

At the end of the day, it is a fact that the U.S. government does things like this in general. You look at declassified CIA documents from the past, they are very open about overthrowing governments, manipulating public perception, and all sorts of other shady behavior. But they’re not open about them as they’re doing them. So we’re left with the difficulty of figuring it out for ourselves.

Which facts. How does the world work, in your estimation.

Way I see it, you have two competing overarching theories, “spontaneous order” and “orchestrated order”. You look at the U.S./Western empire, with its totally hierarchical command structure, and a big “?” at the top above SCOTUS, Congress and the Presidency, who all inexplicably follow the same agendas opposed to the will and benefit of the people, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable conclusion that somebody is in control. I don’t think it’s the Freemasons - this was kind of an old trope throughout American history (see the early 1800s Anti-Masonic Party), but knocking out individual dumb theories for who’s in charge doesn’t disprove all of them.

IMO, “conspiracy theories” are a natural attempt to explain observed reality (inequality, mass conditioning/brainwashing, global militarism and empire, etc.). They can be informed by falsehoods and/or manipulated into harmful movements (MAGA for example), but again, doesn’t disprove the entire idea of society being controlled. The only way you get to such a disproof is by an exhaustive analysis of every social institution demonstrating it’s not being controlled. Going, “these things just happen on their own” without any further detail is hand-wavey.

Have you considered you can really accuse anyone you disagree with of “being idiots who can’t or won’t face the facts of reality”? Maybe reality is as hideous and our society as controlled as they say, and you’re the one can’t or won’t face the facts of it. That kind of discourse doesn’t get anyone anywhere.