HN seems collectively to have taken the stance lately that blockchain is 100% useless, and does not do anything it is claimed to. HN also collectively tends to naysay, think narrowly and literally, and display extreme hubris about its peculiar 'hard facts and certainty only' attitudes towards novel information. If HN were a person, they would have the least amount of imagination it's possible for a person to have. For me, this is the #1 thing that limits the usefulness of the comments section here.
> HN seems collectively to have taken the stance lately that blockchain is 100% useless
I don't think this is the case. Many here find these systems genuinely fascinating. The pitches that get sharp rebuke are:
1. Tokens shouldn't be regulated; and
2. You should buy my token.
It is unfortunate that the bulk of statements regarding cryptocurrencies are 1 (as is this article) or 2.
There is a strong scammy undercurrent to cryptocurrencies which simply didn't exist for many other technologies at comparable stages in their development. (There was vaporware, and there were scams. But the latter wasn't nearly as prevalent.)
