Re: [1] if you are familiar with the developments in the Haskell space (https://medium.com/@kim_crawley/web3-nfts-and-cryptocurrency...) where circa eight years back what we see today happened in Haskell - concerns for the future of language due to over exposure of risk. It makes more sense and you’ll understand beginning of the entire story arc better of how we got here today. Specifically re: [2] if you haven’t touched blockchain then your opinion is discarded but if you have touched blockchain then your opinion is also discarded. There’s no winning in this space. All critique is off limits because people are concerned that it will devalue their magic beans.
> if you haven’t touched blockchain then your opinion is discarded but if you have touched blockchain then your opinion is also discarded.
Nope. And not what I said. Not all projects and blockchain startups will survive either. Hence why some of them end up shutting down or becoming dormant and inactive like Adjoint.
From what I see, the successful ones seem to be partnering up and co-existing with companies like Moneygram, Stripe, Namecheap, Checkout.com, etc. Some cryptocurrency projects and their technologies are more useful than others and some of them comply with standards like ISO 20020 whilst others do not and some of them are more inefficient than others and work better for a use case than others.
> There’s no winning in this space. All critique is off limits because people are concerned that it will devalue their magic beans.
One thing that's certain is there is only one absolute here: There are no absolutes. Which is why both the pro-crypto and the anti-crypto camps will both be disappointed in achieving their very absolute goals, as mentioned in the letter.
re: [2] Diehl regularly blocks users who point out that he works at or has worked at Adjoint, and blockchain-based information seems to have been scrubbed from its website.
Why does he not talk about the fact that most of the tools he has built upon, like Bulletproofs, Groth16 provers, Sonic, is research that is funded and driven by the crypto and blockchain space? [a] Why does he seem to hide the competing interest: that the goals of Adjoint Inc, the company he is a director of [b], are to drive more users away from public permissionless blockchains, and toward private permissioned blockchains?
Most crypto proponents will admit they hold crypto and use blockchains, rather than scrubbing it from their timelines and blocking anybody who points out their ties to blockchains. If Diehl were more transparent about his use of blockchain-funded technology and the goals of his own private-blockchain-based company, it would probably give his arguments more credibility.
