Comp Sci prof who doesn't think much of crypto

Overnight said:
But cryptos are not currency, in the sense of the common definition of a currency. A currency is a medium of exchange.

Cyrptos are more a catalyst between other currencies, to transfer wealth. Oy.

Until a crypto can be classified as it's own animal, with a financial ecosystem based upon it's own value, then it must rely on all other currencies to derive an intrinsic value, but will never have an absolute value, because it is not based on anything of it's own merit.
More...

Value is just what the market assigns to it during any given time period. For example, diamonds are basically worthless but since one company controls supply, it is able to create demand.

I think there will be at least one more bounce back up the previous highs so that those that accumulate a position now during the panic will be able to profit from. However you want to but the leaders like ETH and Bitcoin.
 
Yeah, and I don't think much of comp-sci professors. The best programmers I've known, going back to the 80s, didn't go to (or didn't finish) college. The academics are classic examples of "if you can't do, teach" and are largely theorists who don't understand most new tech except how to talk about it in vague terms.
 
Dude. yer in denial, and as Sammy might say, denial aint just a river in Egypt


upload_2022-7-11_2-48-18.png
 
I just corrected false statements. Your point re Enron is retarded, you know that, right?

The_Krakenite said:
Yes, that worked out well for Enron with greater fools buying it up, now didn't it? We can argue the same thing back and forth. Basically, no one's going to change their bear/bull opinion on crypto here.

All we know from history is when crypto goes through it's hundredth down-swing, the bears all come rushing out and say "I told you so! I told you so! This is the end of crypto!"

There is a lot of shit-coins, and a lot of penny-stocks. Maybe we can at least agree on that....
More...
 
MKTrader said:
Yeah, and I don't think much of comp-sci professors. The best programmers I've known, going back to the 80s, didn't go to (or didn't finish) college. The academics are classic examples of "if you can't do, teach" and are largely theorists who don't understand most new tech except how to talk about it in vague terms.
More...

Computer Science isn't "programming". Comparing the programmers to computer scientists is like comparing guys who drive a tractor to engineers that build them.
 
It's usually peasants who need to artificially elevate themselves by ridiculing academics. While I like to differentiate case by case, generally I strongly agree with your stance. Can't compare some 5 or even 10 year coder, regardless of how experienced, with an accomplished researcher in academia who underwent at least 10 years of training, obtained a PhD, published dozens of papers, and potentially collaborated on groundbreaking innovation, spoke and shared research at respectable conferences, and fiercely competed with other candidates on a worldwide basis for the top slots to obtain tenure. The guy in the original link obviously belongs to the group of highly accomplished academics, and needless to say anyone in compsci at UC Berkeley or Harvard. It's laughable how lowlifes who live the dreadful life in the IT rat wheel have a way to piss on everyone else so they themselves appear better than what they are. And funny how some full stack coding monkeys attempt to denigrate those who wrote and invented entire computer languages or thought about solving difficult problems not just for years but for decades.

FreeGoldRush said:
Computer Science isn't "programming". Comparing the programmers to computer scientists is like comparing guys who drive a tractor to engineers that build them.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top