I think this is an irresponsible ad hominem to be posting without any substance or link to substance whatsoever. There are many EAs who know a lot about crypto and read the forum—if there are substantial criticisms to be made I think you can expect them to make them without this vague insinuation.
It is pretty annoying when Nathan has come in with a best-guess doc, being very transparent, to get such a blanket and vague statement argued from authority. An EA community that lost its ability to have open discussion and relied on authority like that would be a worse one indeed. And:
If Jonas has received a tip from someone, but does not want to reveal his source, and his source does not want to post more details, this is the best Jonas can do. Jonas has added information to the commons, and been rewarded by losing karma.
I think it would have been very easy for Jonas to communicate the same thing in less confrontational language. E.g., “FWIW, a source of mine who seems to have some inside knowledge told me that the picture presented here is too pessimistic.” This would have addressed JP’s first point and been received very differently, I expect.
To clarify, was it this sentence you found confrontational? (I’m not counter-arguing, I am genuinely asking, because I seem to lack an eye for this sort of thing, or alternatively I’m usually right and most people are wrong. The truth is probably in the middle somewhere if I were to guess.)
I haven’t followed this much but someone who seems to know things says that a lot of Nathan Young’s claims (here and on Twitter) are sort of false/overblown.
“Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.”
Jonas said that Nathan was making overblown claims here and on Twitter. In particular the inclusion of “and on Twitter” points to Nathan as someone engaged in irresponsible conduct, without addressing his substance, and thus meets the definition of an ad hominem IMO.
My second point addresses your point 2. As I said, there are many people who are knowledgeable about crypto on the forum, and this is a very topical post, so a reasonable person should expect the substance to be addressed in the comments. Adding only vague nonspecific criticisms, while I agree it is not zero information, I think it is worse than staying out of it and posting nothing.
I’ve made some corrections, how do you feel now. Specifically I deleted the first tweet, changed the title and corrected a couple of numbers. Can you see any other errors.
(though to push slightly, what did the edits change? They were a few small maths errors and deleting the tweet that said that FTX had been sold (bad error). other than that, if you agree with me now it looks like you were wrong, right? My main point was that things are gonna be bad, and they are)
Yeah I think it was that Tweet; I also vaguely remember specific numbers that seemed overly precise and a claim that CZ was deliberately trying to cause a run on the bank to then buy FTX.
I left that comment very quickly (which I shouldn’t have) and don’t remember the details very precisely, and given that things are now deleted it’s hard to remember everything.
I think this is an irresponsible ad hominem to be posting without any substance or link to substance whatsoever. There are many EAs who know a lot about crypto and read the forum—if there are substantial criticisms to be made I think you can expect them to make them without this vague insinuation.
It’s important that this is not an ad hominem.
I’m torn between:
It is pretty annoying when Nathan has come in with a best-guess doc, being very transparent, to get such a blanket and vague statement argued from authority. An EA community that lost its ability to have open discussion and relied on authority like that would be a worse one indeed. And:
If Jonas has received a tip from someone, but does not want to reveal his source, and his source does not want to post more details, this is the best Jonas can do. Jonas has added information to the commons, and been rewarded by losing karma.
I think it would have been very easy for Jonas to communicate the same thing in less confrontational language. E.g., “FWIW, a source of mine who seems to have some inside knowledge told me that the picture presented here is too pessimistic.” This would have addressed JP’s first point and been received very differently, I expect.
Agreed.
To clarify, was it this sentence you found confrontational? (I’m not counter-arguing, I am genuinely asking, because I seem to lack an eye for this sort of thing, or alternatively I’m usually right and most people are wrong. The truth is probably in the middle somewhere if I were to guess.)
“Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.”
Jonas said that Nathan was making overblown claims here and on Twitter. In particular the inclusion of “and on Twitter” points to Nathan as someone engaged in irresponsible conduct, without addressing his substance, and thus meets the definition of an ad hominem IMO.
My second point addresses your point 2. As I said, there are many people who are knowledgeable about crypto on the forum, and this is a very topical post, so a reasonable person should expect the substance to be addressed in the comments. Adding only vague nonspecific criticisms, while I agree it is not zero information, I think it is worse than staying out of it and posting nothing.
Retracted it, didn’t mean to attack Nathan personally. Apologies.
No worries. Thanks for the retraction.
I’ve made some corrections, how do you feel now. Specifically I deleted the first tweet, changed the title and corrected a couple of numbers. Can you see any other errors.
But also, I’m happy to bet that I will have been roughly right here.
(I now broadly agree, especially after the edits)
(though to push slightly, what did the edits change? They were a few small maths errors and deleting the tweet that said that FTX had been sold (bad error). other than that, if you agree with me now it looks like you were wrong, right? My main point was that things are gonna be bad, and they are)
Yeah I think it was that Tweet; I also vaguely remember specific numbers that seemed overly precise and a claim that CZ was deliberately trying to cause a run on the bank to then buy FTX.
I left that comment very quickly (which I shouldn’t have) and don’t remember the details very precisely, and given that things are now deleted it’s hard to remember everything.