my argument isn't that the GP's information is wrong per se, but that gross oversimplification through slapping labels like "scam" and "bullshit" against the merits of a technology is blind, just as blind as people who worship the blockchain.

my argument is for us to make our cases in an enlightened and civilised way instead of calling out names

And still, you have utterly failed to tell -- either in an "enlightened and civilised" or in any other way -- why and how this whole "Crypto" fad isn't scam and bullshit.

Until somebody does, the null hypothesis remains that it is. (Use some cuter name if that makes you feel better, but it is what it is.)

The fallacy of false dichotomies. Things aren't either totally useful or totally a scam. That's what I'm trying to say, we shouldn't jump into quick conclusions one way or the other, especially without trying to really understand first.

I have my views on positive use cases for the blockchain and/or cryptocurrencies, and I got that by learning and building stuff with it. On whether the technology is a net good or bad to society, I don't know.

One can refuse to participate in anything without completely dismissing its merit. But that's the polarised world we live in :/

Yadda, yadda. Who said I'm 100-0 on the "Scam!" side? I could be 99-1, or maybe even 90-10. Even if I were 60-40, what do you expect -- that I should argue for how it's not a scam?!?

But, hey, you seem to be closer to 100-0 than to 99-1 in favour of "Utopia!".

You would be a lot more persuasive for that side if you didn't natter about meta shit like "fallacies" or "false dichotomies" but in stead presented some actual arguments.

I notice you didn't.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that crypto is 100% the future. I'm trying to convince people that it's not a total scam.

Between black and white there's gray.

You keep digging into that false dichotomy