> There is nothing that would ever convince you which is why I didn't want to try in the first place.

There's a lot that would convince me, and you (andd all of crypto space) never tried.

> You're starting from a position of thinking you're unshakably correct, and constantly write wildly over-confident condescending things like "99.9999999% of all discussions with crypto people follow the same pattern"

Because they inveitably do, and this discussion is no different. There are nebulous claims, "just believe", shifting of discussions and "oh if only there was some discussion to be had".

You've had over a decade to have this discussion. Where is it?

> You'll still be complaining about this no matter what happens in the future, just like people still argue EVs can't work.

Ah yes. The inevtable comparison to something grandiose like EVs or the Internet. Try this for size: this is the next Juicero.

> it's easier to point at stuff that more explicitly shows this is false before talking about more nuanced/uncertain cases.

Once again, just because you dismiss these cases, doesn't mean they don't exist, that they are unimportant, or that they can be magically olved by your "new thing". To quote myself, "Blockchains make even the simplest act of membership unnecessarily complicated, and makes more complex interactions nearly impossible."

> Everything else you write fails to compare stuff to the status quo, ignores the new capabilities, etc.

I've literally written about status quo several times. From the fact that masons managed to create a global secret society before computers, and to requirements for anonymity, unnecessary tracking etc. Just because you don't recognize this, says much more about you than it says about me.

> This is what I meant about not being curious or arguing in-good-faith

Once again, I am curious, that's why I've come up with multiple examples off the top of my head. Let's see how your "curious" self responded to this: "a different feature", links to non-discussions and marketing materials, etc.

Goofd faith? You don't know the definition of the word.

> The OS doesn't have blockchain built in btw - it only uses NFTs as IDs for access

1. Semantics.

2. Requiring an always-on internet connection for user id verification... As I said, you didn't even stop to think for a single second whether this is good, or wanted, or even needed.

> naturally you didn't read any of this or think about it

Naturally I didn't read any random blog post on any random website. The list of things that you didn't read or think about is as long as the equator, and a lot of it is showing in this discussion.

"Decentralized social network"? Scuttlebutt is already doing that, doesn't require blockchain, and can work ithout the internet. Federation (e.g. XMPP) existed long before that. The rest is literally describing everything we've already had but since it has a magical word "blockchain" in it, I must be drooling over it, "be curious", believe etc. In that entire article blockchain literally only adds complexity while everything else like centralized servers stays the same.

Also funny how he mentions email in a world where running your own mail server is nearly impossible because GMail, which controls most of the email market, will just immediately mark your outgoing traffic as spam. See, I said world. Because this is reality and facts that you a) know nothing about, b) don't care about and c) wave away because "just believe in blockchain"

Literal pay to play: "Being an early user, token holder, or voter confers status on people. Social networks for blockchain users can make it easy for people to generate proofs of such activity." This is a good novel new thing now?

So, the entire article is vapid "social networks are bad, we're building something never before seen though we don't know yet, just believe, also it's pay to play" drivel on par with most of what comes out of crypto space.