People forget how hyped the internet was circa 1996-2000. During the early days, one of the most popular sites was a web cam pointed at a coffee mug [0] and a webcam pointed at a "lifecaster" showing her everyday life [1]. Email was confusing and misunderstood [2].

Startups were laughed at when they said you would buy pet food online [3] or pay your parking tickets online [4]. Both are so commonplace now as to barely be worth mentioning.

You absolutely could be right. Maybe cryptocurrency and the surrounding technology is a fad or hype without any substance but you're making an assumption that the rollout of cryptocurrency adoption should follow the same schedule as dot.com startups. For a point of reference, Linux was created circa 1991 [5] with the GNU project started in 1983, giving about a decade or two, depending on where you start, from "widespread" Linux/FOSS adoption.

You're stating that "there has been no real value, produce, or worth created here" bluntly without really backing it up. There are plenty of products and use cases, just none that you would consider valid. People use cryptocurrency to purchase goods and services, just not the ones you might find valid. People use cryptocurrency to support organizations they favor, just not organizations you might favor. People are using cryptocurrency to explore different social media models, just not models you would find valid.

My plea is in line with the HN terms of service. Please have curious conversation. Molly White has valid things to say and, as far as I can tell, does research the claims she makes. I don't like the tenor so I feel like I need to push back here and elsewhere to put things in context.

Your casual, snarky, dismissiveness doesn't add a lot to the conversation. Would it add anything to the conversation if I said "XML is a poorly designed LaTeX, improperly implemented"? Or "Javascript is a poor attempt at a Lisp implementation"? "Twitter is public text messaging, just done poorly"? The reductions gloss over the complexities of the ecosystem and utility. It should be a red flag that there may be something you don't understand if you're so quick to cite idiocy.

To your points:

Decentralization means different things to different people. In the context of Bitcoin, or many other cryptocurrencies, it means that anyone can participate given the resources, without the need to apply for credentials. Miners can join and participate in the network by standing up hardware. Contrast this with starting a business, pushing an app on the apple store, publishing a game on steam, etc. Note that this is how the internet was also designed. Anyone wanting to participate in the network ostensibly could.

I think to dismiss Bitcoin as an "inefficient linked list, poorly distributed" is to dismiss a lot of good ideas and research ideas. Bitcoin may have some flaws, maybe critically so, but it sits at the middle of theoretical computer science, economics and finance in a novel way that responds to a lot of shortcomings of attempts before it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95-yZ-31j9A

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com#Legacy

[4] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/?ref_=ttls_li_tt

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#History