4/ The pet rock was a non-generative innovation and afaik, the sociology around it wasn't too interesting either
Conversation
Replying to
5/ It was not just an evolutionary cul de sac... it didn't even do much exciting twisting and branching on the way to a dead end
1
2
Replying to
6/ Tulip manias otoh are complex... there's a lot of excitement, and _apparently_ a story to tell, with events, players, developments, news
1
4
Replying to
7/ But like a ponzi scheme, when you dig, you find the root cause fundamentally underwhelming. You can't dig deep because there's no depth
1
5
Replying to
8/ The challenge posed by is to distinguish members of the set {Pet rock, Tulip manias, actual Revolutions} or {P, T, R}
1
3
Replying to
9/ If there are no complicated branchings and twists and turns to the story it's a pet rock. Test: it's a wikipedia 1-pager.
1
3
Replying to
10/ Go read Wikipedia page on pet rocks. Unlike more interesting stories, it won't suck you down big bunnytrail en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock
1
1
1
Replying to
11/ We're left with distinguishing tulip manias and the real deal. Here the test is equally simple: learning never gets seriously difficult
1
1
4
Replying to
13/ It is impossible to read just 1 tvtropes page. They're like chips. You'll invariably read 5-10 min, and the reading is NEVER difficult
1
1
4
Replying to
15/ Whereas for "real deal" topic, you will invariably run into a difficulty wall where you realize you have to do hard thinking to proceed
1
1
10
Replying to
16/ This is why I think blockchain stuff is the real deal, with a there there. I run into difficult terrain in every direction when I read.
4
5
20
Show replies
Replying to
Like the alien parasites in Rick & Morty, implanting fake pleasant memories in hosts to avoid detection. Real stuff has an unpleasant side.
Replying to
Tulip biology, like cryptography, is deep and difficult. Blockchains mainly have a collector's complexity of many superficial differences.
1


