Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

cassonmars · on May 17, 2023

Not to be the one prone to whataboutism, but why is the one blatantly unsubstantive pro-crypto comment chided while several other equally blatantly unsubstantive anti-crypto comments never receive the same treatment?

dang · on May 17, 2023

If there are other comments that broke the site guidelines that didn't get moderated, most likely we just didn't see them. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here. Past explanations here in case they're useful:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

s1gnp0st · on May 17, 2023

I hope to see you on the next thread where the echo chamber insists Bitcoin is used solely for drugs and murder. The moderation has been extremely lopsided on this issue.

dang · on May 17, 2023

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. People on all sides of such topics frequently feel that the mods are disagreeing with them.

Here are lots of past explanations if anyone wants to read more:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

aaron695 · on May 17, 2023

95% of HN comments are unsubstantive, so that was never the actual rule applied. It's probably -

"Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."

Saying it's unsubstantive is nicer.

It was a substantive comment. It made a statement of fact that contradicted the articles title.

That allowed someone to reply with another substantive fact "Bitcoin addresses hasn't grown for 2 years" with link

Which I would not agree is exactly a correct summary of the data, but it's worth looking at and has create a thread far better than most of the others - https://studio.glassnode.com/metrics?a=BTC&m=addresses.Activ...

s1gnp0st · on May 17, 2023

Transactions have moved to layer two. Scarcity on layer one is an intentional, desirable property without which we have an expensive simulation of the inflationary currencies we already have.