I thought I was making a rather obvious point, so here it is in plainer terms: you can't keep up a sufficient flow of new people in a field (especially a niche one) if everybody's response to "How do I start doing this?" is "No no no, this is only for a chosen few grandfathered-in greybeards and the rest of us are too stupid to even try". There's absolutely nothing wrong with people trying their hand at difficult things, even if the only thing it produces is first-hand experience/appreciation of how difficult they are. Black boxes and low bus factors don't aid progress, they hinder it.
Additionally, it's astonishingly not unheard of for people to, well, research the experiments and studies of those before them before trying their hand at their own; if you start all your own experiments by jumping headfirst in total ignorance, perhaps consider slowing down a little?
Then again you've chosen to go on a rant about speeding trams and fatalities when the literal third sentence in the linked article is "don't use [your crypto] in production until it's vetted by professionals".
There is actually a standard way for new people to get into crypto. However, it is emphatically not to write your own crypto and let others evaluate it. Everyone can make a crypto system they themselves cannot break. That says very little about the system's security, unless you're actually goods at breaking crypto.
That is why you begin learning crypto by breaking other people's crypto. Once you understand some of the pitfalls, your designs are far less likely to incorporate the same pitfalls.
> There is actually a standard way for new people to get into crypto...That is why you begin learning crypto by breaking other people's crypto.
And that is actual, useful advice for someone who is looking to get into crypto, not the equivalent of spraying an errant dog with a water bottle. Hence, like I said, studying and learning from others' experiments first.
To bring up game engine or OS dev again for instance, the answer to "I want to build my own game engine/OS" isn't "don't do that, you'll get it wrong", because people in those fields have actually put in the effort to create and document amateur-friendly resources targeted at various levels. And it's not like using your own OS or game engine in production is necessarily less dangerous than you using your own crypto in it, but again people in those fields somehow seem capable at grasping that people can [want to do] things without it even remotely being about a production service or product.
"No no no, this is only for a chosen few grandfathered-in greybeards and the rest of us are too stupid to even try".
This isn't even a straw man version of what I wrote. You should make your own thread to argue with this imaginary claim if that's what you want to do. Or better maybe start a Twitter thread about it.
As a reminder, here's that quote from the article, attributed to a co-worker but illustrative of a pretty common trope:
> How are people supposed to learn (from mistakes) if they don't roll their own crypto?
How are they supposed to learn? From other people's mistakes. There is no need to make those mistakes again yourself. Stop it.
Additionally, it's astonishingly not unheard of for people to, well, research the experiments and studies of those before them before trying their hand at their own; if you start all your own experiments by jumping headfirst in total ignorance, perhaps consider slowing down a little?
Then again you've chosen to go on a rant about speeding trams and fatalities when the literal third sentence in the linked article is "don't use [your crypto] in production until it's vetted by professionals".