9 ms·

I'll offer a controversial explanation: bitcoin enthusiasts have exhausted most of the oxygen in the room with regard to rational bitcoin discussion. The never

I'll offer a controversial explanation: bitcoin enthusiasts have exhausted most of the oxygen in the room with regard to rational bitcoin discussion. The never-ending adulation of bitcoin as the greatest invention since the internet, the hyperbolic claims that bitcoin will do things like revolutionize payments, end global war, eliminate the need for banks, liberate the people from bondage, the litany of bitcoin and blockchain companies making extraordinary claims while consistently under-delivering or outright scamming customers, the warped world-view where communities of impoverished people who can barely meet their daily needs and have markedly poor computer literacy and limited access to computers and internet will be lifted out of poverty by banking with bitcoin, the constant dismissal of bitcoin skeptics as "not understanding" bitcoin, the self-aggrandizing elevation of satoshi and bitcoin programmers as programming prodigies, the condescendingly absurd notion that detractors, the banks and the governments are afraid of bitcoin or afraid of the bitcoin money revolution, the tone-deaf advocacy of bitcoin as a safer method of payment than credit cards, the general refusal to acknowledge bitcoin's practical challenges as real problems (non-technical people being scammed or permanently losing their money due to data-loss, theft, misconfiguration of software, sending bitcoin to the wrong address, downloading a scam wallet), the oversaturation of the underwhelming "x but with bitcoin" formula that pops up every couple weeks... and much more. As heated, vitriolic and personal as linux discussions can get, its taken for granted that everyone is at least operating in the same objective reality (systemd vs upstart, gnome vs unity, mir vs wayland, even windows vs linux), but a large swath of bitcoin enthusiasts look at bitcoin as something that eclipses every other technical topic in importance to the point where it comes off as quasi-religious.

digi_owl 10y ago
You get this because the properties of bitcoin attracts two kinds of people. Goldbugs, because of how bitcoin is "mined" and is inherently deflationary. And gold is the one true currency, m'kay. Cypherpunks, because it is built around cryptographics. And cryptographics makes anything double plus good. Never mind that both kinds have a strong anti-establishment streak. That said, if they could get away form their anti-inflation fanaticism, and find some way to speed up the ledger processing, then the distributed ledger part of bitcoin may have a future. This because while inflation can be bad when it runs riot (though money printing in itself is rarely if ever the cause) it is better in the long run than deflation, as that allows some entity or other to corner the market. And in the end, all currencies are tokens of account. Meaning that they exist in the end to make sure nobody double spends. But to be effective in doing so, the token material must the worth less then the face value. If not, people will have an incentive to hoard. And that will drive an economy into the ground.
- explorer666 10y ago
  > And that will drive an economy into the ground A consumerism-based, Earth-killing economy. But it will give raise to more sustainable economies.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Feudalism says hello...
- oppositelock 10y ago
  The incentive to hoard, also often called the "deflationary spiral", is a theory proposed by neo-Keynesian economists, which doesn't appear to be as bad as they say. People have finite lifespan, and so, they want to use their hoards to better these finite lives, which leads them to spend. This preference, known as the "time preference", strikes a balance with the tendency to hoard. It is impossible to predict where this balance is, though, because it's subjective to each participant. Why do you buy cell phones or laptops today, knowing that future ones will be better or cheaper? Why buy some food today, when you know your purchasing power will be greater next month? Why pay for housing when prices are falling, knowing your contract will be cheaper in five years?
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    > Why do you buy cell phones or laptops today, knowing that future ones will be better or cheaper? Direct practical utility. > Why buy some food today, when you know your purchasing power will be greater next month? I don't eat, i starve, i die. > Why pay for housing when prices are falling, knowing your contract will be cheaper in five years? Now there you get into something interesting. Though the five years view is comically long.
    - oppositelock 10y ago
      You just demonstrated the concept to which I'm alluding. There is a balance of time preference versus saving preference for absolutely everything in an economy based on the subjective desires of all participants. For some people, this will be cell phones, or cars, or fancy shoes, or little purse dogs. They won't save forever, living just to get by, for some uncertain future when they can have more stuff. There is no deflationary spiral, there's a balance point where it stops. This dangerous idea has been used to justify all forms of crazy economic intervention since Keynes formalized it. The notion of a currency having to depreciate is a direct consequence of these policies, all based on a fallacy. No matter how counterproductive these policies are, they're still applied. Look to Japan and Switzerland as recent examples. Japan has massive stimulus, the Yen is dropping, are people spending more, no, they're saving for the future, knowing that their savings will be worth less, so they need more of them to get by - no spending on unnecessary items. Switzerland is paying negative interest rates on savings accounts, so people have to save more to offset that. There are lots of things to dislike about Bitcoin, but its value increasing over time isn't one.
btcprint 10y ago
Well, while the hyperbole might be grandiose during the stages of bitcoin's infancy - everything claimed is plausible if it can scale. At least to the point of being a global currency and transfer of value alongside govt and central bank fiat. Sometimes the economic winds favor different assets both liquid and long term stores of value. Bitcoin adds a legitimate, scarce, immutable form of ownership of something that can be transferred with the least amount of friction of any other asset (including cash). Hyperbole or not, where it is now compared to 2009-2012 is extremely impressive. It's an exciting space to watch develop over time, love it or hate it. I think those that don't understand it but are quick to judge or regurgitate the opinions of their peers (it's a ponzi, tulip mania, etc) are just as hyperbolic and ignorant. I don't see how anyone can argue that bitcoin and it's blockchain is not an impressive, elegant technological solution to a problem that needed solving.
- zaphar 10y ago
  Merkle trees are an impressive and elegant solution to an auditable ledger. Bitcoin however has always seemed wasteful to me. It's incredibly energy hungry for a consensus protocol.
fjidodhofjf 10y ago
Funny how the anti Bitcoin crowd respond with baseless ad hominem attacks. Bitcoin solved a problem, whether that problem needed solving or will be extremely fruitful is for the future to determine. The fact that a 4+ billion dollar stateless currency exists is pretty amazing to me. Personally I think the anti Bitcoin crowd is also the pro government crowd. You know, the people who support torture of innocents, assassinations, genocide, etc etc, but I'm sure I'm just some nut -- yeah I'm the nut, not the people who talk about laws And justice while shrugging off torure. Amazingly gross display of hypocracy.
- markeroon 10y ago
  That's quite a straw man, bud.
bcook 10y ago
Are your counter-claims not hyperbolic ("liberate people from bondage")? Regardless of the extreme pros or cons, Bitcoin is revolutionary. PS - Your middle paragraph is painfully hard to read (is it one, huge sentence?). This makes your post feel like it was purely an emotional, unedited response with little filtering...
ssharp 10y ago
Let's not forget this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/31xp48/why_did_a_rbitcoin_mod_get_forced_to_resign_or_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/31xp48/why_di...
- mfoy_ 10y ago
  Interesting... just having a "donate with BitCoin" link visible caused a noticeable drop in donations? Similarly with revenue on a merchant page. That seems bizarre.
  - jtbigwoo 10y ago
    Just speculating, but it could be a couple things: Providing more choices can often result in consumers simply giving up. At a former job we did an A/B test where we showed some visitors two options to buy our product and added a third option for other visitors. In the three option scenario, the bounce rate was about 10% higher. Or, it could be that there are folks for whom bitcoin is linked with drugs, gambling, piracy, etc. Maybe seeing a bitcoin option makes the site look less reputable.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      Choice paralysis is something that economists have known about for some time, but seem reluctant to talk about (because more choice has to be better).
    - sliverstorm 10y ago
      To me bitcoin is trendy and kind of unprofessional. Steam is obviously a pretty reputable service, but for a long time accepting bitcoin screamed "this is a low quality service and we have no other ways to differentiate ourselves than using a buzzword currency"
    - VikingCoder 10y ago
      Well, it may be that using bitcoin right now is... not easy. "Bitcoin! I've always wanted to try it. [Click.] 'Wallet address', what's that? Okay, I'll just Google Bitcoin. 'Buy viagra and pot online,' oh uhm... Okay, creating a wallet.. Wow, this isn't easy. Okay, now... Time to convert some cash to bitcoins! What the hell?!? Why does it need all of this info? 'For tax purposes bitcoins are not currency,' what the hell?!? Okay, um... What the hell is 'Magic the Gathering'? 'Fraud.' 'Japan.' 'Apologizes.' Hmmm... Ah, forget it."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- Retra 10y ago
  >I don't have a credit card, and it feels futuristic to point my phone at the invoice and see it light up as "paid". Without typing in anything, without any risk of cc theft, without anyone in between. I think that is revolutionary, yes. You've basically just said you use your phone as a heavier, battery-powered credit card. You might as well be arguing that you think horses are a revolutionary new transportation medium because they don't need gas and can obey spoken commands, and cars don't all do that yet.
  - evilmushroom 10y ago
    Horses also have some interesting auto-pilot features, not to mention they are green. Their fuel source generates oxygen during development and some of their byproducts can be used to enhance your garden!
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Horses were self-driving long before your silly fiat cars.
- bduerst 10y ago
  If bitcoin enthusiasts were capable of rational discussion, then why did you just build up the 'troll' straw man and knock it down? They're not making a blanket statement or even saying that bitcoin enthusiasts are incapable of rational discussion. They're talking about biases around the bitcoin industry, and as a self-proclaimed enthusiast, you ignored it and went straight to name calling. Edit: Your massive wall-of-text edit doesn't can't hide the fact that your immediate response was incredibly biased.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  I felt like that long list of complaints about the discourse around bitcoin hit home and did a pretty good job of justifying that claim. Moreover, it was full of examples that contributed meaningfully, so it's weird to say that it contributes nothing. If you'd rather call people names than respond to their points, aren't you doing exactly what s/he condemned?
bduerst 10y ago
I've seen some of the worst biases manifest themselves around bitcoin. My theory is that in the shadow of the bubble collapse, the desire for bitcoin to succeed has driven wishful thinking to the extreme, where some vocal bitcoin evangelists ignore or spin reality to reconcile it with their desire. It's more akin to the old XBox vs Playstation flame wars, where a console fan could just admit the cons along with the pros, but then that wouldn't fully validate their decision to invest. An example of some of the spin that I'm talking about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10959211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10959211
xkarga00 10y ago
I never considered myself as a bitcoin enthusiast but I am enthusiastic about digital cryptocurrencies in general for most of the reasons you mentioned. Bitcoin (and all other cryptocurrencies) is not there yet but most of those are problems that cryptocurrencies target to solve. An example: you could never move money over the wire anonymously before crypto came in. Well, except if you had a fake identity, which is illegal. Now you can. Of course, you need to be a security expert in order to do it but ultimately UX will get there. I wasn't around at the early days of internet but I am pretty sure if my mother could access it back then she would have no idea what to do. And here she is calling me on Skype every other night. Another example: There are millions of people who cannot afford buying a computer as you already said but possess low-cost mobile phones. There are already a bunch of bitcoin startups targeting that market. Apps and tools will eventually evolve up to the point where they will be accessible, easy-to-use, scam-free, safe. We just need to build them.
- arnarbi 10y ago
  > you could never move money over the wire anonymously before crypto came in. Well, except if you had a fake identity, which is illegal. Now you can. As obvious as it may seem that is a positive thing, keep in mind that a lot of people will not think so. Even more people can just don't appreciate it and could be convinced either way. If everyone thought anonymity was so good, fake identities wouldn't be illegal.
  - xkarga00 10y ago
    Anonymity is good not per se but because it implies privacy. Let's not argue if privacy is a good thing or not. Anonymity also supersedes fake identities.
    - arnarbi 10y ago
      Sorry, my intention was not to discuss merits of anonymity or privacy. I do agree those are good. My point was that in discussing things like cryptocurrency (and other technical matters), many of its advocates go to arguments like yours with the silent assumption that certain aspects are obvious benefits. You forget that that's an opinion, and any argument based on it misses it mark with someone who doesn't share that opinion (or hasn't formed one). I think that's part of the reason "the oxygen in the room has been depleted".

digi_owl 10y ago

You get this because the properties of bitcoin attracts two kinds of people. Goldbugs, because of how bitcoin is "mined" and is inherently deflationary. And gold is the one true currency, m'kay. Cypherpunks, because it is built around cryptographics. And cryptographics makes anything double plus good. Never mind that both kinds have a strong anti-establishment streak. That said, if they could get away form their anti-inflation fanaticism, and find some way to speed up the ledger processing, then the distributed ledger part of bitcoin may have a future. This because while inflation can be bad when it runs riot (though money printing in itself is rarely if ever the cause) it is better in the long run than deflation, as that allows some entity or other to corner the market. And in the end, all currencies are tokens of account. Meaning that they exist in the end to make sure nobody double spends. But to be effective in doing so, the token material must the worth less then the face value. If not, people will have an incentive to hoard. And that will drive an economy into the ground.

explorer666 10y ago
> And that will drive an economy into the ground A consumerism-based, Earth-killing economy. But it will give raise to more sustainable economies.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Feudalism says hello...
oppositelock 10y ago
The incentive to hoard, also often called the "deflationary spiral", is a theory proposed by neo-Keynesian economists, which doesn't appear to be as bad as they say. People have finite lifespan, and so, they want to use their hoards to better these finite lives, which leads them to spend. This preference, known as the "time preference", strikes a balance with the tendency to hoard. It is impossible to predict where this balance is, though, because it's subjective to each participant. Why do you buy cell phones or laptops today, knowing that future ones will be better or cheaper? Why buy some food today, when you know your purchasing power will be greater next month? Why pay for housing when prices are falling, knowing your contract will be cheaper in five years?
- digi_owl 10y ago
  > Why do you buy cell phones or laptops today, knowing that future ones will be better or cheaper? Direct practical utility. > Why buy some food today, when you know your purchasing power will be greater next month? I don't eat, i starve, i die. > Why pay for housing when prices are falling, knowing your contract will be cheaper in five years? Now there you get into something interesting. Though the five years view is comically long.
  - oppositelock 10y ago
    You just demonstrated the concept to which I'm alluding. There is a balance of time preference versus saving preference for absolutely everything in an economy based on the subjective desires of all participants. For some people, this will be cell phones, or cars, or fancy shoes, or little purse dogs. They won't save forever, living just to get by, for some uncertain future when they can have more stuff. There is no deflationary spiral, there's a balance point where it stops. This dangerous idea has been used to justify all forms of crazy economic intervention since Keynes formalized it. The notion of a currency having to depreciate is a direct consequence of these policies, all based on a fallacy. No matter how counterproductive these policies are, they're still applied. Look to Japan and Switzerland as recent examples. Japan has massive stimulus, the Yen is dropping, are people spending more, no, they're saving for the future, knowing that their savings will be worth less, so they need more of them to get by - no spending on unnecessary items. Switzerland is paying negative interest rates on savings accounts, so people have to save more to offset that. There are lots of things to dislike about Bitcoin, but its value increasing over time isn't one.

btcprint 10y ago

Well, while the hyperbole might be grandiose during the stages of bitcoin's infancy - everything claimed is plausible if it can scale. At least to the point of being a global currency and transfer of value alongside govt and central bank fiat. Sometimes the economic winds favor different assets both liquid and long term stores of value. Bitcoin adds a legitimate, scarce, immutable form of ownership of something that can be transferred with the least amount of friction of any other asset (including cash). Hyperbole or not, where it is now compared to 2009-2012 is extremely impressive. It's an exciting space to watch develop over time, love it or hate it. I think those that don't understand it but are quick to judge or regurgitate the opinions of their peers (it's a ponzi, tulip mania, etc) are just as hyperbolic and ignorant. I don't see how anyone can argue that bitcoin and it's blockchain is not an impressive, elegant technological solution to a problem that needed solving.

zaphar 10y ago
Merkle trees are an impressive and elegant solution to an auditable ledger. Bitcoin however has always seemed wasteful to me. It's incredibly energy hungry for a consensus protocol.

fjidodhofjf 10y ago

Funny how the anti Bitcoin crowd respond with baseless ad hominem attacks. Bitcoin solved a problem, whether that problem needed solving or will be extremely fruitful is for the future to determine. The fact that a 4+ billion dollar stateless currency exists is pretty amazing to me. Personally I think the anti Bitcoin crowd is also the pro government crowd. You know, the people who support torture of innocents, assassinations, genocide, etc etc, but I'm sure I'm just some nut -- yeah I'm the nut, not the people who talk about laws And justice while shrugging off torure. Amazingly gross display of hypocracy.

markeroon 10y ago
That's quite a straw man, bud.

bcook 10y ago

Are your counter-claims not hyperbolic ("liberate people from bondage")? Regardless of the extreme pros or cons, Bitcoin is revolutionary. PS - Your middle paragraph is painfully hard to read (is it one, huge sentence?). This makes your post feel like it was purely an emotional, unedited response with little filtering...

ssharp 10y ago

Let's not forget this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/31xp48/why_did_a_rbitcoin_mod_get_forced_to_resign_or_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/31xp48/why_di...

mfoy_ 10y ago
Interesting... just having a "donate with BitCoin" link visible caused a noticeable drop in donations? Similarly with revenue on a merchant page. That seems bizarre.
- jtbigwoo 10y ago
  Just speculating, but it could be a couple things: Providing more choices can often result in consumers simply giving up. At a former job we did an A/B test where we showed some visitors two options to buy our product and added a third option for other visitors. In the three option scenario, the bounce rate was about 10% higher. Or, it could be that there are folks for whom bitcoin is linked with drugs, gambling, piracy, etc. Maybe seeing a bitcoin option makes the site look less reputable.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Choice paralysis is something that economists have known about for some time, but seem reluctant to talk about (because more choice has to be better).
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    To me bitcoin is trendy and kind of unprofessional. Steam is obviously a pretty reputable service, but for a long time accepting bitcoin screamed "this is a low quality service and we have no other ways to differentiate ourselves than using a buzzword currency"
  - VikingCoder 10y ago
    Well, it may be that using bitcoin right now is... not easy. "Bitcoin! I've always wanted to try it. [Click.] 'Wallet address', what's that? Okay, I'll just Google Bitcoin. 'Buy viagra and pot online,' oh uhm... Okay, creating a wallet.. Wow, this isn't easy. Okay, now... Time to convert some cash to bitcoins! What the hell?!? Why does it need all of this info? 'For tax purposes bitcoins are not currency,' what the hell?!? Okay, um... What the hell is 'Magic the Gathering'? 'Fraud.' 'Japan.' 'Apologizes.' Hmmm... Ah, forget it."

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Retra 10y ago
>I don't have a credit card, and it feels futuristic to point my phone at the invoice and see it light up as "paid". Without typing in anything, without any risk of cc theft, without anyone in between. I think that is revolutionary, yes. You've basically just said you use your phone as a heavier, battery-powered credit card. You might as well be arguing that you think horses are a revolutionary new transportation medium because they don't need gas and can obey spoken commands, and cars don't all do that yet.
- evilmushroom 10y ago
  Horses also have some interesting auto-pilot features, not to mention they are green. Their fuel source generates oxygen during development and some of their byproducts can be used to enhance your garden!
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Horses were self-driving long before your silly fiat cars.
bduerst 10y ago
If bitcoin enthusiasts were capable of rational discussion, then why did you just build up the 'troll' straw man and knock it down? They're not making a blanket statement or even saying that bitcoin enthusiasts are incapable of rational discussion. They're talking about biases around the bitcoin industry, and as a self-proclaimed enthusiast, you ignored it and went straight to name calling. Edit: Your massive wall-of-text edit doesn't can't hide the fact that your immediate response was incredibly biased.
ajkjk 10y ago
I felt like that long list of complaints about the discourse around bitcoin hit home and did a pretty good job of justifying that claim. Moreover, it was full of examples that contributed meaningfully, so it's weird to say that it contributes nothing. If you'd rather call people names than respond to their points, aren't you doing exactly what s/he condemned?

bduerst 10y ago

I've seen some of the worst biases manifest themselves around bitcoin. My theory is that in the shadow of the bubble collapse, the desire for bitcoin to succeed has driven wishful thinking to the extreme, where some vocal bitcoin evangelists ignore or spin reality to reconcile it with their desire. It's more akin to the old XBox vs Playstation flame wars, where a console fan could just admit the cons along with the pros, but then that wouldn't fully validate their decision to invest. An example of some of the spin that I'm talking about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10959211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10959211

xkarga00 10y ago

I never considered myself as a bitcoin enthusiast but I am enthusiastic about digital cryptocurrencies in general for most of the reasons you mentioned. Bitcoin (and all other cryptocurrencies) is not there yet but most of those are problems that cryptocurrencies target to solve. An example: you could never move money over the wire anonymously before crypto came in. Well, except if you had a fake identity, which is illegal. Now you can. Of course, you need to be a security expert in order to do it but ultimately UX will get there. I wasn't around at the early days of internet but I am pretty sure if my mother could access it back then she would have no idea what to do. And here she is calling me on Skype every other night. Another example: There are millions of people who cannot afford buying a computer as you already said but possess low-cost mobile phones. There are already a bunch of bitcoin startups targeting that market. Apps and tools will eventually evolve up to the point where they will be accessible, easy-to-use, scam-free, safe. We just need to build them.

arnarbi 10y ago
> you could never move money over the wire anonymously before crypto came in. Well, except if you had a fake identity, which is illegal. Now you can. As obvious as it may seem that is a positive thing, keep in mind that a lot of people will not think so. Even more people can just don't appreciate it and could be convinced either way. If everyone thought anonymity was so good, fake identities wouldn't be illegal.
- xkarga00 10y ago
  Anonymity is good not per se but because it implies privacy. Let's not argue if privacy is a good thing or not. Anonymity also supersedes fake identities.
  - arnarbi 10y ago
    Sorry, my intention was not to discuss merits of anonymity or privacy. I do agree those are good. My point was that in discussing things like cryptocurrency (and other technical matters), many of its advocates go to arguments like yours with the silent assumption that certain aspects are obvious benefits. You forget that that's an opinion, and any argument based on it misses it mark with someone who doesn't share that opinion (or hasn't formed one). I think that's part of the reason "the oxygen in the room has been depleted".