8 ms·

If I had a Bitcoin for every skeptic that posts a blog on why it can't work... This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony

If I had a Bitcoin for every skeptic that posts a blog on why it can't work... This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies and I'm not sure why. For an industry that has constantly tried new things and saw potential where no one else did, I just don't see the love for the potential of smart contracts, DApps, etc. And how this is just the beginning of what is possible and of course it's isn't perfect but it's fascinating to the curious. I do see a lot of enthusiasm from Eastern Europeans and all across Asia and they seem to be leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution. My working hypothesis right now is Silicon Valley has been getting fat on the virtually unlimited venture capital power structure and sees this as a threat they've missed out on to their power. Maybe the disrupters are being disrupted?

gjem97 9y ago
I think there are a couple of reasons behind a Silicon Valley disillusionment with Bitcoin. First, I think we're probably in a trough in the hype cycle right now. 3-4 years ago there were a lot of very high expectations amongst the Sand Hill Road crew. Bitcoin transaction volumes have been fairly flat (in native BTC terms [1]), whereas the VC crowd expected--required even--exponential growth. Second I think that people in the US--Silicon Valley included--have the benefit of good corporate governance on many of the centralized authorities that underpin the economy. SWIFT, DTCC, etc. People who live in countries where that is not the case have a lot more to gain from the technology. That may explain some of the relative popularity outside the US. [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?timespan=2years https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?...
nradov 9y ago
Bitcoin is mostly popular in Eastern Europe and Asia for transfer payments, fiat currency conversion, money laundering, and evading capital controls (getting money out of China). In the US if you're doing legitimate business with other US entities then there's really no need for such a thing. I can write a check or send a credit card payment or wire transfer to another US bank with a reasonably high level of trust that I won't be cheated, and that I have legal recourse if something goes wrong.
- nemo44x 9y ago
  I agree with this but you might be missing my point. Crypto as a store of value and the ability to transfer funds is nice and all but it's not the big picture. I think focusing on that you rightly see limited practical application in large parts of the world, such as the USA. The real revolution is in smart contracts and virtual machines that run on a blockchain and the ability to define ownership of a distributed organization to distribute profits accordingly. Blockchains on blockchains that having turing complete contracts that can guarantee there isn't even the ability to cheat the distributed, mainly anonymous organization participants. We aren't even close to that - it still takes an incredibly suspect ICO to raise money by selling stake for a top level coin in which they will inevitably have to convert partially to fiat and the vast potential for scams there. But the smart contract can be programmatically limited and only release funds over time and only continue to when certain events have taken place, and refund otherwise, etc. I guess I just see the vast potential here. More infrastructure supporting things is required and I'm not sure what that is but someone will discover these pieces. I see many more Asian and European groups trying to build these types of things today. Maybe it's out of necessity as well since there isn't a vast source of wealth available to fund these crazy, new ideas.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    > Maybe it's out of necessity as well since there isn't a vast source of wealth available to fund these crazy, new ideas. I think it's more out of necessity because of the lack of the comprehensive and (relatively) solid way that you can litigate in the USA and European Union when business dealings go south. Capitalism in the East and the Soviet Bloc countries is improving their lives but it's also shockingly unregulated, arguably similar to the US in the roaring 20's. Back then that meant contracts were enforced at the barrel of a gun, but while the contractual law litigation doesn't work well in those countries, they can handle murderers pretty well so instead they find the cryptocurrencies attractive because it gives them options to protect their assets in a way that is immune to violence or petty theft. At least that's my 0.02.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    Please offer a practical example of how smart contracts are useful.
root_axis 9y ago
The source of the distaste is obvious: breathless hyperbole without much substance to show for it. Posts like yours are a great example of it. In this very comment you write: > leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution Unsubstantiated hype. Where is the revolution? A common thread among cryptocurrency enthusiasts is that the revolution is coming... except it never does. When you talk about revolution, non-enthusiasts roll their eyes. > Silicon Valley has been getting fat on the virtually unlimited venture capital power structure and sees this as a threat they've missed out on to their power. A classic argument from crypto enthusiasts who have to imagine that people are literally afraid of bitcoin. It's laughably condescending and absurd. Bitcoin is not a threat to anyone and most certainly not silicon valley billionaires. Besides, it's not as if SV VCs haven't invested money in bitcoin, it's just that bitcoin is a horrible investment, e.g. 21.co, 120 million in VC dollars flushed down the toilet for a business model that was clearly a failure from the start, but those investors fell vulnerable to the hype and learned a valuable lesson from it. > Maybe the disrupters are being disrupted Another sample of breathless hyperbole that causes non-enthusiasts to cringe. Where is the disruption? Bitcoin is a smidgeon of a fraction of the commerce activity happening on the internet, and even with the rising price, bitcoin remains difficult and relatively unsafe to use (for the non-technical masses) and provides zero benefits for most people. Yes, peer to peer transmission of value is cool, I'm not saying bitcoin is useless, but for most people there is no reason to use bitcoin and there never will be. Contrast these facts on the ground with the never-ending blockchain hype and the result is overall disillusionment with blockchains in general.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Watch this video [1] of Bill Gates explaining the value of the Internet to David Letterman, where he's just not getting it at all. Bill's telling him the things it can do relative to David's interests, but he just sees those as problems that don't really exist because they've already been solved. It took decades before the Internet was useful to "the masses." I don't think there's some conspiracy among VCs, but I do think dismissing cryptocurrencies for the reasons you have is short-sighted. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ
coldtea 9y ago
>If I had a Bitcoin for every skeptic that posts a blog on why it can't work... And if I had a real dollar for everyone raving about some optimistic Bitcoin utopia... >This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies and I'm not sure why. Because they're a solution of a problem that doesn't exist? Or rather, whose actual solution is political, not technical. >Maybe the disrupters are being disrupted? Or maybe the fad is over and nobody much cared?
- nemo44x 9y ago
  Cars were a solution to a problem that didn't exist when considered a certain way. Texting seemed fine but yet here we are with many billions of market cap for messaging programs. I agree there's hype on the other side of it too - look at the recent ICO craze. I'm not saying that crypto isn't getting love. But that it isn't getting much love from a very particular place. A place that traditionally has never had a problem embracing a million odd ideas. A place with a culture where 90% failure is expected because that 10% success more than makes up for it. I just find it conspicuous.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Cars were a solution to a problem that didn't exist when considered a certain way. What way? Because people absolutely would have jumped at the chance to go from a place to another faster (and more comfortably) and had myriads of reasons to want to do so at any time in history. >I'm not saying that crypto isn't getting love. But that it isn't getting much love from a very particular place. A place that traditionally has never had a problem embracing a million odd ideas. A place with a culture where 90% failure is expected because that 10% success more than makes up for it. Well, is it getting much love from ANY other place though, except a small niche of enthusiasts?
    - mr_spothawk 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cjbenedikt 9y ago
"I do see a lot of enthusiasm from Eastern Europeans and all across Asia and they seem to be leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution." You may wish to also include hubs in London,UK and Zug,Switzerland
- nemo44x 9y ago
  Good point - I've noticed that too. With a certain lack of easily available funds for startups in the UK (compared to Silicon Valley) I can see why they'd embrace that.
  - Jenya_ 9y ago
    Also free state of New Hampshire: http://freekeene.com/2017/06/07/nh-governor-signs-bill-protecting-bitcoin-cryptocurrency-from-regulation/ http://freekeene.com/2017/06/07/nh-governor-signs-bill-prote...
seagreen 9y ago
> I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies I have a grudge against crypt-currencies because their proponents think: + Implementations don't need specs + PL theory is below them (static typing? referential transparency?) + Repeated million dollar hacks aren't a problem + There's no shame in lying about the core purpose of your product (Etherium: The implementation is the LAW. Except when we don't feel like it.) The sad thing is there are lots of cool things crypto currencies can do. They're great for moving money between countries (the banking system really needs to get its act together here). They're great for bug bounties. Someday they'll be good for contracts (bug-free code is possible if you take it seriously). Proponents should focus on those things ... but it's hard to take criticism seriously when you just want to pump up the value of your coins.
- jerguismi 9y ago
  > because their proponents think: Come on, you can't generalize things like that on a group such as cryptocurrency users. I think this generalization tells more about you than cryptocurrency proponents.
  - seagreen 9y ago
    I can, because I'm trying to explain a mindset, not make an argument. Maybe cryptocurrencies are the future, but there are reasons people are suspicious of them besides being silicon valley hegemons afraid of being disrupted.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
matt4077 9y ago
What's most off-putting for me is the political ideology that often accompanies bitcoin. It's a sort of Ayn Rand-inspired libertarian anarchy that, among other things, wishes to replace democratic institutions (like central banks or courts) with algorithms. It's too close to the conspiratorial and/or anti-establishment mindset to be comfortable.
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  > What's most off-putting for me [...] ... may be most appealing to others. > It's too close to the conspiratorial and/or anti-establishment mindset to be comfortable. "counterantidisintermediation"
zilchers 9y ago
I could be wrong, buy I didn't read this as an indictment of bitcoin, but rather blockchain as a platform. I'm very pro bitcoin, but I see it as really the only killer app for blockchain at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more, just haven't yet.
- nemo44x 9y ago
  That's totally fair. I see potential more than killer apps. But I think your attitude is fully defensible. What I find peculiar is a flat out, almost arrogant, rejection of blockchain (and what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding) from our technological elite. It's almost as if they are focusing on the wrong thing which to me is the nearly comical surge in "value" of some crypto currencies and the literal view that they are and can only be a store of value. There's plenty of scams and stupidity but there's also real potential I believe. I'm very possibly a naive fool too.
Chaebixi 9y ago
> This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies and I'm not sure why. For an industry that has constantly tried new things... There seems to be a pretty strong trend in Silicon Valley away from decentralization and towards centralized and controlled platforms. You can see this with IoT (e.g. your alarm clock bricks when the company's proprietary server is shut down), Social Networks, and "the Cloud" in general.
munchbunny 9y ago
My skepticism is not for Bitcoin itself, but blockchain in general. And not blockchain by itself, but actually the marketing hype that blockchain based startups are putting out. Blockchain is a cool algorithm that can be useful if the situation calls for it. Ethereum is a cool idea that I'm skeptical of, but hey, that's why they're doing it and I'm not. I have my own ongoing bets. But I'm seeing much more of the marketing department using "blockchain" as a catchphrase to turn heads. Specifically the heads that don't actually understand what blockchains are.

gjem97 9y ago

I think there are a couple of reasons behind a Silicon Valley disillusionment with Bitcoin. First, I think we're probably in a trough in the hype cycle right now. 3-4 years ago there were a lot of very high expectations amongst the Sand Hill Road crew. Bitcoin transaction volumes have been fairly flat (in native BTC terms [1]), whereas the VC crowd expected--required even--exponential growth. Second I think that people in the US--Silicon Valley included--have the benefit of good corporate governance on many of the centralized authorities that underpin the economy. SWIFT, DTCC, etc. People who live in countries where that is not the case have a lot more to gain from the technology. That may explain some of the relative popularity outside the US. [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?timespan=2years https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?...

nradov 9y ago

Bitcoin is mostly popular in Eastern Europe and Asia for transfer payments, fiat currency conversion, money laundering, and evading capital controls (getting money out of China). In the US if you're doing legitimate business with other US entities then there's really no need for such a thing. I can write a check or send a credit card payment or wire transfer to another US bank with a reasonably high level of trust that I won't be cheated, and that I have legal recourse if something goes wrong.

nemo44x 9y ago
I agree with this but you might be missing my point. Crypto as a store of value and the ability to transfer funds is nice and all but it's not the big picture. I think focusing on that you rightly see limited practical application in large parts of the world, such as the USA. The real revolution is in smart contracts and virtual machines that run on a blockchain and the ability to define ownership of a distributed organization to distribute profits accordingly. Blockchains on blockchains that having turing complete contracts that can guarantee there isn't even the ability to cheat the distributed, mainly anonymous organization participants. We aren't even close to that - it still takes an incredibly suspect ICO to raise money by selling stake for a top level coin in which they will inevitably have to convert partially to fiat and the vast potential for scams there. But the smart contract can be programmatically limited and only release funds over time and only continue to when certain events have taken place, and refund otherwise, etc. I guess I just see the vast potential here. More infrastructure supporting things is required and I'm not sure what that is but someone will discover these pieces. I see many more Asian and European groups trying to build these types of things today. Maybe it's out of necessity as well since there isn't a vast source of wealth available to fund these crazy, new ideas.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  > Maybe it's out of necessity as well since there isn't a vast source of wealth available to fund these crazy, new ideas. I think it's more out of necessity because of the lack of the comprehensive and (relatively) solid way that you can litigate in the USA and European Union when business dealings go south. Capitalism in the East and the Soviet Bloc countries is improving their lives but it's also shockingly unregulated, arguably similar to the US in the roaring 20's. Back then that meant contracts were enforced at the barrel of a gun, but while the contractual law litigation doesn't work well in those countries, they can handle murderers pretty well so instead they find the cryptocurrencies attractive because it gives them options to protect their assets in a way that is immune to violence or petty theft. At least that's my 0.02.
- root_axis 9y ago
  Please offer a practical example of how smart contracts are useful.

root_axis 9y ago

The source of the distaste is obvious: breathless hyperbole without much substance to show for it. Posts like yours are a great example of it. In this very comment you write: > leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution Unsubstantiated hype. Where is the revolution? A common thread among cryptocurrency enthusiasts is that the revolution is coming... except it never does. When you talk about revolution, non-enthusiasts roll their eyes. > Silicon Valley has been getting fat on the virtually unlimited venture capital power structure and sees this as a threat they've missed out on to their power. A classic argument from crypto enthusiasts who have to imagine that people are literally afraid of bitcoin. It's laughably condescending and absurd. Bitcoin is not a threat to anyone and most certainly not silicon valley billionaires. Besides, it's not as if SV VCs haven't invested money in bitcoin, it's just that bitcoin is a horrible investment, e.g. 21.co, 120 million in VC dollars flushed down the toilet for a business model that was clearly a failure from the start, but those investors fell vulnerable to the hype and learned a valuable lesson from it. > Maybe the disrupters are being disrupted Another sample of breathless hyperbole that causes non-enthusiasts to cringe. Where is the disruption? Bitcoin is a smidgeon of a fraction of the commerce activity happening on the internet, and even with the rising price, bitcoin remains difficult and relatively unsafe to use (for the non-technical masses) and provides zero benefits for most people. Yes, peer to peer transmission of value is cool, I'm not saying bitcoin is useless, but for most people there is no reason to use bitcoin and there never will be. Contrast these facts on the ground with the never-ending blockchain hype and the result is overall disillusionment with blockchains in general.

moduspol 9y ago
Watch this video [1] of Bill Gates explaining the value of the Internet to David Letterman, where he's just not getting it at all. Bill's telling him the things it can do relative to David's interests, but he just sees those as problems that don't really exist because they've already been solved. It took decades before the Internet was useful to "the masses." I don't think there's some conspiracy among VCs, but I do think dismissing cryptocurrencies for the reasons you have is short-sighted. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ

coldtea 9y ago

>If I had a Bitcoin for every skeptic that posts a blog on why it can't work... And if I had a real dollar for everyone raving about some optimistic Bitcoin utopia... >This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies and I'm not sure why. Because they're a solution of a problem that doesn't exist? Or rather, whose actual solution is political, not technical. >Maybe the disrupters are being disrupted? Or maybe the fad is over and nobody much cared?

nemo44x 9y ago
Cars were a solution to a problem that didn't exist when considered a certain way. Texting seemed fine but yet here we are with many billions of market cap for messaging programs. I agree there's hype on the other side of it too - look at the recent ICO craze. I'm not saying that crypto isn't getting love. But that it isn't getting much love from a very particular place. A place that traditionally has never had a problem embracing a million odd ideas. A place with a culture where 90% failure is expected because that 10% success more than makes up for it. I just find it conspicuous.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Cars were a solution to a problem that didn't exist when considered a certain way. What way? Because people absolutely would have jumped at the chance to go from a place to another faster (and more comfortably) and had myriads of reasons to want to do so at any time in history. >I'm not saying that crypto isn't getting love. But that it isn't getting much love from a very particular place. A place that traditionally has never had a problem embracing a million odd ideas. A place with a culture where 90% failure is expected because that 10% success more than makes up for it. Well, is it getting much love from ANY other place though, except a small niche of enthusiasts?
  - mr_spothawk 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cjbenedikt 9y ago

"I do see a lot of enthusiasm from Eastern Europeans and all across Asia and they seem to be leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution." You may wish to also include hubs in London,UK and Zug,Switzerland

nemo44x 9y ago
Good point - I've noticed that too. With a certain lack of easily available funds for startups in the UK (compared to Silicon Valley) I can see why they'd embrace that.
- Jenya_ 9y ago
  Also free state of New Hampshire: http://freekeene.com/2017/06/07/nh-governor-signs-bill-protecting-bitcoin-cryptocurrency-from-regulation/ http://freekeene.com/2017/06/07/nh-governor-signs-bill-prote...

seagreen 9y ago

> I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies I have a grudge against crypt-currencies because their proponents think: + Implementations don't need specs + PL theory is below them (static typing? referential transparency?) + Repeated million dollar hacks aren't a problem + There's no shame in lying about the core purpose of your product (Etherium: The implementation is the LAW. Except when we don't feel like it.) The sad thing is there are lots of cool things crypto currencies can do. They're great for moving money between countries (the banking system really needs to get its act together here). They're great for bug bounties. Someday they'll be good for contracts (bug-free code is possible if you take it seriously). Proponents should focus on those things ... but it's hard to take criticism seriously when you just want to pump up the value of your coins.

jerguismi 9y ago
> because their proponents think: Come on, you can't generalize things like that on a group such as cryptocurrency users. I think this generalization tells more about you than cryptocurrency proponents.
- seagreen 9y ago
  I can, because I'm trying to explain a mindset, not make an argument. Maybe cryptocurrencies are the future, but there are reasons people are suspicious of them besides being silicon valley hegemons afraid of being disrupted.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

matt4077 9y ago

What's most off-putting for me is the political ideology that often accompanies bitcoin. It's a sort of Ayn Rand-inspired libertarian anarchy that, among other things, wishes to replace democratic institutions (like central banks or courts) with algorithms. It's too close to the conspiratorial and/or anti-establishment mindset to be comfortable.

mr_spothawk 9y ago
> What's most off-putting for me [...] ... may be most appealing to others. > It's too close to the conspiratorial and/or anti-establishment mindset to be comfortable. "counterantidisintermediation"

zilchers 9y ago

I could be wrong, buy I didn't read this as an indictment of bitcoin, but rather blockchain as a platform. I'm very pro bitcoin, but I see it as really the only killer app for blockchain at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more, just haven't yet.

nemo44x 9y ago
That's totally fair. I see potential more than killer apps. But I think your attitude is fully defensible. What I find peculiar is a flat out, almost arrogant, rejection of blockchain (and what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding) from our technological elite. It's almost as if they are focusing on the wrong thing which to me is the nearly comical surge in "value" of some crypto currencies and the literal view that they are and can only be a store of value. There's plenty of scams and stupidity but there's also real potential I believe. I'm very possibly a naive fool too.

Chaebixi 9y ago

> This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies and I'm not sure why. For an industry that has constantly tried new things... There seems to be a pretty strong trend in Silicon Valley away from decentralization and towards centralized and controlled platforms. You can see this with IoT (e.g. your alarm clock bricks when the company's proprietary server is shut down), Social Networks, and "the Cloud" in general.

munchbunny 9y ago

My skepticism is not for Bitcoin itself, but blockchain in general. And not blockchain by itself, but actually the marketing hype that blockchain based startups are putting out. Blockchain is a cool algorithm that can be useful if the situation calls for it. Ethereum is a cool idea that I'm skeptical of, but hey, that's why they're doing it and I'm not. I have my own ongoing bets. But I'm seeing much more of the marketing department using "blockchain" as a catchphrase to turn heads. Specifically the heads that don't actually understand what blockchains are.