12 ms·

This comment applies to any revolutionary technology. Let's substitute cryptocurrencies with "the internet" in 1999: - people trading 'stocks' in the same way

by josu 8y ago

This comment applies to any revolutionary technology. Let's substitute cryptocurrencies with "the internet" in 1999: - people trading 'stocks' in the same way Pokemon / WWF kids trade cards. - thinking this is actually a long-term 'investment' strategy (well its idiots trading with each other ...) - to top it off, siphoning off capital and giving a load of shitty excuses 'it could be like Detroit at the beginning of the 20th century. Many people were left holding pets.com stocks, but others were left holding Amazon stocks. Most of the things that you point out are truisms that the people that have been in the bitcoin space for a few years also see. I would suggest you make an effort, and try to see through all the bullshit projects or outright scams, and you will see that there is real value in what bitcoin and a handful of other projects are trying to build. If you want to avoid the current noise, read what cypherpunks were writing about in 1998: http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/12/msg00203.html http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/12/msg00203.html

lele92n 8y ago
You’ve generalized to a point of nonsense, I’m afraid Amazon and Pets.com didn’t possess truly novel tech, to a trained eye I don’t think truly novel tech matters much to most people. I think ease of utilitarian life is good enough We don’t need the energy sucking monstrosity that are the data centers we have if we looked at different models of commerce This is just getting people to be tribal over something that appears magical but will fade out Goodhart’s Law, Buffets Institutional imperative, and similar ideas, will win out. Human quest for novelty will end bitcoin and its tribal urges for nostalgia and fetishizing their LEGO train Humanity doesn’t care to ogle dead men’s workshops showcasing their individual brilliance for long
acdha 8y ago
The difference is that the Internet had clear useful applications at that point and billions of dollars in real business (not just speculation) was happening annually. Yes, there were plenty VC misfires with no plausible path to profitability — my favorite was cement.com, with free shipping! — but there were tons of existing businesses finding significant value from it and new companies like Amazon, eBay, Travelocity, etc. who were making money on each sale. The daytraders were indeed chasing bad deals but anyone who paid attention to basic market fundamentals wasn't buying those stocks[1]. 10 years into Bitcoin there's still no reason for someone to buy in other than speculation. It's not competitive as a currency and the current “store of value” pivot is undercut by the lack of fundamentals. One particular reason why that comparison doesn't work is that if you had, say, bought AMZN in 1997 even if the stock didn't do great you owned part of a profitable book seller which could carry on just fine even if it never saw rapid growth. Bitcoin doesn't have any value other than its current popularity so there's no floor on the losses if people switch to something else. 1. I actually sat in on some calls with Pets.com around the time one of our clients was thinking about buying them and it was quickly evident that they had no strategy beyond cashing out at the IPO.
- vvpan 8y ago
  Saying that there is no reason to buy a crypto-currency is absolutely false. You probably live in a Western country where you mostly trust the banking system and stability of your own currency. That is not the case in many other countries. You will probably say that most crypto-currencies are extremely volatile, which is true, but there are already existing and active projects that have addressed that issue, for example the DAI stablecoin. In Russia there's been a banking crisis recently, stablecoins, tokens tied to commodities and such would have directly benefited people keeping their money in these opaque and vulnerable institutions.
  - acdha 8y ago
    Countries without stable currencies tend to use things like USD which have stable values rather than wild fluctuations. That’s a product of a social system and years of practice, not hand waving about magic real-soon-now technology. In your Russian example, the value would be in the link to the commodity rather than whether it’s a printed bill, entry in a database, or record in a block. If that’s honest, any of them will work and if it’s not, none of them will. Besides, if I lived in Venezuela or Russia, would I really want to record my black market activities in a public ledger which is hard to disavow?
- ryanlol 8y ago
  I get lots of bitcoin payments. >10 years into Bitcoin there's still no reason for someone to buy in other than speculation This is simply completely wrong, perhaps you should research the subject a little bit more.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - acdha 8y ago
    Perhaps you could list a legal reason — not the marketing pitch we've all seen for the last decade but something where it makes financial sense to favor it? I’m not saying it can’t be used but just that there aren’t many reasons other than speculation or an ideological stance. If I was, say, the corner coffee shop what would balance out the extra fees, delays, and lack of fraud protection?
TheDong 8y ago
Pointing out that other revolutionary tech looked stupid to some people at first doesn't mean that things that look stupid are going to be revolutionary. You could just as easily point out that investing in beanie babies looked stupid, or any of a number of other totally failed ideas seemed stupid. Most things fail. Your comparison adds no meaningful information and is attempting to mislead based on fallacious reasoning.
- josu 8y ago
  I think you missed the point I was trying to make; I was mentioning that OP has made a too broad of a statement which could apply to any successful technology too. I wasn't trying to make any comparisons, since these are two very different situations.
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    I think you were unclear - I also thought you were saying that bitcoin was like the successful tech you mentioned.
    - josu 8y ago
      Thanks for pointing it out. Comparing the current bitcoin space to the '99 internet is a common so I should have been more clear. I think that the comparison to the 70s internet is better, but that doesn't work that well to explain current valuations.
UncleMeat 8y ago
But people aren't telling me to invest in btc companies. They are telling me to invest in btc. That is fundamentally different.
- casefields 8y ago
  No ones forcing you to do anything.
mindfulplay 8y ago
The key difference is there is no BitInternet craze. In a funny way, there was the craze around PetSmart and other dotcom 'crap' which is very similar to the FOMO-naivety that goes on in this Bitcoin world...
Havoc 8y ago
The fact that you think cryptocurrencies and internet is comparable pretty much says it all. If you had said blockchain vs internet then it might have made for a marginally plausible line of reasoning. Blockchain at least has some proven real life applications that scale.

by josu 8y ago

lele92n 8y ago

You’ve generalized to a point of nonsense, I’m afraid Amazon and Pets.com didn’t possess truly novel tech, to a trained eye I don’t think truly novel tech matters much to most people. I think ease of utilitarian life is good enough We don’t need the energy sucking monstrosity that are the data centers we have if we looked at different models of commerce This is just getting people to be tribal over something that appears magical but will fade out Goodhart’s Law, Buffets Institutional imperative, and similar ideas, will win out. Human quest for novelty will end bitcoin and its tribal urges for nostalgia and fetishizing their LEGO train Humanity doesn’t care to ogle dead men’s workshops showcasing their individual brilliance for long

acdha 8y ago

The difference is that the Internet had clear useful applications at that point and billions of dollars in real business (not just speculation) was happening annually. Yes, there were plenty VC misfires with no plausible path to profitability — my favorite was cement.com, with free shipping! — but there were tons of existing businesses finding significant value from it and new companies like Amazon, eBay, Travelocity, etc. who were making money on each sale. The daytraders were indeed chasing bad deals but anyone who paid attention to basic market fundamentals wasn't buying those stocks[1]. 10 years into Bitcoin there's still no reason for someone to buy in other than speculation. It's not competitive as a currency and the current “store of value” pivot is undercut by the lack of fundamentals. One particular reason why that comparison doesn't work is that if you had, say, bought AMZN in 1997 even if the stock didn't do great you owned part of a profitable book seller which could carry on just fine even if it never saw rapid growth. Bitcoin doesn't have any value other than its current popularity so there's no floor on the losses if people switch to something else. 1. I actually sat in on some calls with Pets.com around the time one of our clients was thinking about buying them and it was quickly evident that they had no strategy beyond cashing out at the IPO.

vvpan 8y ago
Saying that there is no reason to buy a crypto-currency is absolutely false. You probably live in a Western country where you mostly trust the banking system and stability of your own currency. That is not the case in many other countries. You will probably say that most crypto-currencies are extremely volatile, which is true, but there are already existing and active projects that have addressed that issue, for example the DAI stablecoin. In Russia there's been a banking crisis recently, stablecoins, tokens tied to commodities and such would have directly benefited people keeping their money in these opaque and vulnerable institutions.
- acdha 8y ago
  Countries without stable currencies tend to use things like USD which have stable values rather than wild fluctuations. That’s a product of a social system and years of practice, not hand waving about magic real-soon-now technology. In your Russian example, the value would be in the link to the commodity rather than whether it’s a printed bill, entry in a database, or record in a block. If that’s honest, any of them will work and if it’s not, none of them will. Besides, if I lived in Venezuela or Russia, would I really want to record my black market activities in a public ledger which is hard to disavow?
ryanlol 8y ago
I get lots of bitcoin payments. >10 years into Bitcoin there's still no reason for someone to buy in other than speculation This is simply completely wrong, perhaps you should research the subject a little bit more.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- acdha 8y ago
  Perhaps you could list a legal reason — not the marketing pitch we've all seen for the last decade but something where it makes financial sense to favor it? I’m not saying it can’t be used but just that there aren’t many reasons other than speculation or an ideological stance. If I was, say, the corner coffee shop what would balance out the extra fees, delays, and lack of fraud protection?

TheDong 8y ago

Pointing out that other revolutionary tech looked stupid to some people at first doesn't mean that things that look stupid are going to be revolutionary. You could just as easily point out that investing in beanie babies looked stupid, or any of a number of other totally failed ideas seemed stupid. Most things fail. Your comparison adds no meaningful information and is attempting to mislead based on fallacious reasoning.

josu 8y ago
I think you missed the point I was trying to make; I was mentioning that OP has made a too broad of a statement which could apply to any successful technology too. I wasn't trying to make any comparisons, since these are two very different situations.
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  I think you were unclear - I also thought you were saying that bitcoin was like the successful tech you mentioned.
  - josu 8y ago
    Thanks for pointing it out. Comparing the current bitcoin space to the '99 internet is a common so I should have been more clear. I think that the comparison to the 70s internet is better, but that doesn't work that well to explain current valuations.

UncleMeat 8y ago

But people aren't telling me to invest in btc companies. They are telling me to invest in btc. That is fundamentally different.

casefields 8y ago
No ones forcing you to do anything.

mindfulplay 8y ago

The key difference is there is no BitInternet craze. In a funny way, there was the craze around PetSmart and other dotcom 'crap' which is very similar to the FOMO-naivety that goes on in this Bitcoin world...

Havoc 8y ago

The fact that you think cryptocurrencies and internet is comparable pretty much says it all. If you had said blockchain vs internet then it might have made for a marginally plausible line of reasoning. Blockchain at least has some proven real life applications that scale.