9 ms·

It's so tedious. I would have literally no idea that Bitcoins existed if it weren't for the flood of articles on HN. I don't understand - who are all the people

by SandB0x 15y ago

It's so tedious. I would have literally no idea that Bitcoins existed if it weren't for the flood of articles on HN. I don't understand - who are all the people who find this interesting or relevant?

ry0ohki 15y ago
It's at the intersection of a lot of things that people here find interesting. It's potentially a way to make money (some say ponzi scheme), it has a tech component, there's a anti-government component, etc... so I do believe a lot of people here do care about it. I mean I keep reading the damn articles too...
- tptacek 15y ago
  I think the kernel of contributors with a good-faith interest in bitcoin is smaller than you think it is, but either way: if bitcoin is getting multiples of the attention that the hiring thread is, I think most reasonable HN people can agree that it's being overrepresented. Lawyering over the site guidelines here isn't productive, since nobody (that I've seen) is arguing that bitcoin contravenes them directly.
  - talaketu 15y ago
    Do you think the "reasonable HN people" who can agree bitcoin is overrepresented are the same ones giving it all the attention? I for one find bitcoin far more "intellectually gratifying" than the hiring thread, which, with great respect to our host, has no interest for me.
  - phamilton 15y ago
    I wonder what percentage of HN readers are like me and just skim through the RSS feed every day. The top of the front page and the worthless submission make it into my Google Reader, and I read what I find interesting. Which is great, but at the same time I don't participate in upvoting articles. I would guess the more passive users would be more interested in the hiring thread rather than extremely trendy topics like bitcoin. But that's the tradeoff. I mostly consume rather than contribute, and therefore just take what I get.
  - Jd 15y ago
    The hiring thread is really only relevant to people looking for work, whereas the Bitcoin stuff, even if (imo) overhyped, is relevant to everyone. So I wouldn't argue it is overrepresented.
- adw 15y ago
  It's the perfect HN politics thread, practically speaking.
- joe_the_user 15y ago
  It is topical. There are good, solid reasons to believe that today's monetary and fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong-headed (I say that as a liberal closer to Paul Krugman than Ron Paul but sympathetic to some points made by each). The trouble is that those seeing the current problems look for pig-in-poke solutions rather than getting a solid understanding of what's happening. I would strongly recommend a critical reading of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin, Paul Krugman's blog and at least a university level text on Money and Banking. Also Charles Mackay's classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds also merits a look. Many people have an emotional reaction to money. This emotional reaction is part of what can make something "money-like" but if one wishes to understand what's going on, one needs to get beyond one's immediate reaction.
  - cynicalkane 15y ago
    That's a strange thing to say, because Krugman thinks they aren't 'printing' enough money. He says this repeatedly. (He also thinks there are additional, more radical changes that would be more effective, so he can come off as critical of QE because it's not enough.)
    - joe_the_user 15y ago
      I think it's good to get opinions from solid economists on the right and the left. And what I would say about recent US government policy is that it has been bad when measured by either Keynesian OR monetarist yardsticks. This is essentially because the massive growth of US financial obligations has gone ultimately to bailing out the large financial institutions rather than to any Keynesian job creation scheme. So essentially you have a situation where neither the free market nor government do anything to create jobs. Krugman can legitimately say the Federal budget deficit as such is not high. What massively inflating is the "other obligations" - Fannie Mae bonds, student loan bonds, etc. Here we have massive "inflationism" (as Doug Noland would term it). Krugman is a partisan so he's glossed over the unneeded spending of the bailout in later commentary but he did say "The longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis." IE, the bank bailout is a massive money-hole where banks have become "zombie" entities that are neither "private" in the sense of being disciplined by the market nor "public" in the sense of having any obligation to the public. The present situation is one where the money that could go to either a stimulus or a tax-cut is shoveled to these "zombies" instead.
tlrobinson 15y ago
I think Bitcoin is fascinating, even though I believe it won't succeed and is quite possibly a big pyramid scheme.
- swaits 15y ago
  How exactly might it be "a big pyramid scheme"?
  - tlrobinson 15y ago
    I'm no economist but my layman's understanding is this... Early adopters have a huge incentive to convince more people to use Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is successful the value of Bitcoins is guaranteed to increase because there's a finite number of them. Because of this, naturally people will hoard their Bitcoins rather than spend them. At some point people will realize the price of Bitcoins was driven up by speculation, and it will collapse. I'm not saying Bitcoin was intentionally devised as a pyramid scheme, but that's kind of what it looks like it's turning into.
    - swaits 15y ago
      You might be able to call it a speculative (digital) commodity bubble. And there's a possibility for this "commodity" to one day go "poof!" and disappear (gov't regulation, hackers, system failure, etc.) Only time will tell us those things. But I don't see how you could call it a pyramid scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
      - T-hawk 15y ago
        Bitcoin does share some aspects with a pyramid scheme. Bitcoin owners have incentive to recruit into the Bitcoin network. Bitcoins aren't really good for anything until merchants willing to accept Bitcoins also join the system. And the gain of the early adopters does come from what the later joiners bring, in the form of their goods and services that they exchange for Bitcoins. I guess where Bitcoin diverges from a pyramid is that there's no chain reaction of recruiting. Once a user spends a Bitcoin, it's done; he doesn't stand to continually gain further from what the Bitcoin recipient continues to do or from anyone else the recipient brings into the system.
eli 15y ago
I think it's an idea that appeals to a certain demographic of people who are very passionate about their interests. It actually reminds me of the Ron Paul phenomenon circa 2008. He was an interesting yet largely inconsequential politician... but his supporters were everywhere on the Internet. It also doesn't hurt that lots of people stand to gain financially from bitcoin hype.
- hugh3 15y ago
  There should be a pithy name for this effect, the tendency of small groups of committed supporters to dominate internet conversations. I am reminded of this "100 Best Novels" list (the reader's choice version, on the right): http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/ http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/ in which the top ten contains four books by Ayn Rand and three by L. Ron Hubbard.
VMG 15y ago
I don't understand the hate towards bitcoin and bitcoin news stories. Regardless if this implementation succeeds or not, the idea, the theory, the economics and the politics behind bitcoin are highly interesting. Bitcoin is perfect hacker news in my view.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Hiring thread. Pushed off front page. By bitcoin stories. Issue here: not complicated.
  - gwern 15y ago
    The hiring thread was pushed off by all the non-hiring-thread articles on the front page, was it not? Or does the front page selection algorithm do fascinating things which made only the bitcoin stories responsible? If the thread can't compete, why is the solution penalizing Bitcoin stories?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      My perception is that if you did the histogram over thread topics yesterday, bitcoin would show itself to be overrepresented. You can do the legwork on that, you can take my word for it, or you can ask me to take your word for it that I'm wrong; all are fine options.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        "Overrepresented" is a judgement call. You think bitcoins are overrepresented, but I think startup stuff is overrepresented. Neither of us is right or wrong. (Disclaimer: I do not own bitcoins)
        tptacek 15y ago
        I hope I speak for many people when I say that startup stuff can't be overrepresented on The Site Formerly Known As Startup News.
kyledr 15y ago
I suspect many articles are submitted and upvoted by early adopters of bitcoin who stand to profit off any increase in the adoption of bitcoin.
- jxcole 15y ago
  Except that most of the articles are critical of bitcoin, making others less likely to adopt it, losing those early adopters possible cash. Then again, the only thing worse than being talked badly about is not being talked about.
caf 15y ago
I find the economics dubious, but the technical aspects to be very interesting. In particular, the use of proof-of-work chains to create an eventually-consistent global view of a distributed database is quite interesting, and I think there's applications outside of currency.
atomicdog 15y ago
People who want to buy drugs and weaponry over the Tor network.
nicw 15y ago
Complaining about bitcoin articles on HN is like complaining about Ron Paul articles on Digg.

by SandB0x 15y ago

It's so tedious. I would have literally no idea that Bitcoins existed if it weren't for the flood of articles on HN. I don't understand - who are all the people who find this interesting or relevant?

ry0ohki 15y ago

It's at the intersection of a lot of things that people here find interesting. It's potentially a way to make money (some say ponzi scheme), it has a tech component, there's a anti-government component, etc... so I do believe a lot of people here do care about it. I mean I keep reading the damn articles too...

tptacek 15y ago
I think the kernel of contributors with a good-faith interest in bitcoin is smaller than you think it is, but either way: if bitcoin is getting multiples of the attention that the hiring thread is, I think most reasonable HN people can agree that it's being overrepresented. Lawyering over the site guidelines here isn't productive, since nobody (that I've seen) is arguing that bitcoin contravenes them directly.
- talaketu 15y ago
  Do you think the "reasonable HN people" who can agree bitcoin is overrepresented are the same ones giving it all the attention? I for one find bitcoin far more "intellectually gratifying" than the hiring thread, which, with great respect to our host, has no interest for me.
- phamilton 15y ago
  I wonder what percentage of HN readers are like me and just skim through the RSS feed every day. The top of the front page and the worthless submission make it into my Google Reader, and I read what I find interesting. Which is great, but at the same time I don't participate in upvoting articles. I would guess the more passive users would be more interested in the hiring thread rather than extremely trendy topics like bitcoin. But that's the tradeoff. I mostly consume rather than contribute, and therefore just take what I get.
- Jd 15y ago
  The hiring thread is really only relevant to people looking for work, whereas the Bitcoin stuff, even if (imo) overhyped, is relevant to everyone. So I wouldn't argue it is overrepresented.
adw 15y ago
It's the perfect HN politics thread, practically speaking.
joe_the_user 15y ago
It is topical. There are good, solid reasons to believe that today's monetary and fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong-headed (I say that as a liberal closer to Paul Krugman than Ron Paul but sympathetic to some points made by each). The trouble is that those seeing the current problems look for pig-in-poke solutions rather than getting a solid understanding of what's happening. I would strongly recommend a critical reading of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin, Paul Krugman's blog and at least a university level text on Money and Banking. Also Charles Mackay's classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds also merits a look. Many people have an emotional reaction to money. This emotional reaction is part of what can make something "money-like" but if one wishes to understand what's going on, one needs to get beyond one's immediate reaction.
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  That's a strange thing to say, because Krugman thinks they aren't 'printing' enough money. He says this repeatedly. (He also thinks there are additional, more radical changes that would be more effective, so he can come off as critical of QE because it's not enough.)
  - joe_the_user 15y ago
    I think it's good to get opinions from solid economists on the right and the left. And what I would say about recent US government policy is that it has been bad when measured by either Keynesian OR monetarist yardsticks. This is essentially because the massive growth of US financial obligations has gone ultimately to bailing out the large financial institutions rather than to any Keynesian job creation scheme. So essentially you have a situation where neither the free market nor government do anything to create jobs. Krugman can legitimately say the Federal budget deficit as such is not high. What massively inflating is the "other obligations" - Fannie Mae bonds, student loan bonds, etc. Here we have massive "inflationism" (as Doug Noland would term it). Krugman is a partisan so he's glossed over the unneeded spending of the bailout in later commentary but he did say "The longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis." IE, the bank bailout is a massive money-hole where banks have become "zombie" entities that are neither "private" in the sense of being disciplined by the market nor "public" in the sense of having any obligation to the public. The present situation is one where the money that could go to either a stimulus or a tax-cut is shoveled to these "zombies" instead.

tlrobinson 15y ago

I think Bitcoin is fascinating, even though I believe it won't succeed and is quite possibly a big pyramid scheme.

swaits 15y ago
How exactly might it be "a big pyramid scheme"?
- tlrobinson 15y ago
  I'm no economist but my layman's understanding is this... Early adopters have a huge incentive to convince more people to use Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is successful the value of Bitcoins is guaranteed to increase because there's a finite number of them. Because of this, naturally people will hoard their Bitcoins rather than spend them. At some point people will realize the price of Bitcoins was driven up by speculation, and it will collapse. I'm not saying Bitcoin was intentionally devised as a pyramid scheme, but that's kind of what it looks like it's turning into.
  - swaits 15y ago
    You might be able to call it a speculative (digital) commodity bubble. And there's a possibility for this "commodity" to one day go "poof!" and disappear (gov't regulation, hackers, system failure, etc.) Only time will tell us those things. But I don't see how you could call it a pyramid scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
    - T-hawk 15y ago
      Bitcoin does share some aspects with a pyramid scheme. Bitcoin owners have incentive to recruit into the Bitcoin network. Bitcoins aren't really good for anything until merchants willing to accept Bitcoins also join the system. And the gain of the early adopters does come from what the later joiners bring, in the form of their goods and services that they exchange for Bitcoins. I guess where Bitcoin diverges from a pyramid is that there's no chain reaction of recruiting. Once a user spends a Bitcoin, it's done; he doesn't stand to continually gain further from what the Bitcoin recipient continues to do or from anyone else the recipient brings into the system.

eli 15y ago

I think it's an idea that appeals to a certain demographic of people who are very passionate about their interests. It actually reminds me of the Ron Paul phenomenon circa 2008. He was an interesting yet largely inconsequential politician... but his supporters were everywhere on the Internet. It also doesn't hurt that lots of people stand to gain financially from bitcoin hype.

hugh3 15y ago
There should be a pithy name for this effect, the tendency of small groups of committed supporters to dominate internet conversations. I am reminded of this "100 Best Novels" list (the reader's choice version, on the right): http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/ http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/ in which the top ten contains four books by Ayn Rand and three by L. Ron Hubbard.

VMG 15y ago

I don't understand the hate towards bitcoin and bitcoin news stories. Regardless if this implementation succeeds or not, the idea, the theory, the economics and the politics behind bitcoin are highly interesting. Bitcoin is perfect hacker news in my view.

tptacek 15y ago
Hiring thread. Pushed off front page. By bitcoin stories. Issue here: not complicated.
- gwern 15y ago
  The hiring thread was pushed off by all the non-hiring-thread articles on the front page, was it not? Or does the front page selection algorithm do fascinating things which made only the bitcoin stories responsible? If the thread can't compete, why is the solution penalizing Bitcoin stories?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    My perception is that if you did the histogram over thread topics yesterday, bitcoin would show itself to be overrepresented. You can do the legwork on that, you can take my word for it, or you can ask me to take your word for it that I'm wrong; all are fine options.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      "Overrepresented" is a judgement call. You think bitcoins are overrepresented, but I think startup stuff is overrepresented. Neither of us is right or wrong. (Disclaimer: I do not own bitcoins)
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I hope I speak for many people when I say that startup stuff can't be overrepresented on The Site Formerly Known As Startup News.

kyledr 15y ago

I suspect many articles are submitted and upvoted by early adopters of bitcoin who stand to profit off any increase in the adoption of bitcoin.

jxcole 15y ago
Except that most of the articles are critical of bitcoin, making others less likely to adopt it, losing those early adopters possible cash. Then again, the only thing worse than being talked badly about is not being talked about.

caf 15y ago

I find the economics dubious, but the technical aspects to be very interesting. In particular, the use of proof-of-work chains to create an eventually-consistent global view of a distributed database is quite interesting, and I think there's applications outside of currency.

atomicdog 15y ago

People who want to buy drugs and weaponry over the Tor network.

nicw 15y ago

Complaining about bitcoin articles on HN is like complaining about Ron Paul articles on Digg.