57 ms·

Bitcoin has been around for a while now and it has been down talked quite a bit on HN whenever it comes up. It now has a larger market cap as Facebook - so the

by kerng 6y ago

Bitcoin has been around for a while now and it has been down talked quite a bit on HN whenever it comes up. It now has a larger market cap as Facebook - so the market sees more value in Bitcoin than Facebook. The sentiment on HN seem still be mostly against it whenever it comes up. I wonder why that is? I'd imagine 10 years from now Bitcoin will still be around and likely much larger than today - I'm less positive about Facebook outlook and posture in 10 years actually. I wonder what will change the opinion of the skeptics?

soared 6y ago
Uneducated hot take: Bitcoin is facebook. For anything you want to do with btc|fb, there is something else that does it better. But not enough people use those other things, they aren't trustworthy, they're more difficult to use, too fragmented, I already use x why would I use y, nobody knows about them, etc.
giantandroids 6y ago
There are often arguments (with merit) over Bitcoins wasteful use of energy, but I expect a lot of it is from hindight of 'why the hell did I not buy some'.
- whelming_wave 6y ago
  One can think both that it's a shame they aren't rich because of Bitcoin and that it's a horrific waste of energy, I don't think one really takes away from the other.
- kerng 6y ago
  The energy usage (and its side effects to the environment) seems like a problematic and valid aspect, and it seems that is the price to pay to have truly permissionless, decentralized system (proof of work). But I imagine there is also a lot of opportunity for innovation in that realm to move to clean solutions for instance.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Just virtue signaling. If bitcoin replaces gold it would be a net win for the environment. And btc uses mostly renewables and excess energy. Also there are many other random applications that use more energy than btc like HFT, gaming, video rendering, but we dont persecute individual liberty, expression, or advancement. A society moving forward simply takes more energy. The solution is to tackle the entire energy space, not persecute energy users which is a band-aid "solution" and counter to a progressive society.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    ... All being equal, it probably isn't good to build a system of distributed ledger whose entire trustworthiness and participation depends upon "proof of energy usage". Pushing one transaction through Bitcoin effectively uses about half the electricity that a typical US household uses in a month.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Going to need you to walk me through that calculation you came up with.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        Bitcoin network uses about 120 TWh of electricity per year. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 It accomplishes about 7 TPS. 120 terawatts * hours / 1 year * 1 second / 7 in kilowatt hours = 543 kilowatts * hours. Average US household electricity usage is about 877 kWh per month https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 Of course, increasing Bitcoin prices will likely increase the amount of resources dedicated to mining, too...
      - rkagerer 6y ago
        I was skeptical too, but approached it from this end: At the moment, one Bitcoin transaction costs me about $10 in network fees. The party pushing it through gets, say, another $90 or so in reward for mining it (6.25 BTC reward per block ÷ 3500 transactions per block × $50000 per BTC).
- urda 6y ago
  It's factually a horrific waste of energy. People pointing that out are not looking back in "hindsight", but are actually concerned with the damages it is doing to our planet.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    If its so bad then why does Elon Musk himself believe in BTC? - mr green man. Its obviously hyperbole and one dimensional thinking.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      Have you delegated all thinking on all topics to Elon Musk? This seems like a blatant appeal to authority. If it's not bad, provide reasons it's not bad. Throwing out Elon Musk's name does not provide any actual argument for your position.
      - trident5000 6y ago
        I already listed those reasons in my comment also in this thread. Maybe dont jump to conclusions. Just pointing out different people have different opinions but the frantic people seem to be shortsighted in my opinion and those of brightest on such issues. I think Jack Dorsey knows how it works as well but is not startled. Perhaps people yelling at the sky are missing a thing or 2.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      I am, in fact, very disappointed in Elon Musk.
      - trident5000 6y ago
        Why? Because an application thats important to people uses mostly renewable energy?
        Wowfunhappy 6y ago
osrec 6y ago
The question is why is BTC getting so much interest, when it serves little real purpose to most people. Facebook on the other hand, is deeply entrenched in half the world's daily entertainment routine. I understand the hype around BTC, but I don't know if it'll all come crumbling down if a few big fish get irked and decide to liquidate.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
My opinion of Bitcoin will change when it stops using more electricity than entire countries, for something Visa can do for comparatively nothing. I would hold the same opinion of any technology which used so much energy when there was a less wasteful alternative. I also happen to be skeptical of Bitcoin's long-term outlook, but that's not why I'm actively against it as a technology. If it wasn't for the planet, I'd say people could put their money wherever they wanted. Actually, I still think they can—as long as they're willing to pay for the negative externalities they create. But then no one would actually use Bitcoin...
- aphextron 6y ago
  >My opinion of Bitcoin will change when it stops using more electricity than entire countries, for something Visa can do for comparatively nothing. To be fair, Bitcoin does not do what Visa does. Visa uses trust in existing institutions to accomplish transactions. Bitcoin mining creates trust out of electricity. And trust is a valuable resource, no different than any other form of value creation.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    There are plenty of other stores of trust. You could buy index funds or government bonds or any number of other things, and the price will be less volatile than Bitcoin to boot. I know a lot of Bitcoin enthusiasts are skeptical of traditional institutions, but really, if all the world's governments go bankrupt you're going to have bigger problems. Heck, if you must use a cryptocurrency, at least pick one of the newer ones which aren't as inefficient as Bitcoin!
    - judge2020 6y ago
      > You could buy index funds or government bonds or any number of other things, and the price will be less volatile than Bitcoin to boot. That's not trust, that's security in the value of your money. BTC can never be taken from you unless someone either breaks crypto or steals your wallet secret key. The U.S. dollar is backed by the federal reserve, so while I don't think the U.S. is going to have a revolution that destroys or inflates the dollar anytime soon, there's a possibility of such a thing happening. BTC has an actual limited amount that can be distributed (like gold) so it'll always have value.
r32a_ 6y ago
Many people on HN who talk down against Bitcoin are indoctrinated into the current ideology. Anything that goes against the current ideology is refuted, ignored, dismissed as fads, bubbles, scams..etc Ideology is a powerful thing and it's hard to break out of it. If you want to learn more about this concept, you should research about Slavoj Zizek's work on ideology. Bitcoin is not just technology, but a multi-faceted ideology founded around cypherpunks ideas, liberty, sovereignty, austrian economic system, free markets. Even the way Bitcoin is developed (slow, methodical) and Bitcoin apps are built is different to SV way which is move fast, break things, iterate.
- seibelj 6y ago
  I invested, work in, and continue to believe in bitcoin / Ethereum / crypto ecosystem because of my beliefs in exactly those things. Austrian economics made so much sense to me the first time I sat down and properly studied it. Keynesian / mainstream economics was always shoved down my throat but it came down to “there is a man with a money printer and when shit gets bad he will print money” which made no sense to me logically. I think many of society’s problems come down to easy money which has caused enormous malinvestment and warped incentives. I didn’t buy crypto as a Ponzi. I bought it because it makes perfect sense if you have a libertarian / Austrian / free market / individualist / free people mindset. Which I do!
- aphextron 6y ago
  >Bitcoin is not just technology, but a multi-faceted ideology founded around cypherpunks ideas, liberty, sovereignty, austrian economic system, free markets. This is the narrative that people use to make it seem more savory. But it's just about the money. No one cares enough about any of those ideals for them to be a meaningful part of what Bitcoin is. Those ideas have existed forever in the back channels of the web, and are memorialized in the endless plethora of abandoned decentralized technologies that were never profitable. It's money, plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with that, but for whatever reason the crypto community has some kind of chip on their shoulder about hiding the fact that it is just about profit.
  - r32a_ 6y ago
elliottinvent 6y ago
Facebook has been down talked plenty here too so I’m not sure it’s a good comparator. A lot of the proponents of Bitcoin are pushing it in the same way people push MLM and ponzi schemes and for the same reasons, which is unfortunate. For many, including me, it seems a great shame to be consuming so much computing power (and energy) to solve increasingly difficult mathematical problems for no human benefit when the same effort might be used for better ends.
- trident5000 6y ago
  People waste their entire lives working for the govt to print away everything they have saved for - wasted energy. I think its worth it and still a noble cause.
danhak 6y ago
I agree that Bitcoin is here to stay and has utility. The issues that I have are 1) It is volatile and impossible to value; any price is as reasonable as any other. What is my benchmark here? The amount of USD in circulation? The value of outstanding U.S. Government debt? (if it is indeed going to replace Treasuries as reserve currency / safe haven asset). Can someone more knowledgable than me chime in? 2) Its utility as a currency is inversely proportional to its utility as a speculative instrument. And speculation appears to be 99% of the interest and discussion.
- anonisko 6y ago
  All currencies are volatile against other currencies. Volatility of currency goes away (or rather, gets abstracted) within the context of locales where that currency is used as a unit of account and goods and services are directly priced in it. So far, this hasn't happened yet for bitcoin, because there is no central authority forcing it upon people. Nobody knows if, when, where, or how this unit of account transition will happen. Maybe Tesla prices the new roadster or cybertruck in bitcoin as a publicity stunt that starts a cascade. Maybe some country with a failing currency decides to issue a new currency backed with bitcoin, or their people start using it without permission and pricing emerges organically. Maybe Iran, Turkey, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba start using it as their currency for international trade. Or maybe it never will become a unit of account, and bitcoin will just find a role as an inflation hedge and long term store of value like gold, which is currently 10x as valuable as bitcoin.
totalZero 6y ago
Market cap is a bad way to judge the real value of anything. If you were to sell 50% of all the bitcoin floating around in the world, how much would you impact the price? Would it remain above 40k? 30k? 20k? What's the cost basis of all the bitcoin holdings in the world? If the US government cracks down on bitcoin purchases by public companies, what happens to the price of bitcoin? Skeptics aren't skeptical because of lacking adoption, so they aren't going to be swayed by increasing adoption either. Also, Facebook isn't some magical Rubicon for asset valuation. It's a company that sells ads. One of the fundamental problems with "things are going good, what could go wrong?" is that inevitably, every crash is clearest in retrospect.
- worker767424 6y ago
  Would you rather buy all the shares of Facebook for $1 or all the bitcoin?
  - Sinbe 6y ago
    Shares of Facebook for sure. Bitcoin's value is in the network effect, you can easily create a bitcoin clone but it's worth nothing if you are the only one hogging all the coins.
    - rkagerer 6y ago
      Agree but for a slightly different reason. If I acquired all the Facebook shares I could do the world a favor and kill off the company.
      - worker767424 6y ago
        It's hard to make that call when you're making life-changing money every day. Alternatively, you could completely change the company's focus.
xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
>I wonder why that is? Because it tops out at four transactions per second while consuming as much power as Argentina. It's not rocket science. >I wonder what will change the opinion of the skeptics? All of the following are necessary but not sufficient: 1. Bitcoin users must panic when Bitcoin experiences deflation rather than celebrating it going TO THE MOOOOOON! 2. Someone has to find a way to make it scale. 3. Tether must be audited.
jb775 6y ago
> I'd imagine 10 years from now Bitcoin will still be around and likely much larger than today I agree it will be around in 10 years, but think it will always be highly volatile. Between now and then, I could see it being worth much more and worth much less than today's price.
- arbol 6y ago
  Hopefully we will see some stabilisation but the current rally will definitely come crashing down. Everyone comparing gold to BTC should take a look at long term gold price charts. Spikey. https://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd_x.png https://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd_x.p...
graeme 6y ago
Bitcoin was actually enormously popular on hacker news in the early years. Its popularity has soured here over time but it started popular. I think the opinion changed from favourable to skeptical as no use cases emerged.
- codehalo 6y ago
  I've been on HN since bitcoins inception. There was NEVER an instance where this site had a favorable opinion of bitcoin. NEVER.
MrPowers 6y ago
I don't know if Bitcoin will outperform Facebook, but can explain why they're fundamentally different assets. Facebook is a "productive asset". It's a business that sells to customers and generated 29 billion in profit in 2020. Bitcoin, like gold, is not a productive asset. It doesn't pay interest (like bonds), dividends (like stocks), or rental income (like real estate). Warren Buffett has a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtITDtZPYEw&amp%3Bab_channel=CNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtITDtZPYEw&amp%3Bab_channel...
- tarsinge 6y ago
  One can argue that Facebook is detrimental to society, so it's worse than an unproductive asset. It's strange seeing people take an environmental stance against Bitcoin, and then blindly defending unethical money making schemes, as long as it's a traditional company.
- jsutton 6y ago
  What about growth stocks that don't pay a dividend. Not a productive asset?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MarkMc 6y ago
I'm a skeptic, as I would certainly prefer to hold $10,000 of FB shares than $10,000 worth of Bitcoin. The problem is that Bitcoin is not productive, so it only makes sense to own it if someone will pay more for it in future. But how do I estimate that without any long-term price history? I can see that the demand for gold increased in, say, 7 of the last 10 decades so that would give me some confidence about demand over the next decade. So to answer your question: the only thing I can see that will change my opinion of Bitcoin is if demand generally increases over many decades.
pmlnr 6y ago
> I wonder what will change the opinion of the skeptics? Nothing. It's an ugly system, for soulless players: it's eating up hardware production capacities, energy supply, and the money of the ordinary folks.

by kerng 6y ago

soared 6y ago

Uneducated hot take: Bitcoin is facebook. For anything you want to do with btc|fb, there is something else that does it better. But not enough people use those other things, they aren't trustworthy, they're more difficult to use, too fragmented, I already use x why would I use y, nobody knows about them, etc.

giantandroids 6y ago

There are often arguments (with merit) over Bitcoins wasteful use of energy, but I expect a lot of it is from hindight of 'why the hell did I not buy some'.

whelming_wave 6y ago
One can think both that it's a shame they aren't rich because of Bitcoin and that it's a horrific waste of energy, I don't think one really takes away from the other.
kerng 6y ago
The energy usage (and its side effects to the environment) seems like a problematic and valid aspect, and it seems that is the price to pay to have truly permissionless, decentralized system (proof of work). But I imagine there is also a lot of opportunity for innovation in that realm to move to clean solutions for instance.
trident5000 6y ago
Just virtue signaling. If bitcoin replaces gold it would be a net win for the environment. And btc uses mostly renewables and excess energy. Also there are many other random applications that use more energy than btc like HFT, gaming, video rendering, but we dont persecute individual liberty, expression, or advancement. A society moving forward simply takes more energy. The solution is to tackle the entire energy space, not persecute energy users which is a band-aid "solution" and counter to a progressive society.
- mlyle 6y ago
  ... All being equal, it probably isn't good to build a system of distributed ledger whose entire trustworthiness and participation depends upon "proof of energy usage". Pushing one transaction through Bitcoin effectively uses about half the electricity that a typical US household uses in a month.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Going to need you to walk me through that calculation you came up with.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Bitcoin network uses about 120 TWh of electricity per year. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 It accomplishes about 7 TPS. 120 terawatts * hours / 1 year * 1 second / 7 in kilowatt hours = 543 kilowatts * hours. Average US household electricity usage is about 877 kWh per month https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 Of course, increasing Bitcoin prices will likely increase the amount of resources dedicated to mining, too...
    - rkagerer 6y ago
      I was skeptical too, but approached it from this end: At the moment, one Bitcoin transaction costs me about $10 in network fees. The party pushing it through gets, say, another $90 or so in reward for mining it (6.25 BTC reward per block ÷ 3500 transactions per block × $50000 per BTC).
urda 6y ago
It's factually a horrific waste of energy. People pointing that out are not looking back in "hindsight", but are actually concerned with the damages it is doing to our planet.
- trident5000 6y ago
  If its so bad then why does Elon Musk himself believe in BTC? - mr green man. Its obviously hyperbole and one dimensional thinking.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    Have you delegated all thinking on all topics to Elon Musk? This seems like a blatant appeal to authority. If it's not bad, provide reasons it's not bad. Throwing out Elon Musk's name does not provide any actual argument for your position.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      I already listed those reasons in my comment also in this thread. Maybe dont jump to conclusions. Just pointing out different people have different opinions but the frantic people seem to be shortsighted in my opinion and those of brightest on such issues. I think Jack Dorsey knows how it works as well but is not startled. Perhaps people yelling at the sky are missing a thing or 2.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    I am, in fact, very disappointed in Elon Musk.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Why? Because an application thats important to people uses mostly renewable energy?
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago

osrec 6y ago

The question is why is BTC getting so much interest, when it serves little real purpose to most people. Facebook on the other hand, is deeply entrenched in half the world's daily entertainment routine. I understand the hype around BTC, but I don't know if it'll all come crumbling down if a few big fish get irked and decide to liquidate.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

My opinion of Bitcoin will change when it stops using more electricity than entire countries, for something Visa can do for comparatively nothing. I would hold the same opinion of any technology which used so much energy when there was a less wasteful alternative. I also happen to be skeptical of Bitcoin's long-term outlook, but that's not why I'm actively against it as a technology. If it wasn't for the planet, I'd say people could put their money wherever they wanted. Actually, I still think they can—as long as they're willing to pay for the negative externalities they create. But then no one would actually use Bitcoin...

aphextron 6y ago
>My opinion of Bitcoin will change when it stops using more electricity than entire countries, for something Visa can do for comparatively nothing. To be fair, Bitcoin does not do what Visa does. Visa uses trust in existing institutions to accomplish transactions. Bitcoin mining creates trust out of electricity. And trust is a valuable resource, no different than any other form of value creation.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  There are plenty of other stores of trust. You could buy index funds or government bonds or any number of other things, and the price will be less volatile than Bitcoin to boot. I know a lot of Bitcoin enthusiasts are skeptical of traditional institutions, but really, if all the world's governments go bankrupt you're going to have bigger problems. Heck, if you must use a cryptocurrency, at least pick one of the newer ones which aren't as inefficient as Bitcoin!
  - judge2020 6y ago
    > You could buy index funds or government bonds or any number of other things, and the price will be less volatile than Bitcoin to boot. That's not trust, that's security in the value of your money. BTC can never be taken from you unless someone either breaks crypto or steals your wallet secret key. The U.S. dollar is backed by the federal reserve, so while I don't think the U.S. is going to have a revolution that destroys or inflates the dollar anytime soon, there's a possibility of such a thing happening. BTC has an actual limited amount that can be distributed (like gold) so it'll always have value.

r32a_ 6y ago

Many people on HN who talk down against Bitcoin are indoctrinated into the current ideology. Anything that goes against the current ideology is refuted, ignored, dismissed as fads, bubbles, scams..etc Ideology is a powerful thing and it's hard to break out of it. If you want to learn more about this concept, you should research about Slavoj Zizek's work on ideology. Bitcoin is not just technology, but a multi-faceted ideology founded around cypherpunks ideas, liberty, sovereignty, austrian economic system, free markets. Even the way Bitcoin is developed (slow, methodical) and Bitcoin apps are built is different to SV way which is move fast, break things, iterate.

seibelj 6y ago
I invested, work in, and continue to believe in bitcoin / Ethereum / crypto ecosystem because of my beliefs in exactly those things. Austrian economics made so much sense to me the first time I sat down and properly studied it. Keynesian / mainstream economics was always shoved down my throat but it came down to “there is a man with a money printer and when shit gets bad he will print money” which made no sense to me logically. I think many of society’s problems come down to easy money which has caused enormous malinvestment and warped incentives. I didn’t buy crypto as a Ponzi. I bought it because it makes perfect sense if you have a libertarian / Austrian / free market / individualist / free people mindset. Which I do!
aphextron 6y ago
>Bitcoin is not just technology, but a multi-faceted ideology founded around cypherpunks ideas, liberty, sovereignty, austrian economic system, free markets. This is the narrative that people use to make it seem more savory. But it's just about the money. No one cares enough about any of those ideals for them to be a meaningful part of what Bitcoin is. Those ideas have existed forever in the back channels of the web, and are memorialized in the endless plethora of abandoned decentralized technologies that were never profitable. It's money, plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with that, but for whatever reason the crypto community has some kind of chip on their shoulder about hiding the fact that it is just about profit.
- r32a_ 6y ago

elliottinvent 6y ago

Facebook has been down talked plenty here too so I’m not sure it’s a good comparator. A lot of the proponents of Bitcoin are pushing it in the same way people push MLM and ponzi schemes and for the same reasons, which is unfortunate. For many, including me, it seems a great shame to be consuming so much computing power (and energy) to solve increasingly difficult mathematical problems for no human benefit when the same effort might be used for better ends.

trident5000 6y ago
People waste their entire lives working for the govt to print away everything they have saved for - wasted energy. I think its worth it and still a noble cause.

danhak 6y ago

I agree that Bitcoin is here to stay and has utility. The issues that I have are 1) It is volatile and impossible to value; any price is as reasonable as any other. What is my benchmark here? The amount of USD in circulation? The value of outstanding U.S. Government debt? (if it is indeed going to replace Treasuries as reserve currency / safe haven asset). Can someone more knowledgable than me chime in? 2) Its utility as a currency is inversely proportional to its utility as a speculative instrument. And speculation appears to be 99% of the interest and discussion.

anonisko 6y ago
All currencies are volatile against other currencies. Volatility of currency goes away (or rather, gets abstracted) within the context of locales where that currency is used as a unit of account and goods and services are directly priced in it. So far, this hasn't happened yet for bitcoin, because there is no central authority forcing it upon people. Nobody knows if, when, where, or how this unit of account transition will happen. Maybe Tesla prices the new roadster or cybertruck in bitcoin as a publicity stunt that starts a cascade. Maybe some country with a failing currency decides to issue a new currency backed with bitcoin, or their people start using it without permission and pricing emerges organically. Maybe Iran, Turkey, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba start using it as their currency for international trade. Or maybe it never will become a unit of account, and bitcoin will just find a role as an inflation hedge and long term store of value like gold, which is currently 10x as valuable as bitcoin.

totalZero 6y ago

Market cap is a bad way to judge the real value of anything. If you were to sell 50% of all the bitcoin floating around in the world, how much would you impact the price? Would it remain above 40k? 30k? 20k? What's the cost basis of all the bitcoin holdings in the world? If the US government cracks down on bitcoin purchases by public companies, what happens to the price of bitcoin? Skeptics aren't skeptical because of lacking adoption, so they aren't going to be swayed by increasing adoption either. Also, Facebook isn't some magical Rubicon for asset valuation. It's a company that sells ads. One of the fundamental problems with "things are going good, what could go wrong?" is that inevitably, every crash is clearest in retrospect.

worker767424 6y ago
Would you rather buy all the shares of Facebook for $1 or all the bitcoin?
- Sinbe 6y ago
  Shares of Facebook for sure. Bitcoin's value is in the network effect, you can easily create a bitcoin clone but it's worth nothing if you are the only one hogging all the coins.
  - rkagerer 6y ago
    Agree but for a slightly different reason. If I acquired all the Facebook shares I could do the world a favor and kill off the company.
    - worker767424 6y ago
      It's hard to make that call when you're making life-changing money every day. Alternatively, you could completely change the company's focus.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago

>I wonder why that is? Because it tops out at four transactions per second while consuming as much power as Argentina. It's not rocket science. >I wonder what will change the opinion of the skeptics? All of the following are necessary but not sufficient: 1. Bitcoin users must panic when Bitcoin experiences deflation rather than celebrating it going TO THE MOOOOOON! 2. Someone has to find a way to make it scale. 3. Tether must be audited.

jb775 6y ago

> I'd imagine 10 years from now Bitcoin will still be around and likely much larger than today I agree it will be around in 10 years, but think it will always be highly volatile. Between now and then, I could see it being worth much more and worth much less than today's price.

arbol 6y ago
Hopefully we will see some stabilisation but the current rally will definitely come crashing down. Everyone comparing gold to BTC should take a look at long term gold price charts. Spikey. https://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd_x.png https://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd_x.p...

graeme 6y ago

Bitcoin was actually enormously popular on hacker news in the early years. Its popularity has soured here over time but it started popular. I think the opinion changed from favourable to skeptical as no use cases emerged.

codehalo 6y ago
I've been on HN since bitcoins inception. There was NEVER an instance where this site had a favorable opinion of bitcoin. NEVER.

MrPowers 6y ago

I don't know if Bitcoin will outperform Facebook, but can explain why they're fundamentally different assets. Facebook is a "productive asset". It's a business that sells to customers and generated 29 billion in profit in 2020. Bitcoin, like gold, is not a productive asset. It doesn't pay interest (like bonds), dividends (like stocks), or rental income (like real estate). Warren Buffett has a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtITDtZPYEw&amp%3Bab_channel=CNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtITDtZPYEw&amp%3Bab_channel...

tarsinge 6y ago
One can argue that Facebook is detrimental to society, so it's worse than an unproductive asset. It's strange seeing people take an environmental stance against Bitcoin, and then blindly defending unethical money making schemes, as long as it's a traditional company.
jsutton 6y ago
What about growth stocks that don't pay a dividend. Not a productive asset?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

MarkMc 6y ago

I'm a skeptic, as I would certainly prefer to hold $10,000 of FB shares than $10,000 worth of Bitcoin. The problem is that Bitcoin is not productive, so it only makes sense to own it if someone will pay more for it in future. But how do I estimate that without any long-term price history? I can see that the demand for gold increased in, say, 7 of the last 10 decades so that would give me some confidence about demand over the next decade. So to answer your question: the only thing I can see that will change my opinion of Bitcoin is if demand generally increases over many decades.

pmlnr 6y ago

> I wonder what will change the opinion of the skeptics? Nothing. It's an ugly system, for soulless players: it's eating up hardware production capacities, energy supply, and the money of the ordinary folks.