9 ms·

I have no interest in cryptocurrencies and I don’t own a single cent in any of them. But the continual barrage of hostile comments in every single HN article lo

I have no interest in cryptocurrencies and I don’t own a single cent in any of them. But the continual barrage of hostile comments in every single HN article looks mostly like groupthink to me. Clearly cryptocurrency will continue to play a growing role in the future. Denying this seems simply delusional.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Cryptocurrency isn’t going away, but it’s dishonest to pretend that it’s not without major problems such as the energy consumption issues. The popular narrative has also become almost indistinguishable from a pump scheme, where we’re all supposed to buy and home (never sell) until we’re all rich. If cryptocurrency becomes commonplace, it likely won’t look anything like our current crypto infrastructure. The problem is that this isn’t what all of the current holders want to hear, because they only want people to buy into whatever crypto they personally hold. This makes it difficult to have honest conversations because so many of the participants are biased toward convincing others to buy into their investment while ignoring anything else.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Lots of things have environmental problems. I don’t understand why Bitcoin mining gets singled out for it. If the benefits of using it outweigh the downsides, then I don’t see the issue.
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    The other wastes of electricity are also problems we should address. The difference is that while regulations and tech advancements are improving power efficiency everywhere else, proof of work systems incentive ever-increasing wastes of electricity. What other system is designed to get increasingly less efficient over time, while paying people to be inefficient, as a core principle of how it operates? Cryptocurrency almost stands alone in this regard.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      But if the sociopolitical benefits of cryptocurrency are so great, then the electric cost is worth it. It just seems like groupthink to me. Where are the armies of people against air conditioning or disposable medical tools? Both are pretty wasteful yet clearly worth it.
      - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
        The armies against HVAC come in the form of ever-increasing insulation and efficiency requirements. Modern construction methods are far more energy efficient than even a few decades ago and they’re increasing all the time. New construction is remarkably efficient from a heating and cooling perspective. Contrast with Bitcoin, where the inefficiency increases with each new miner that comes online, all without producing any more transactions per second. Ironically, the mining power only seems to become more centralized over time, which was the opposite of what was intended by going to proof of work.
      - zucker42 6y ago
        But the sociopolitical benefits of many current cryptocurrencies are not worth it, because they process pitifully few transactions, both in an absolute sense and relative to the energy they consume.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      Proof-of-work systems don't use ever-increasing amounts of electricity. For example the electricity consumption of Bitcoin is proportional to its price. It won't increase unless the market price of Bitcoin increases, or electricity gets cheaper. More power consumption also doesn't mean the efficiency is reduced. You would have to quantify the value that users are getting from it to judge the efficiency. If the value goes up with increased power consumption, then the efficiency hasn't changed.
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    > I don’t understand why Bitcoin mining gets singled out Because then he'd need to name an actual different reason to hate on bitcoin that hasn't been debunked
    - tomlagier 6y ago
      Here's mine: it doesn't seem socially useful if everyone holds a small amount of bitcoin and does nothing with it, particularly if all of those holdings are centralized on a small number of exchanges. I have no idea whether that is the true use for most BTC, but (mod exchanges vs private wallets) it's been the case for every single person I've talked to that owns some. I just don't get it - we're all holding pieces of this stuff because it keeps going up in value because we're all holding pieces of it? And that's somehow worth the enormous computing cost to maintain the network? Yeah, I'm sure that BTC is great if you're a Syrian refugee or a billionaire evading capital controls but it feels like the majority of the stuff is just... sitting there... I'm actually really thankful that exchanges are in the picture because ledger-only transactions aren't nearly as wasteful as on-chain transactions, but still don't understand why people want it. A cryptocurrency seems useful to me, inflationary crypto-assets seem like their only use is to reward early adopters? The value proposition of BTC seems more-or-less like "there is a limited supply and more people will want some in the future because it has made some people rich".
      - rawtxapp 6y ago
        > but it feels like the majority of the stuff is just... sitting there... It gives you the ability to actually save your money for a future use. If you need liquidity, you can borrow against it to spend money in other endavors. Nobody wants to bring their coins to their grave, but whatever you spend it on needs to bring more value than this just sitting there, which means you would expect a lot of unprofitable or very low profit investments to go away (ex: empty housing used as real estate investment in Vancouver).
        tomlagier 6y ago
        Isn't that true of any asset? Why is BTC better than, say, a bunch of emeralds?
  - zucker42 6y ago
    Bitcoin fundamentally wastes energy and BTC proponents don't see it as a problem to be solved. There is a big push to alter other technologies with environmental problems to make sure they don't use more energy than necessary.
  - mr_woozy 6y ago
    because it helps someone elses narrative!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- trident5000 6y ago
  I can name 10 other uses of energy that could be categorized as "wasteful" which is completely subjective. From large homes with the AC cranked, to rendering of pointless video on youtube and social apps, to destination aeroplane travel, idle electronics, etc. BTC for many is a way to stop central banks from eroding their lifetime savings which they paid for with their physical labor and time. Thats not a waste of energy in my opinion.
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    Naming other wastes of electricity doesn’t make them all okay. Multiple wrongs don’t make them all write. The narrative about central banks eroding life savings is greatly exaggerated by people who want us all to buy Bitcoin. Inflation raises the price of assets in general (virtually the definition of inflation), meaning virtually any non-cash investment will be buoyed by inflation. The idea that Bitcoin is the only way (or even a particular good way) to avoid inflation is a myth.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Shaming electricity usage is just ass backwards. Future humans will take more electricity without question especially as AI ramps up (massive rendering). The key is to transform all energy to cater to that need. Neither one of us will determine what people use as a hedge, the market will.
      - 177tcca 6y ago
        It's directly connected to lots of power usage today being from coal.
        trident5000 6y ago
        So is all that crap you buy from China that you dont need which is manufactured using dirty power. BTC is mostly renewables and will transition completely as it becomes cheaper.
- G3rn0ti 6y ago
  > major problems such as the energy consumption issues You don’t seem to know much about crypto currencies to name energy usage as a real problem of crypto. While Bitcoin will keep it’s “proof of work” approach to mining in the foreseeable future, there are now quite a few alternative crypto currencies in circulation employing “proof of stake” that do not suffer from large computer power usage e.g. Cardano, Solana or Algorand just to name a few. Furthermore, Ethereum, the second largest Crypto currency in circulation, plans to migrate to “proof of stake” by 2022. Stakes are already online. So please inform yourself before stating that Crypto will destroy the planet. No one is forcing you to like Bitcoin but you need to keep in mind this project has been invented over 13 years ago. It would have been impossible for the creator to anticipate its popularity and fix all its technical issues including energy consumption.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    If you think that proof of stake will take over, do you think that Bitcoin will crash? When will Bitcoin stop having the insane environmental impact it has now? If proof of stake is the future, why is the market cap of BTC so high compared to other cryptocurrencies?
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      Probably a lot of that is simply branding and first mover advantage. Everyone knows what bitcoin is and the name is nice and simple. The second largest coin, to my understanding, is ethereum, which has to be the worst name I’ve ever heard.
    - Geee 6y ago
      Proof-of-work is still the most secure way, and also the most fair way to distribute new currency, because it's just energy converted into currency. If proof-of-stake or something else actually works, then bitcoin's algorithm can be changed to that.
    - G3rn0ti 6y ago
      Well, Bitcoin was the first of its kind, it’s time and battle tested and technically it might still be the most reliable of all cryptos. Part of the reason for that is “Bitcoin script” not being Turing complete unlike Ethereum’s virtual machine and less prone to software bugs. People, especially newbies trust it much more than other blockchains. That’s why everybody buys Bitcoin, currently. I believe Bitcoin’s going to take on an important role in a value storage once it’s market value stabilizes. Essentially, it will become digital Gold. As the gold price didn’t “crash” to zero when it lost its utility as a currency, I believe we will never see a complete crash of the Bitcoin value. It will serve a niche application and, hence, keep having value. But it’s continued growth of its value will flatten over time in the future, I am sure. So I wouldn’t worry too much about its energy usage.
- terhechte 6y ago
  Most markets only work because people don't sell their share at the same time. If everybody would sell their house at the same time, the values would tumble. Same for the stock market, same for gold. I don't get why this is a criticism of cryptocurrencies.
- Geee 6y ago
  The energy consumption issue is silly. It's like saying that Google won't be successful because they consume so much energy. It's not a major issue, it's just a silly talking point for those who oppose or don't understand cryptocurrencies. Also, there is no such popular narrative. Your argument is like saying, "so we're supposed to buy stocks until we're all rich, that's a scam". Everyone makes their own investment decisions based on the available information. Brushing off good investment opportunities as a pump scheme is not very wise.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Google enhances the lives of billions by making information more accessible. So far cryptocurrency facilitates crime and gambling.
    - reedjosh 6y ago
      Making who's information accessible to whom? I'm pretty sure a lot of information on me is made available to parties I'd prefer privacy from. Also one could say cash dollars promote crime. Most terrorism is cash funded.
- mastermojo 6y ago
  I think I would agree that cryptocurrency is probably a less worthy allocation of energy than keeping homeless people warm or something. However, money/energy are finite resources allocated based on free market mechanics. People use energy/money how they want. It's not a very constructive use of time to criticize how the free market allocates resources. People are going to buy and run basketball teams, Ferraris, bitcoin mining rigs whether you yell at them or not.
f430 6y ago
The ponzi scheme will end one day and it will continue to be traded OTC without a way to redeem it for fiat.
anonAlways 6y ago
>But the continual barrage of hostile comments in every single HN article looks mostly like groupthink to me. Every social platform with upvote / downvote moderation will trend to groupthink over time as the losers are pushed out.
ahelwer 6y ago
I think it's an interesting example of people being too close to something, technically, to really see its totality. I'm a distributed systems person so I basically blew off Bitcoin two bubble-cycles ago because of the 3 tx/sec issue and the obvious deficiencies of the proposed lightning network workaround. I also took an in-depth look at a cryptocurrency with a supposed better protocol (Nano) and was very unimpressed - they didn't have a real solution to the network partition double-spend issue (a coin with a similar protocol, IOTA, solves this with a centralized "coordinator" node that they swear will be removed any time now... it won't). So I found myself in the interesting situation of knowing more about these things than 99% of people with money in them, but missing out on the large gains in value. There is a probabilistic protocol I legitimately find very interesting (Avalanche) that might succeed on a technical level, but analyzing these things at the technical level hasn't really meant much so far. It's possible this is an enormous bubble that will all go to zero. Of note is that the entirety of Bitcoin's history fits within this larger bull market we've been in since 2008. It will be interesting to see how cryptocurrencies fare in the inevitable wider market downturn, whenever that happens. Regardless it's probably a good idea to hedge against your own ignorance by putting 1% of your money in or something like that.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Just to be clear, 3 tx/sec is just incorrect and easily disproved by dividing the total transactions per day (readily available online) by the total seconds in a day. Also the btc main layer is a major settlement layer. It doesnt even compare to ACH or wires in frequency. The fees going up if its tried to be used in that way will force it, and that is a good thing. A chain cannot grow so fast with high tx so that it bloats and exceeds hard drive capabilities for distributed nodes or it becomes centralized. Its performing exactly the way it should. L2 solutions will take care of coffee transactions.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Okay, so it isn't 3 tx/sec. It's a bit more than that. Not an order of magnitude more, or two orders of magnitude, or the five orders of magnitude more to have the throughput required for everyone on earth to be able to transact once per day, say to buy lunch. You talk about BTC as a settlement layer. A settlement layer for what? The lightning network? Laughable. BTC might have a future as a store of value like gold, and it deserves credit for establishing cryptocurrencies as an entirely novel asset class. But I think other, better protocols will be used for those coffee transactions instead of hacking on a secondary layer to BTC.
mirekrusin 6y ago
I think people have problem with assesing concepts that can only improve with time. For some reason people seem to think that all things behave like a runner "he can run fast now but he'll have to slow down and stop" kind of thinking. As if those concepts have possibility of reverting to become worse than what they are. You could hear similar voices around wikipedia, saying it'll never compete with professionally edited encyclopedia, you can hear similar voices around AI etc. People don't seem to understand that a) things will keep changing and b) the only reasonable change is in direction of improvement. I'm not saying that crash is not possible - it is, but underlying concept will not crash, it'll only improve, which means with time the system will be better than it is at the moment and there is no reason for it to perform worse than today.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Sometimes inventions improve continuously over time, but sometimes they stop improving and stagnate. You can't just assume away criticism of technology with the assertion that things will improve in the future. I think what a lot of cryptocurrency bears see is that blockchain-based currencies, especially BTC, have fundamental problems. Blockchains are fundamentally not scalable; since the more throughput a blockchain has, the harder it is to run a node, since every node processes every transaction. Another current problem is the massive energy usage of PoW blockchains. Concerning is that the biggest cryptocurrency by market cap seems to have no plans to research fixes to these problems, let alone implement them, and there is widespread opposition to change in general. Also, my personal experience is that 9 out 10 cryptocurrency projects lack clear technical explanations of how they work, with all the details. These problems coupled with the fact the industry is filled with hucksters, pumpers, and scammers makes people have a rather dim view of cryptocurrencies. Perhaps these problems can be overcome (ETH is trying) but perhaps they can't, and if they can't then cryptocurrencies will be little more than what they are now (to a large extent), which is objects to fuel speculation. And to be clear on my personal opinions, I wouldn't classify myself as a cryptocurrency naysayer, but enthusiasm is tempered and I believe that the current market caps are driven by speculation.
  - hanniabu 6y ago
loceng 6y ago
Hostile comments in which direction? It's an interesting perspective too when you realize: - people who have counter-narrative to the Bitcoin propaganda aren't financially incentivized to be negative about it, and obviously their commentary will be negative - people who own Bitcoin are financially incentivized to speak positively about it, while also suppressing those with a counter-narrative That Bitcoin has a future that isn't going to lead to regulatory capture trying to cause the rest of society to adopt it, so they can realize the unnecessary wealth transfer from later adopters to earlier adopters, isn't so clear - that is if you've actually thought through it.
- rawtxapp 6y ago
  > people who have counter-narrative to the Bitcoin propaganda aren't financially incentivized to be negative about it They are incentivized to be negative about it, because whether you like it or not, not buying into it has real opportunity costs. If it ends up becoming the global currency, then you'd be left behind.
  - yks 6y ago
    You will be left behind just like all the unborn billions of people. Bitcoin version of the future is catastrophic at worst, with all the unnecessary energy consumption, or inconsequential at best, cause it won't matter much for the future people how their wealthy elite got into that position.
    - rawtxapp 6y ago
      While they may be unborn, their parents and grand-parents aren't. As long as there's a carbon tax on the energy consumption (for everybody, not a single industry) and energy comes from increasingly green sources, I don't see any problem with it, I don't expect us to be burning coal for energy in 30+ years from now.
  - loceng 6y ago
    That's quite the mental gymnastics: no - they won't be left behind, unless regulatory capture forces people to use Bitcoin vs. say USD - which is exactly why they won't be left behind, and exactly why most people aren't going to buy Bitcoin because why the hell would they want to decrease their wealth by paying into a system that transfers wealth from later adopters to earlier adopters? It's a Ponzi-Pyramid scheme because of the MLM structure + the rest of society doesn't want to be the ones "left holding the bag" as it's said in Ponzi schemes. People aren't stupid, though there are greedy and gullible people who like to gamble and speculate - and their hope that Bitcoin will have some competitive advantage over any numerous other structures that aren't incentivized via financial gain - but are actually good for society - and not leading to "consensus" via financial gain but through actual democratic processes where, if it makes sense to, a blockchain not structured like a Ponzi-Pyramid scheme can be voted into use by its citizens.
agumonkey 6y ago
I don't attach value to web3/cryptos but I kinda recognize that there is way too much wind behind it to ignore it. It can be a total empty bubble.. and burst into nothingness, but I believe that some of it will stay alive and evolve into functional and useful ideas for another wave.
mr_woozy 6y ago
>the continual barrage of hostile comments in every single HN article looks mostly like groupthink to me. I think its more a sensational narrative that angry geeks don't realize they're being used to advance.
grey-area 6y ago
Denying this seems simply delusional. Is this sentiment based on the price or the actual use of it as a currency?

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

Cryptocurrency isn’t going away, but it’s dishonest to pretend that it’s not without major problems such as the energy consumption issues. The popular narrative has also become almost indistinguishable from a pump scheme, where we’re all supposed to buy and home (never sell) until we’re all rich. If cryptocurrency becomes commonplace, it likely won’t look anything like our current crypto infrastructure. The problem is that this isn’t what all of the current holders want to hear, because they only want people to buy into whatever crypto they personally hold. This makes it difficult to have honest conversations because so many of the participants are biased toward convincing others to buy into their investment while ignoring anything else.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Lots of things have environmental problems. I don’t understand why Bitcoin mining gets singled out for it. If the benefits of using it outweigh the downsides, then I don’t see the issue.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  The other wastes of electricity are also problems we should address. The difference is that while regulations and tech advancements are improving power efficiency everywhere else, proof of work systems incentive ever-increasing wastes of electricity. What other system is designed to get increasingly less efficient over time, while paying people to be inefficient, as a core principle of how it operates? Cryptocurrency almost stands alone in this regard.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    But if the sociopolitical benefits of cryptocurrency are so great, then the electric cost is worth it. It just seems like groupthink to me. Where are the armies of people against air conditioning or disposable medical tools? Both are pretty wasteful yet clearly worth it.
    - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
      The armies against HVAC come in the form of ever-increasing insulation and efficiency requirements. Modern construction methods are far more energy efficient than even a few decades ago and they’re increasing all the time. New construction is remarkably efficient from a heating and cooling perspective. Contrast with Bitcoin, where the inefficiency increases with each new miner that comes online, all without producing any more transactions per second. Ironically, the mining power only seems to become more centralized over time, which was the opposite of what was intended by going to proof of work.
    - zucker42 6y ago
      But the sociopolitical benefits of many current cryptocurrencies are not worth it, because they process pitifully few transactions, both in an absolute sense and relative to the energy they consume.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Proof-of-work systems don't use ever-increasing amounts of electricity. For example the electricity consumption of Bitcoin is proportional to its price. It won't increase unless the market price of Bitcoin increases, or electricity gets cheaper. More power consumption also doesn't mean the efficiency is reduced. You would have to quantify the value that users are getting from it to judge the efficiency. If the value goes up with increased power consumption, then the efficiency hasn't changed.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  > I don’t understand why Bitcoin mining gets singled out Because then he'd need to name an actual different reason to hate on bitcoin that hasn't been debunked
  - tomlagier 6y ago
    Here's mine: it doesn't seem socially useful if everyone holds a small amount of bitcoin and does nothing with it, particularly if all of those holdings are centralized on a small number of exchanges. I have no idea whether that is the true use for most BTC, but (mod exchanges vs private wallets) it's been the case for every single person I've talked to that owns some. I just don't get it - we're all holding pieces of this stuff because it keeps going up in value because we're all holding pieces of it? And that's somehow worth the enormous computing cost to maintain the network? Yeah, I'm sure that BTC is great if you're a Syrian refugee or a billionaire evading capital controls but it feels like the majority of the stuff is just... sitting there... I'm actually really thankful that exchanges are in the picture because ledger-only transactions aren't nearly as wasteful as on-chain transactions, but still don't understand why people want it. A cryptocurrency seems useful to me, inflationary crypto-assets seem like their only use is to reward early adopters? The value proposition of BTC seems more-or-less like "there is a limited supply and more people will want some in the future because it has made some people rich".
    - rawtxapp 6y ago
      > but it feels like the majority of the stuff is just... sitting there... It gives you the ability to actually save your money for a future use. If you need liquidity, you can borrow against it to spend money in other endavors. Nobody wants to bring their coins to their grave, but whatever you spend it on needs to bring more value than this just sitting there, which means you would expect a lot of unprofitable or very low profit investments to go away (ex: empty housing used as real estate investment in Vancouver).
      - tomlagier 6y ago
        Isn't that true of any asset? Why is BTC better than, say, a bunch of emeralds?
- zucker42 6y ago
  Bitcoin fundamentally wastes energy and BTC proponents don't see it as a problem to be solved. There is a big push to alter other technologies with environmental problems to make sure they don't use more energy than necessary.
- mr_woozy 6y ago
  because it helps someone elses narrative!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
trident5000 6y ago
I can name 10 other uses of energy that could be categorized as "wasteful" which is completely subjective. From large homes with the AC cranked, to rendering of pointless video on youtube and social apps, to destination aeroplane travel, idle electronics, etc. BTC for many is a way to stop central banks from eroding their lifetime savings which they paid for with their physical labor and time. Thats not a waste of energy in my opinion.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Naming other wastes of electricity doesn’t make them all okay. Multiple wrongs don’t make them all write. The narrative about central banks eroding life savings is greatly exaggerated by people who want us all to buy Bitcoin. Inflation raises the price of assets in general (virtually the definition of inflation), meaning virtually any non-cash investment will be buoyed by inflation. The idea that Bitcoin is the only way (or even a particular good way) to avoid inflation is a myth.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Shaming electricity usage is just ass backwards. Future humans will take more electricity without question especially as AI ramps up (massive rendering). The key is to transform all energy to cater to that need. Neither one of us will determine what people use as a hedge, the market will.
    - 177tcca 6y ago
      It's directly connected to lots of power usage today being from coal.
      - trident5000 6y ago
        So is all that crap you buy from China that you dont need which is manufactured using dirty power. BTC is mostly renewables and will transition completely as it becomes cheaper.
G3rn0ti 6y ago
> major problems such as the energy consumption issues You don’t seem to know much about crypto currencies to name energy usage as a real problem of crypto. While Bitcoin will keep it’s “proof of work” approach to mining in the foreseeable future, there are now quite a few alternative crypto currencies in circulation employing “proof of stake” that do not suffer from large computer power usage e.g. Cardano, Solana or Algorand just to name a few. Furthermore, Ethereum, the second largest Crypto currency in circulation, plans to migrate to “proof of stake” by 2022. Stakes are already online. So please inform yourself before stating that Crypto will destroy the planet. No one is forcing you to like Bitcoin but you need to keep in mind this project has been invented over 13 years ago. It would have been impossible for the creator to anticipate its popularity and fix all its technical issues including energy consumption.
- zucker42 6y ago
  If you think that proof of stake will take over, do you think that Bitcoin will crash? When will Bitcoin stop having the insane environmental impact it has now? If proof of stake is the future, why is the market cap of BTC so high compared to other cryptocurrencies?
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Probably a lot of that is simply branding and first mover advantage. Everyone knows what bitcoin is and the name is nice and simple. The second largest coin, to my understanding, is ethereum, which has to be the worst name I’ve ever heard.
  - Geee 6y ago
    Proof-of-work is still the most secure way, and also the most fair way to distribute new currency, because it's just energy converted into currency. If proof-of-stake or something else actually works, then bitcoin's algorithm can be changed to that.
  - G3rn0ti 6y ago
    Well, Bitcoin was the first of its kind, it’s time and battle tested and technically it might still be the most reliable of all cryptos. Part of the reason for that is “Bitcoin script” not being Turing complete unlike Ethereum’s virtual machine and less prone to software bugs. People, especially newbies trust it much more than other blockchains. That’s why everybody buys Bitcoin, currently. I believe Bitcoin’s going to take on an important role in a value storage once it’s market value stabilizes. Essentially, it will become digital Gold. As the gold price didn’t “crash” to zero when it lost its utility as a currency, I believe we will never see a complete crash of the Bitcoin value. It will serve a niche application and, hence, keep having value. But it’s continued growth of its value will flatten over time in the future, I am sure. So I wouldn’t worry too much about its energy usage.
terhechte 6y ago
Most markets only work because people don't sell their share at the same time. If everybody would sell their house at the same time, the values would tumble. Same for the stock market, same for gold. I don't get why this is a criticism of cryptocurrencies.
Geee 6y ago
The energy consumption issue is silly. It's like saying that Google won't be successful because they consume so much energy. It's not a major issue, it's just a silly talking point for those who oppose or don't understand cryptocurrencies. Also, there is no such popular narrative. Your argument is like saying, "so we're supposed to buy stocks until we're all rich, that's a scam". Everyone makes their own investment decisions based on the available information. Brushing off good investment opportunities as a pump scheme is not very wise.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Google enhances the lives of billions by making information more accessible. So far cryptocurrency facilitates crime and gambling.
  - reedjosh 6y ago
    Making who's information accessible to whom? I'm pretty sure a lot of information on me is made available to parties I'd prefer privacy from. Also one could say cash dollars promote crime. Most terrorism is cash funded.
mastermojo 6y ago
I think I would agree that cryptocurrency is probably a less worthy allocation of energy than keeping homeless people warm or something. However, money/energy are finite resources allocated based on free market mechanics. People use energy/money how they want. It's not a very constructive use of time to criticize how the free market allocates resources. People are going to buy and run basketball teams, Ferraris, bitcoin mining rigs whether you yell at them or not.

f430 6y ago

The ponzi scheme will end one day and it will continue to be traded OTC without a way to redeem it for fiat.

anonAlways 6y ago

>But the continual barrage of hostile comments in every single HN article looks mostly like groupthink to me. Every social platform with upvote / downvote moderation will trend to groupthink over time as the losers are pushed out.

ahelwer 6y ago

I think it's an interesting example of people being too close to something, technically, to really see its totality. I'm a distributed systems person so I basically blew off Bitcoin two bubble-cycles ago because of the 3 tx/sec issue and the obvious deficiencies of the proposed lightning network workaround. I also took an in-depth look at a cryptocurrency with a supposed better protocol (Nano) and was very unimpressed - they didn't have a real solution to the network partition double-spend issue (a coin with a similar protocol, IOTA, solves this with a centralized "coordinator" node that they swear will be removed any time now... it won't). So I found myself in the interesting situation of knowing more about these things than 99% of people with money in them, but missing out on the large gains in value. There is a probabilistic protocol I legitimately find very interesting (Avalanche) that might succeed on a technical level, but analyzing these things at the technical level hasn't really meant much so far. It's possible this is an enormous bubble that will all go to zero. Of note is that the entirety of Bitcoin's history fits within this larger bull market we've been in since 2008. It will be interesting to see how cryptocurrencies fare in the inevitable wider market downturn, whenever that happens. Regardless it's probably a good idea to hedge against your own ignorance by putting 1% of your money in or something like that.

trident5000 6y ago
Just to be clear, 3 tx/sec is just incorrect and easily disproved by dividing the total transactions per day (readily available online) by the total seconds in a day. Also the btc main layer is a major settlement layer. It doesnt even compare to ACH or wires in frequency. The fees going up if its tried to be used in that way will force it, and that is a good thing. A chain cannot grow so fast with high tx so that it bloats and exceeds hard drive capabilities for distributed nodes or it becomes centralized. Its performing exactly the way it should. L2 solutions will take care of coffee transactions.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Okay, so it isn't 3 tx/sec. It's a bit more than that. Not an order of magnitude more, or two orders of magnitude, or the five orders of magnitude more to have the throughput required for everyone on earth to be able to transact once per day, say to buy lunch. You talk about BTC as a settlement layer. A settlement layer for what? The lightning network? Laughable. BTC might have a future as a store of value like gold, and it deserves credit for establishing cryptocurrencies as an entirely novel asset class. But I think other, better protocols will be used for those coffee transactions instead of hacking on a secondary layer to BTC.

mirekrusin 6y ago

I think people have problem with assesing concepts that can only improve with time. For some reason people seem to think that all things behave like a runner "he can run fast now but he'll have to slow down and stop" kind of thinking. As if those concepts have possibility of reverting to become worse than what they are. You could hear similar voices around wikipedia, saying it'll never compete with professionally edited encyclopedia, you can hear similar voices around AI etc. People don't seem to understand that a) things will keep changing and b) the only reasonable change is in direction of improvement. I'm not saying that crash is not possible - it is, but underlying concept will not crash, it'll only improve, which means with time the system will be better than it is at the moment and there is no reason for it to perform worse than today.

zucker42 6y ago
Sometimes inventions improve continuously over time, but sometimes they stop improving and stagnate. You can't just assume away criticism of technology with the assertion that things will improve in the future. I think what a lot of cryptocurrency bears see is that blockchain-based currencies, especially BTC, have fundamental problems. Blockchains are fundamentally not scalable; since the more throughput a blockchain has, the harder it is to run a node, since every node processes every transaction. Another current problem is the massive energy usage of PoW blockchains. Concerning is that the biggest cryptocurrency by market cap seems to have no plans to research fixes to these problems, let alone implement them, and there is widespread opposition to change in general. Also, my personal experience is that 9 out 10 cryptocurrency projects lack clear technical explanations of how they work, with all the details. These problems coupled with the fact the industry is filled with hucksters, pumpers, and scammers makes people have a rather dim view of cryptocurrencies. Perhaps these problems can be overcome (ETH is trying) but perhaps they can't, and if they can't then cryptocurrencies will be little more than what they are now (to a large extent), which is objects to fuel speculation. And to be clear on my personal opinions, I wouldn't classify myself as a cryptocurrency naysayer, but enthusiasm is tempered and I believe that the current market caps are driven by speculation.
- hanniabu 6y ago

loceng 6y ago

Hostile comments in which direction? It's an interesting perspective too when you realize: - people who have counter-narrative to the Bitcoin propaganda aren't financially incentivized to be negative about it, and obviously their commentary will be negative - people who own Bitcoin are financially incentivized to speak positively about it, while also suppressing those with a counter-narrative That Bitcoin has a future that isn't going to lead to regulatory capture trying to cause the rest of society to adopt it, so they can realize the unnecessary wealth transfer from later adopters to earlier adopters, isn't so clear - that is if you've actually thought through it.

rawtxapp 6y ago
> people who have counter-narrative to the Bitcoin propaganda aren't financially incentivized to be negative about it They are incentivized to be negative about it, because whether you like it or not, not buying into it has real opportunity costs. If it ends up becoming the global currency, then you'd be left behind.
- yks 6y ago
  You will be left behind just like all the unborn billions of people. Bitcoin version of the future is catastrophic at worst, with all the unnecessary energy consumption, or inconsequential at best, cause it won't matter much for the future people how their wealthy elite got into that position.
  - rawtxapp 6y ago
    While they may be unborn, their parents and grand-parents aren't. As long as there's a carbon tax on the energy consumption (for everybody, not a single industry) and energy comes from increasingly green sources, I don't see any problem with it, I don't expect us to be burning coal for energy in 30+ years from now.
- loceng 6y ago
  That's quite the mental gymnastics: no - they won't be left behind, unless regulatory capture forces people to use Bitcoin vs. say USD - which is exactly why they won't be left behind, and exactly why most people aren't going to buy Bitcoin because why the hell would they want to decrease their wealth by paying into a system that transfers wealth from later adopters to earlier adopters? It's a Ponzi-Pyramid scheme because of the MLM structure + the rest of society doesn't want to be the ones "left holding the bag" as it's said in Ponzi schemes. People aren't stupid, though there are greedy and gullible people who like to gamble and speculate - and their hope that Bitcoin will have some competitive advantage over any numerous other structures that aren't incentivized via financial gain - but are actually good for society - and not leading to "consensus" via financial gain but through actual democratic processes where, if it makes sense to, a blockchain not structured like a Ponzi-Pyramid scheme can be voted into use by its citizens.

agumonkey 6y ago

I don't attach value to web3/cryptos but I kinda recognize that there is way too much wind behind it to ignore it. It can be a total empty bubble.. and burst into nothingness, but I believe that some of it will stay alive and evolve into functional and useful ideas for another wave.

mr_woozy 6y ago

>the continual barrage of hostile comments in every single HN article looks mostly like groupthink to me. I think its more a sensational narrative that angry geeks don't realize they're being used to advance.

grey-area 6y ago

Denying this seems simply delusional. Is this sentiment based on the price or the actual use of it as a currency?