6 ms·

Maybe Bitcoin is Netscape and we're still waiting for Chrome. It's still so, so early.

by thisisbrians 5y ago

ChainOfFools 5y ago
maybe cryptocurrency is alchemy and we're still waiting for science
- headmelted 5y ago
  This legitimately covered my keyboard in Pepsi. Kudos! edit: removed burn in all caps as this is not a Wendy's restaurant.
  - cle 5y ago
    I’m sad to see HN become a place where people pat each other on the back for “burns”. (And I think GP makes a good point.) edit for context: parent originally started with “BURN!” before edit
    - headmelted 5y ago
      Fair, this isn't reddit. To explain the derision, I don't think the GP makes a good point at all, as crypto-adherents pre-suppose that there's a common acceptance that blockchain currencies are an internet-level breakthrough. Linked lists are useful. Merkle trees are useful. Blockchain currencies haven't so far proven a single use case they perform more usefully than existing systems. All that the ICO craze, the NFT craze and the De-Fi craze point to is that this is a solution in search of a problem. The only reason any of the crypto-based versions of those existing concepts (IPOs, collectibles, credit) have been able to accrue funds so far is due to fraud and mania. De-Fi could someday become useful if someone figures out a de-centralised way to handle unsecured credit, but how do you include trust in an eco-system that is based around a lack of trust? Even if someone solves that problem it won't be because of crypto, it'll be because of whatever novel idea they come up with to meet that specific need. Anytime a bitcoin video ends up in my YouTube feed I feel like I'm being offered quantum physics lessons by Deepak Chopra. Anyway, that's why I agree with the alchemy comment.
      - thisisbrians 5y ago
        To set the record straight: I'm not even an "adherent" per-se, just a tech nerd who follows things closely. My point is that it's arrogant to claim to know the outcome of this grand experiment already. So many folks on both sides have already been so wrong so many times, yet hold firm to their ability to predict the future. Opinions are fine, but none of you are oracles.
        headmelted 5y ago
        Totally agree - I’m not making any predictions here. All I’m saying is that it’s fine if people within that community believe this is as massive as they claim, but to have a common dialogue about it we would need to have common facts. To adherents it’s bigger than the Internet, to others it’s a ponzi scheme built around linked lists and arbitrary hashes.
    - bruce343434 5y ago
      General Practitioner?
      - thisisbrians 5y ago
        "General" does seem to be a demotion from "Original"...funny enough, I didn't catch this until you made your joke. Should I be offended??
      - cle 5y ago
        Grandparent. As in “the parent of the parent of this post.”
sbilstein 5y ago
at some point folks are gonna realize that the web was far more useful in its first ten years than bitcoin was in its first twenty.
- headmelted 5y ago
  That's millions of people's religion you're disparaging you know.
- thisisbrians 5y ago
  I agree; of course, entire networks are far more useful than individual apps running upon said networks.
- dandanua 5y ago
  You're heavily downgrading the dark side of the web. Bitcoin is heaven for them.
jamal-kumar 5y ago
I don't think anyone seems to remember the slight drama under which satoshi nakamoto had disappeared where he called people out for not really seeming to realize or respect that bitcoin was pretty much just a proof of concept
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
  - jamal-kumar 5y ago
    It's in some mailing list archives somewhere to the best of my recollection. Check around for his final mailing list and IRC messages https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-happened-when-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-disappeared https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-happened-when-bit... This article seems to get into it if you want to read it all, let me know if you do so and find anything out, I only wish I had the time
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  My conspiracy theory is that cryptocurrency was invented by the CIA to destabilise the Chinese financial system.
  - thisisbrians 5y ago
    That's a fun one. How would they have accounted for its potential effects on the US monetary systems?
josefresco 5y ago
> we're still waiting for Chrome Dear God no. Wake me when the "Firefox" of crypto is available.
- xeromal 5y ago
  So 10% usage?
- thisisbrians 5y ago
  You mean Mighty? /s
jonplackett 5y ago
I always thought of it as Bitcoin being MySpace and we’re waiting for Facebook, then maybe Instagram and WhatsApp (pre-acquire). Etherium seems like it could be one of those if POS or something else can make transactions a reasonable price
- thisisbrians 5y ago
  I'm eager to see what ETH's transition to proof-of-stake does for its appeal and adoption. Environmental concerns seem to be one of Bitcoin's biggest problems of late (among many).
garrickvanburen 5y ago
I recently used this analogy to describe why I’m bearish on crypto. When Netscape Navigator was released, it was clear and obvious this was the future (and if anything, underpromised based on where we are today). Within 4years of Navigators release, I was making my fulltime living building websites. The iPhone was another immediate “this is obviously the future” technology. 13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious.
- fxleach 5y ago
  That's because browsers and phones do not disrupt the whole banking system and the way we think about money. There is a tremendous amount of push-back on cryptocurrencies coming from very influential places that stand a lot to lose.
  - thisisbrians 5y ago
    Exactly. The concept of money is a shared belief ("fiction") that we all basically agree on. Bitcoin and crypto in general are shaking the foundations of these beliefs. I'm not even taking sides, just acknowledging that the cognitive dissonance is very, very real, and a barrier to the adoption of any paradigm-shifting technology.
- alwillis 5y ago
  13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious. It's pretty damn obvious once you objectively look at the shit show the fiat currency system has become. It should be pretty obvious that people who work all of their lives can't retire with the money they've saved because their money loses (according to CPI) 2% per year. Instead they have to risk their savings in the stock market or some other investment--remember savings, money markets, CDs return less than 1% interest; negative interest once you include inflation. "Bitcoin is the Great Definancialization"—https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-definancialization/ https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-defi...
  - jfengel 5y ago
    It just means that they can't retire solely on the money they get for having money in the first place. With 2% inflation and a 1% money market, you're losing a net of 1% per year. If you were handed a million bucks at 25 and sat on it until 65, you'd still have an inflation-adjusted value of $669k. That's not the difference between retirement and non-retirement. It's the difference between a luxurious retirement and a less-luxurious retirement, or a retirement at 70 rather than 65. That money will continue to deflate, and if you live for another 40 years, it becomes a mere half-million at the end. That would give you $11k a year to live on -- not great, but again, you're talking about four decades of no work. That's a lot to ask. That's not fun, of course, but it's not supposed to be fun. "I was handed a million dollars and therefore deserve to have it exponentially accumulate value for no work or risk" is fun, but it's not a fundamental right. If you put earn more money than you need and stick it in the bank, you can retire. Inflation means that you need a little more money, which you can get either by working longer, or using your money to improve the economy as a whole by investment. More risk means bigger rewards. Zero risk means a net loss, as punishment for keeping your money out of circulation. The point is that exponential growth is powerful, but even exponents of multiples of 10 don't do all that much when the base rate is 1%. It's only the difference between retirement and non-retirement for a relatively small sliver. The real problem with non-retirement is that many people can't put away anything. They live hand-to-mouth for their entire careers, with every incoming dollar accounted for. For them, inflation isn't an issue because they have $0. Worrying about inflation is a great privilege for those who have cash and would prefer it to become more cash for free, with no effort or risk. Instead, the economy demands they take risks rather than sitting on their money -- with the goal of some of it ending up in the form of jobs for those who don't have that cash sitting around.
FabHK 5y ago
Well... the utility of the web was evident pretty early on. Gopher was released in 1991, the first web browser (WorldWideWeb) also in 1991, Mosaic in 1993. The first German online bookshop, Telebuch, went online in 1991 (via BTX), and was on the web in 1995; Bloomberg.com, IMDB, Wired was online 1993, Amazon was founded 1994, Google 1998, Napster 1999, Frienster 2002, MySpace 2003, Facebook 2004 - all within 13 years of the invention of the WWW. It is now 13 years after the first release of Bitcoin, and what do we have (except dark web narcotics markets, and exchanges that take a cut around 50x greater than stock exchanges)?

Maybe Bitcoin is Netscape and we're still waiting for Chrome. It's still so, so early.

ChainOfFools 5y ago

maybe cryptocurrency is alchemy and we're still waiting for science

headmelted 5y ago
This legitimately covered my keyboard in Pepsi. Kudos! edit: removed burn in all caps as this is not a Wendy's restaurant.
- cle 5y ago
  I’m sad to see HN become a place where people pat each other on the back for “burns”. (And I think GP makes a good point.) edit for context: parent originally started with “BURN!” before edit
  - headmelted 5y ago
    Fair, this isn't reddit. To explain the derision, I don't think the GP makes a good point at all, as crypto-adherents pre-suppose that there's a common acceptance that blockchain currencies are an internet-level breakthrough. Linked lists are useful. Merkle trees are useful. Blockchain currencies haven't so far proven a single use case they perform more usefully than existing systems. All that the ICO craze, the NFT craze and the De-Fi craze point to is that this is a solution in search of a problem. The only reason any of the crypto-based versions of those existing concepts (IPOs, collectibles, credit) have been able to accrue funds so far is due to fraud and mania. De-Fi could someday become useful if someone figures out a de-centralised way to handle unsecured credit, but how do you include trust in an eco-system that is based around a lack of trust? Even if someone solves that problem it won't be because of crypto, it'll be because of whatever novel idea they come up with to meet that specific need. Anytime a bitcoin video ends up in my YouTube feed I feel like I'm being offered quantum physics lessons by Deepak Chopra. Anyway, that's why I agree with the alchemy comment.
    - thisisbrians 5y ago
      To set the record straight: I'm not even an "adherent" per-se, just a tech nerd who follows things closely. My point is that it's arrogant to claim to know the outcome of this grand experiment already. So many folks on both sides have already been so wrong so many times, yet hold firm to their ability to predict the future. Opinions are fine, but none of you are oracles.
      - headmelted 5y ago
        Totally agree - I’m not making any predictions here. All I’m saying is that it’s fine if people within that community believe this is as massive as they claim, but to have a common dialogue about it we would need to have common facts. To adherents it’s bigger than the Internet, to others it’s a ponzi scheme built around linked lists and arbitrary hashes.
  - bruce343434 5y ago
    General Practitioner?
    - thisisbrians 5y ago
      "General" does seem to be a demotion from "Original"...funny enough, I didn't catch this until you made your joke. Should I be offended??
    - cle 5y ago
      Grandparent. As in “the parent of the parent of this post.”

sbilstein 5y ago

at some point folks are gonna realize that the web was far more useful in its first ten years than bitcoin was in its first twenty.

headmelted 5y ago
That's millions of people's religion you're disparaging you know.
thisisbrians 5y ago
I agree; of course, entire networks are far more useful than individual apps running upon said networks.
dandanua 5y ago
You're heavily downgrading the dark side of the web. Bitcoin is heaven for them.

jamal-kumar 5y ago

I don't think anyone seems to remember the slight drama under which satoshi nakamoto had disappeared where he called people out for not really seeming to realize or respect that bitcoin was pretty much just a proof of concept

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Do you have a source for this?
- jamal-kumar 5y ago
  It's in some mailing list archives somewhere to the best of my recollection. Check around for his final mailing list and IRC messages https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-happened-when-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-disappeared https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-happened-when-bit... This article seems to get into it if you want to read it all, let me know if you do so and find anything out, I only wish I had the time
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
My conspiracy theory is that cryptocurrency was invented by the CIA to destabilise the Chinese financial system.
- thisisbrians 5y ago
  That's a fun one. How would they have accounted for its potential effects on the US monetary systems?

josefresco 5y ago

> we're still waiting for Chrome Dear God no. Wake me when the "Firefox" of crypto is available.

xeromal 5y ago
So 10% usage?
thisisbrians 5y ago
You mean Mighty? /s

jonplackett 5y ago

I always thought of it as Bitcoin being MySpace and we’re waiting for Facebook, then maybe Instagram and WhatsApp (pre-acquire). Etherium seems like it could be one of those if POS or something else can make transactions a reasonable price

thisisbrians 5y ago
I'm eager to see what ETH's transition to proof-of-stake does for its appeal and adoption. Environmental concerns seem to be one of Bitcoin's biggest problems of late (among many).

garrickvanburen 5y ago

I recently used this analogy to describe why I’m bearish on crypto. When Netscape Navigator was released, it was clear and obvious this was the future (and if anything, underpromised based on where we are today). Within 4years of Navigators release, I was making my fulltime living building websites. The iPhone was another immediate “this is obviously the future” technology. 13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious.

fxleach 5y ago
That's because browsers and phones do not disrupt the whole banking system and the way we think about money. There is a tremendous amount of push-back on cryptocurrencies coming from very influential places that stand a lot to lose.
- thisisbrians 5y ago
  Exactly. The concept of money is a shared belief ("fiction") that we all basically agree on. Bitcoin and crypto in general are shaking the foundations of these beliefs. I'm not even taking sides, just acknowledging that the cognitive dissonance is very, very real, and a barrier to the adoption of any paradigm-shifting technology.
alwillis 5y ago
13 years into Bitcoin, it’s still not obvious. It's pretty damn obvious once you objectively look at the shit show the fiat currency system has become. It should be pretty obvious that people who work all of their lives can't retire with the money they've saved because their money loses (according to CPI) 2% per year. Instead they have to risk their savings in the stock market or some other investment--remember savings, money markets, CDs return less than 1% interest; negative interest once you include inflation. "Bitcoin is the Great Definancialization"—https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-definancialization/ https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-defi...
- jfengel 5y ago
  It just means that they can't retire solely on the money they get for having money in the first place. With 2% inflation and a 1% money market, you're losing a net of 1% per year. If you were handed a million bucks at 25 and sat on it until 65, you'd still have an inflation-adjusted value of $669k. That's not the difference between retirement and non-retirement. It's the difference between a luxurious retirement and a less-luxurious retirement, or a retirement at 70 rather than 65. That money will continue to deflate, and if you live for another 40 years, it becomes a mere half-million at the end. That would give you $11k a year to live on -- not great, but again, you're talking about four decades of no work. That's a lot to ask. That's not fun, of course, but it's not supposed to be fun. "I was handed a million dollars and therefore deserve to have it exponentially accumulate value for no work or risk" is fun, but it's not a fundamental right. If you put earn more money than you need and stick it in the bank, you can retire. Inflation means that you need a little more money, which you can get either by working longer, or using your money to improve the economy as a whole by investment. More risk means bigger rewards. Zero risk means a net loss, as punishment for keeping your money out of circulation. The point is that exponential growth is powerful, but even exponents of multiples of 10 don't do all that much when the base rate is 1%. It's only the difference between retirement and non-retirement for a relatively small sliver. The real problem with non-retirement is that many people can't put away anything. They live hand-to-mouth for their entire careers, with every incoming dollar accounted for. For them, inflation isn't an issue because they have $0. Worrying about inflation is a great privilege for those who have cash and would prefer it to become more cash for free, with no effort or risk. Instead, the economy demands they take risks rather than sitting on their money -- with the goal of some of it ending up in the form of jobs for those who don't have that cash sitting around.

FabHK 5y ago

Well... the utility of the web was evident pretty early on. Gopher was released in 1991, the first web browser (WorldWideWeb) also in 1991, Mosaic in 1993. The first German online bookshop, Telebuch, went online in 1991 (via BTX), and was on the web in 1995; Bloomberg.com, IMDB, Wired was online 1993, Amazon was founded 1994, Google 1998, Napster 1999, Frienster 2002, MySpace 2003, Facebook 2004 - all within 13 years of the invention of the WWW. It is now 13 years after the first release of Bitcoin, and what do we have (except dark web narcotics markets, and exchanges that take a cut around 50x greater than stock exchanges)?