4 ms·

I was thinking about this a lot. I used to think that most HN users are very smart, but the crypto discussions here are extremely dumb full of misconceptions an

by nadam 5y ago

I was thinking about this a lot. I used to think that most HN users are very smart, but the crypto discussions here are extremely dumb full of misconceptions and hatred. For example yesterday there was an article upvoted and vehemently discussed here, but anyone having a basic understanding of crypto would know that the article was total garbage (and full of hatred). It was like someone with primary-school mathematics knowledge hating on mathematicians and wanting to reform modern mathematics with his 'idea'. I think it has to do with a misconception about how much effort you have to put in to have a good understanding on crypto. If we are speaking about topics like high mathematics, most people realise that their knowledge is not enough to have a meaningful opinion on the cutting-edge. For some reason people on HN treat crypto like politics: almost everyone has a strong opinion without much knowledge. Crypto is a much deeper subject than how it is treated on HN. You need to have not just technical knowledge (like understanding why a proof-of-stake algorithm has no vulnerability is VERY hard), but also very deep knowledge of the philosophy of value/money/trust. For example any substantial interview with Vitalik Buterin discusses the topics in a much deeper way than it is treated on HN. TL;DR: People are reasonably smart here but extremely uneducated on crypto, and for some reason they think that they are informed enough to have a strong opinion.

jstx1 5y ago
It's also possible that some people understand all of this and still don't think that crypto is a good idea, or that it has worked out well in practice, or that it does anything meaningful.
- nadam 5y ago
  Ok. In my opinion an algorithmic censor-resistant, deflationary value network is a useful potential technology that can give us potentially the best store-of-value known to mankind so far. Why isn't it meaningful to further research this technology in your opinion? (While mathematicians are researching all kinds of esoteric topics?) In my opinion proof-of-stake research is one of the most-important research topics today.
  - bob33212 5y ago
    If you find it a good store of value for yourself that is fine, but you need to understand that value is defined by social norms not by technical features. Picasso paintings are currently a very good store of value. Gold has been a decent store of value for thousands of years. People bought beanie babies in 1998 because they thought the price would go up and stay up for a long time. Obviously they were wrong, but the same thing could happen to GOLD, BTC, or even Picasso paintings. It totally depends on what society values in the future.
    - nadam 5y ago
      I understand this. While you are right, there are some properties of these assets that can help us predict what could become a store of value: is it durable? is it easy to transfer? is it easy to censor? is it inflationary? also you can examine the network effect related to the asset. By developing new technical features, you can increase the chance of an asset to become a store of value. That's why researching proof-of-stake algorithms is meaningful. Not as important as to find cure for cancer? Maybe. But still meaningful. Lots of people on HN claim that it is totally bullshit, which is a strong opinion imho...
      - bob33212 5y ago
        Do you mean proof of stake? If so, yes there is potential for new technologies to come out which could cause crypto to have more real world use cases and then cause the value of crypto to society to be higher. But we have been hearing about how crypto is "the future" for 10+ years. At what point is this future actually going to exist?
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      > but the same thing could happen to GOLD, BTC, or even Picasso paintings In fact, it has happened to the first two, at least temporarily. Someone who bought gold in 1980, say, is probably not particularly happy with it as a store of value today (adjusted for inflation, they _may_ just about be breaking even now assuming that they paid no transactional or storage fees); the same goes for someone who bought bitcoin in May. Or, er, an hour ago. Picasso's time will presumably come, too.

by nadam 5y ago

jstx1 5y ago

It's also possible that some people understand all of this and still don't think that crypto is a good idea, or that it has worked out well in practice, or that it does anything meaningful.

nadam 5y ago
Ok. In my opinion an algorithmic censor-resistant, deflationary value network is a useful potential technology that can give us potentially the best store-of-value known to mankind so far. Why isn't it meaningful to further research this technology in your opinion? (While mathematicians are researching all kinds of esoteric topics?) In my opinion proof-of-stake research is one of the most-important research topics today.
- bob33212 5y ago
  If you find it a good store of value for yourself that is fine, but you need to understand that value is defined by social norms not by technical features. Picasso paintings are currently a very good store of value. Gold has been a decent store of value for thousands of years. People bought beanie babies in 1998 because they thought the price would go up and stay up for a long time. Obviously they were wrong, but the same thing could happen to GOLD, BTC, or even Picasso paintings. It totally depends on what society values in the future.
  - nadam 5y ago
    I understand this. While you are right, there are some properties of these assets that can help us predict what could become a store of value: is it durable? is it easy to transfer? is it easy to censor? is it inflationary? also you can examine the network effect related to the asset. By developing new technical features, you can increase the chance of an asset to become a store of value. That's why researching proof-of-stake algorithms is meaningful. Not as important as to find cure for cancer? Maybe. But still meaningful. Lots of people on HN claim that it is totally bullshit, which is a strong opinion imho...
    - bob33212 5y ago
      Do you mean proof of stake? If so, yes there is potential for new technologies to come out which could cause crypto to have more real world use cases and then cause the value of crypto to society to be higher. But we have been hearing about how crypto is "the future" for 10+ years. At what point is this future actually going to exist?
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    > but the same thing could happen to GOLD, BTC, or even Picasso paintings In fact, it has happened to the first two, at least temporarily. Someone who bought gold in 1980, say, is probably not particularly happy with it as a store of value today (adjusted for inflation, they _may_ just about be breaking even now assuming that they paid no transactional or storage fees); the same goes for someone who bought bitcoin in May. Or, er, an hour ago. Picasso's time will presumably come, too.