4 ms·

Why does every thread on HN about crypto turn into a circle jerk about how it's a ponzi, used for nefarious purposes and is bad for the environment? HN used to

by bko 5y ago

Why does every thread on HN about crypto turn into a circle jerk about how it's a ponzi, used for nefarious purposes and is bad for the environment? HN used to be (and for the most part is) a place for people excited about new ideas that could transform the world not blind derision and mockery. But every time this topic comes up you see the same predictable responses with nothing interesting or unique to add.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
You could look for arguments against it, if you see it so much. Ps. He wasn't saying anything about the environment and it's also what I'm thinking :)
- md2020 5y ago
  There are arguments against it within 5 minutes of Google search, it’s the people repeating this stuff that should do their research.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    That's mostly how they/we conclude those things... Obviously. Eg. You call it Ponzi, i call it money printing with tether.. And courts actually seem to agree on a lot of those things. We'll see how coinbase fares, but it's already obvious they can't do some things that others do. Because they care more about regulations. Eg. Even the first Bitcoin discussion on the original board mentioned it would be a bad currency. Let's not pretend it's a good one and throw 100 of years of economic lessons out of the window. I mostly see proponents don't do their research and see them influenced by plain greed. Eg. Here, you didn't even reply on topic on the original comment and added a lot of other things out of thin air here. Lol No one was even talking about Ponzi or environmental issues. They wanted to see actual applications for it, selling avatars isn't one fyi.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
UncleMeat 5y ago
Because there is nothing new to discuss. The same arguments on both sides existed five years ago. So every discussion is a rehash of what has already been discussed. It isn't like the conversation has changed much on bitcoin-maximalist focused forums either. The general population of HN posters think that cryptocurrency hype is not justified by the tech. That does not mean that the forum is against discussing new ideas. It just means that they disagree with you about this idea. Consider the discussion of OOP every time it comes up. It is the same conversation over and over. But I think it'd be silly for somebody who prefers inheritance as a design choice to declare that HN is just filled with incurious people because they don't like inheritance.
- bko 5y ago
  The article was about a big drop in an hour. A constructive comment would be people discussing large transactions that occurred causing the drop or the market mechanisms of leverage and short positions, and how levered bets have to be unwound when the price drops, exacerbating the initial drop. What's the most recent leverage policy of most exchanges? Who offers the most leverage? Are those exchanges the ones that get hit first as positions liquidate? Did all exchanges drop approximately the same? Is there a whale that unloaded? There are a million things interesting things that could be discussed and I wish someone with more in-depth knowledge could comment. But instead I see these low effort 'cryptocurrency bad' posts.
BoiledCabbage 5y ago
I think the concern flows in the opposite direction. If a new technology comes out, and tons of people on HN all evaluated it and found tons of fundamental flaws, readers generally engage and are appreciative of it. They're glad for the analysis, their glad they didn't end up using it on their job and all the problems it will cause. They see those same problems and realize a different approach is needed because that tech is flawed. Sharing of concerns is seen as a positive, and appreciated by the community. However when that same process happens with one specific tech, the exact opposite response occurs. People appear to become upset when others helpfully point out the fundamental flaws. And while I can't guarantee intent behind that response, the fundamental difference to me appears to be that those who don't like to hear the criticisms are those who would personally profit if the tech worked out. Not exactly unbiased observers. If HN criticized some Big Tech company's new tech, and the people defending it and ignoring the arguments and responding in HN saying "that flaw isn't true", or "stop being so negative" were the PR people the work for Big Tech, the HN response would be similar. Reasonable criticism on HN usually leads to appreciation and understanding. Reasonable criticism of crypto, leads to people who would profit getting upset and complaining about "the negativity" and "why don't the just believe." And all of that is without even getting into the issue of all the negative externalities of crypto that most tech doesn't have. It's not only that its impacting those in it, but via fraud, electricity, gpus, poor capital allocation,... it will have significant negative real world impact.
- md2020 5y ago
  The hole in your reasoning is that “it’s a Ponzi scheme!!!” is not a reasonable argument against crypto and shows a misunderstanding of both Ponzi schemes and cryptocurrency. And it is always at the top of HN threads about cryptocurrency. “why don’t they just believe” ends up being the response because if you look around, there are well-reasoned arguments against nearly all of the criticisms of the main cryptocurrencies, and people continue to willfully ignore them, giving us never-ending comments about Ponzi schemes. Reasonable criticism is what is happening within the development communities of these projects.
  - BoiledCabbage 5y ago
dpweb 5y ago
If you take an intellectually honest argument and inject a good amount of greed - since the biggest proponents of it are all big owners of it - you're going to hear some unreasonable claims. The flaws in most of the arguments in favor of cryptos are quite apparent. When you don't have a personal financial interest in it! Some of these arguments only continue bc people have ALOT of money tied up in its success. More money, more legitimacy. Cause that's how finance works. The dollar is only the dollar cause people BELIEVE it's a dollar. Tech don't work like that. People have arguments based on (usually) honest intellectual and observable evidence.

by bko 5y ago

NicoJuicy 5y ago

You could look for arguments against it, if you see it so much. Ps. He wasn't saying anything about the environment and it's also what I'm thinking :)

md2020 5y ago
There are arguments against it within 5 minutes of Google search, it’s the people repeating this stuff that should do their research.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  That's mostly how they/we conclude those things... Obviously. Eg. You call it Ponzi, i call it money printing with tether.. And courts actually seem to agree on a lot of those things. We'll see how coinbase fares, but it's already obvious they can't do some things that others do. Because they care more about regulations. Eg. Even the first Bitcoin discussion on the original board mentioned it would be a bad currency. Let's not pretend it's a good one and throw 100 of years of economic lessons out of the window. I mostly see proponents don't do their research and see them influenced by plain greed. Eg. Here, you didn't even reply on topic on the original comment and added a lot of other things out of thin air here. Lol No one was even talking about Ponzi or environmental issues. They wanted to see actual applications for it, selling avatars isn't one fyi.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

UncleMeat 5y ago

Because there is nothing new to discuss. The same arguments on both sides existed five years ago. So every discussion is a rehash of what has already been discussed. It isn't like the conversation has changed much on bitcoin-maximalist focused forums either. The general population of HN posters think that cryptocurrency hype is not justified by the tech. That does not mean that the forum is against discussing new ideas. It just means that they disagree with you about this idea. Consider the discussion of OOP every time it comes up. It is the same conversation over and over. But I think it'd be silly for somebody who prefers inheritance as a design choice to declare that HN is just filled with incurious people because they don't like inheritance.

bko 5y ago
The article was about a big drop in an hour. A constructive comment would be people discussing large transactions that occurred causing the drop or the market mechanisms of leverage and short positions, and how levered bets have to be unwound when the price drops, exacerbating the initial drop. What's the most recent leverage policy of most exchanges? Who offers the most leverage? Are those exchanges the ones that get hit first as positions liquidate? Did all exchanges drop approximately the same? Is there a whale that unloaded? There are a million things interesting things that could be discussed and I wish someone with more in-depth knowledge could comment. But instead I see these low effort 'cryptocurrency bad' posts.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago

I think the concern flows in the opposite direction. If a new technology comes out, and tons of people on HN all evaluated it and found tons of fundamental flaws, readers generally engage and are appreciative of it. They're glad for the analysis, their glad they didn't end up using it on their job and all the problems it will cause. They see those same problems and realize a different approach is needed because that tech is flawed. Sharing of concerns is seen as a positive, and appreciated by the community. However when that same process happens with one specific tech, the exact opposite response occurs. People appear to become upset when others helpfully point out the fundamental flaws. And while I can't guarantee intent behind that response, the fundamental difference to me appears to be that those who don't like to hear the criticisms are those who would personally profit if the tech worked out. Not exactly unbiased observers. If HN criticized some Big Tech company's new tech, and the people defending it and ignoring the arguments and responding in HN saying "that flaw isn't true", or "stop being so negative" were the PR people the work for Big Tech, the HN response would be similar. Reasonable criticism on HN usually leads to appreciation and understanding. Reasonable criticism of crypto, leads to people who would profit getting upset and complaining about "the negativity" and "why don't the just believe." And all of that is without even getting into the issue of all the negative externalities of crypto that most tech doesn't have. It's not only that its impacting those in it, but via fraud, electricity, gpus, poor capital allocation,... it will have significant negative real world impact.

md2020 5y ago
The hole in your reasoning is that “it’s a Ponzi scheme!!!” is not a reasonable argument against crypto and shows a misunderstanding of both Ponzi schemes and cryptocurrency. And it is always at the top of HN threads about cryptocurrency. “why don’t they just believe” ends up being the response because if you look around, there are well-reasoned arguments against nearly all of the criticisms of the main cryptocurrencies, and people continue to willfully ignore them, giving us never-ending comments about Ponzi schemes. Reasonable criticism is what is happening within the development communities of these projects.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago

dpweb 5y ago

If you take an intellectually honest argument and inject a good amount of greed - since the biggest proponents of it are all big owners of it - you're going to hear some unreasonable claims. The flaws in most of the arguments in favor of cryptos are quite apparent. When you don't have a personal financial interest in it! Some of these arguments only continue bc people have ALOT of money tied up in its success. More money, more legitimacy. Cause that's how finance works. The dollar is only the dollar cause people BELIEVE it's a dollar. Tech don't work like that. People have arguments based on (usually) honest intellectual and observable evidence.