4 ms·

Did you spend any time at all doing basic research? Here's some thoughts on bitcoin: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/ http://dealboo

Did you spend any time at all doing basic research? Here's some thoughts on bitcoin: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/

hnnewguy 12y ago
I like Mr. Andreesen and all, but an Op-Ed by a VC heavily invested in Bitcoin technology constitutes "research"?
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  Last year alone there were over 200 academic, quasi-academic, research papers, journal articles and theses dedicated to bitcoin. There've been tens of bitcoin conferences and there's loads of discussion on the tech and economics of bitcoin to be found at say the protocol's core developers's IRC channel, mailing list or github discussion pages. Feel free to start there if you want. But to most people none of that makes much sense if you don't even grasp what bitcoin is and why it matters. Hell I couldn't even be bothered reading about that if it didn't matter. Only once you grasp why it matters can you get into the technology and economics and see if it still adds up. And you generally don't want to start with the question of 'why it matters' from a highly technical research study. But this op-ed is titled exactly that: 'why bitcoin matters'. I think it's an excellent place to start thinking about bitcoin. I use the word research in an informal sense, hence the word 'basic research'. ('looking into something') Sorry if that was misleading. Now you can say 'he's biased, he is heavily invested'. Or you can say 'He is heavily invested because he is willing to put his money where his mouth is and make a big bet on this technology and not without good reason'. If it was a short-term bet, your criticism is valid. (I invested in A, I pump A, I dump A, I profit deluding others). But this is a long-term bet, you don't generally make those unless you genuinely believe in its fundamentals. And it's not just an opinion, but a large bet, there is money at stake. So I'd say the op-ed is very valid, perhaps much more so than someone who isn't invested in the outcome and thus has no risk saying something completely wrong, unlike Marc.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >If it was a short-term bet, your criticism is valid. But this is a long-term bet How can you even claim to know what sort of bet it is? I don't believe Mr. Andreesen is nefarious, but I fully expect him to talk his book. It would be foolish otherwise. As far as his Op-Ed, I find this interesting: "Target is happy because it has the money in the form of Bitcoin, which it can immediately turn into dollars if it wants, and it paid no or very low payment processing fees; you are happy because there is no way for hackers to steal any of your personal information" Let's put aside the fact that people having their accounts hacked and Bitcoins stolen, amounting to hundreds of millions(?) of dollars is all over the news. We can also put aside the fact that "immediately turn into dollars" requires a fee, somewhere. How do I get a refund if need be? Target needs to record that information regarding my purchase, then we're back at square one: my information on the system of some retail operation, waiting to be stolen. >Feel free to start there if you want. Start where? Bitcoin proponents are going to have to do a better job selling the technology than "Go research it". I Google it and end up in /r/Bitcoin, which is a hell-hole. If understanding the importance and use of a technology involves independent research and attending conferences, no one will bother. The Bitcoin advocates need the public to understand the tech if they want it to go mainstream; Mr. Andreesen gets this, that's why he's writing Op-Eds in the NYT. I find the technology fascinating, really. Especially with regards to the idea of information and contracts being passed through the blockchain. Yet every sales-pitch is about Bitcoin as currency, and I haven't seen very many compelling use-cases there yet.
  - Ologn 12y ago
    > But to most people none of that makes much sense if you don't even grasp what bitcoin is and why it matters. This is exactly the type of thing people were saying in 2000 just before the dot-com crash - that all the old fuddy-duddies who were talking about revenues and earnings instead of eyeballs "just didn't get it". On the subject of value, the "another view" piece says: > Bitcoin is a digital currency, whose value is based directly on two things: use of the payment system today – volume and velocity of payments running through the ledger – and speculation on future use of the payment system. This is one part that is confusing people. It’s not as much that the Bitcoin currency has some arbitrary value and then people are trading with it; it’s more that people can trade with Bitcoin (anywhere, everywhere, with no fraud and no or very low fees) and as a result it has value. I don't disagree with the speculation part (although speculation increases price, not value). The other part is what is nonsense. Yes you can trade it - but I can trade gold as well. Gold has had value for 10,000 years and I feel pretty safe holding it. Bitcoins are worthless hashes, and I wouldn't feel safe at all holding it, especially since it went from $1100 a Bitcoin in November 2013 to its current $230. I was saying as much here when Bitcoin was twice its current value. "People can trade with Bitcoin and as a result it has value". No. Every commodity was traded at least once - otherwise it wouldn't be a commodity. It's traded because it is useful to someone. Currencies are just commodities with certain aspects that make them good currencies: durability, portability, divisibility and uniformity. Or pieces of paper that you can trade for such currencies. The price of Bitcoin has halved since I said it was worthless here. Looking at your first HN post, you were telling people to buy it when it was over $600. People who listened to you would have lost 60% of their money. I'm the one who "doesn't get it" though.

hnnewguy 12y ago

I like Mr. Andreesen and all, but an Op-Ed by a VC heavily invested in Bitcoin technology constitutes "research"?

IkmoIkmo 12y ago
Last year alone there were over 200 academic, quasi-academic, research papers, journal articles and theses dedicated to bitcoin. There've been tens of bitcoin conferences and there's loads of discussion on the tech and economics of bitcoin to be found at say the protocol's core developers's IRC channel, mailing list or github discussion pages. Feel free to start there if you want. But to most people none of that makes much sense if you don't even grasp what bitcoin is and why it matters. Hell I couldn't even be bothered reading about that if it didn't matter. Only once you grasp why it matters can you get into the technology and economics and see if it still adds up. And you generally don't want to start with the question of 'why it matters' from a highly technical research study. But this op-ed is titled exactly that: 'why bitcoin matters'. I think it's an excellent place to start thinking about bitcoin. I use the word research in an informal sense, hence the word 'basic research'. ('looking into something') Sorry if that was misleading. Now you can say 'he's biased, he is heavily invested'. Or you can say 'He is heavily invested because he is willing to put his money where his mouth is and make a big bet on this technology and not without good reason'. If it was a short-term bet, your criticism is valid. (I invested in A, I pump A, I dump A, I profit deluding others). But this is a long-term bet, you don't generally make those unless you genuinely believe in its fundamentals. And it's not just an opinion, but a large bet, there is money at stake. So I'd say the op-ed is very valid, perhaps much more so than someone who isn't invested in the outcome and thus has no risk saying something completely wrong, unlike Marc.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >If it was a short-term bet, your criticism is valid. But this is a long-term bet How can you even claim to know what sort of bet it is? I don't believe Mr. Andreesen is nefarious, but I fully expect him to talk his book. It would be foolish otherwise. As far as his Op-Ed, I find this interesting: "Target is happy because it has the money in the form of Bitcoin, which it can immediately turn into dollars if it wants, and it paid no or very low payment processing fees; you are happy because there is no way for hackers to steal any of your personal information" Let's put aside the fact that people having their accounts hacked and Bitcoins stolen, amounting to hundreds of millions(?) of dollars is all over the news. We can also put aside the fact that "immediately turn into dollars" requires a fee, somewhere. How do I get a refund if need be? Target needs to record that information regarding my purchase, then we're back at square one: my information on the system of some retail operation, waiting to be stolen. >Feel free to start there if you want. Start where? Bitcoin proponents are going to have to do a better job selling the technology than "Go research it". I Google it and end up in /r/Bitcoin, which is a hell-hole. If understanding the importance and use of a technology involves independent research and attending conferences, no one will bother. The Bitcoin advocates need the public to understand the tech if they want it to go mainstream; Mr. Andreesen gets this, that's why he's writing Op-Eds in the NYT. I find the technology fascinating, really. Especially with regards to the idea of information and contracts being passed through the blockchain. Yet every sales-pitch is about Bitcoin as currency, and I haven't seen very many compelling use-cases there yet.
- Ologn 12y ago
  > But to most people none of that makes much sense if you don't even grasp what bitcoin is and why it matters. This is exactly the type of thing people were saying in 2000 just before the dot-com crash - that all the old fuddy-duddies who were talking about revenues and earnings instead of eyeballs "just didn't get it". On the subject of value, the "another view" piece says: > Bitcoin is a digital currency, whose value is based directly on two things: use of the payment system today – volume and velocity of payments running through the ledger – and speculation on future use of the payment system. This is one part that is confusing people. It’s not as much that the Bitcoin currency has some arbitrary value and then people are trading with it; it’s more that people can trade with Bitcoin (anywhere, everywhere, with no fraud and no or very low fees) and as a result it has value. I don't disagree with the speculation part (although speculation increases price, not value). The other part is what is nonsense. Yes you can trade it - but I can trade gold as well. Gold has had value for 10,000 years and I feel pretty safe holding it. Bitcoins are worthless hashes, and I wouldn't feel safe at all holding it, especially since it went from $1100 a Bitcoin in November 2013 to its current $230. I was saying as much here when Bitcoin was twice its current value. "People can trade with Bitcoin and as a result it has value". No. Every commodity was traded at least once - otherwise it wouldn't be a commodity. It's traded because it is useful to someone. Currencies are just commodities with certain aspects that make them good currencies: durability, portability, divisibility and uniformity. Or pieces of paper that you can trade for such currencies. The price of Bitcoin has halved since I said it was worthless here. Looking at your first HN post, you were telling people to buy it when it was over $600. People who listened to you would have lost 60% of their money. I'm the one who "doesn't get it" though.