Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

Exactly I would have absolutely no problem with them if these things were obscure little open source projects like most tech experiments are. When I first read the Bitcoin paper I was skeptical but interested to see where they'd take it.

My problem is that these projects are simultaneously treated as humble little experiments and the perfect future of the global financial system, deserving of hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and endless public attention. If they would pick one or the other, I'd be fine with it. But I've dealt with years of a radical, quasi-mystical pro-crypto contingent who believe they deserve all of the upside with none of the accountability. I am 100% over it.

In short, the crypto hate is a reaction to the crypto hype. I have very little sympathy for people who profited from the hype, delivered approximately nothing of use to the rest of the world, and now have a sad that there are consequences.

View on HN

> In short, the crypto hate is a reaction to the crypto hype.

Actually, as someone who was very interested in Bitcoin in the early days of 2011-2012, I disagree. If anything, the hate on HN was even greater back then, way before Bitcoin became hyped. So many people were convinced it was a pyramid scheme. It was clear to anyone familiar with the Bitcoin community back then that there were a lot of highly technical, talented people, and very few scammers. But most of HN reflexively despised Bitcoin.

In fact, Bitcoin on HN is actually a lot less hated now, which tells me it has little to do with the hype, and that something else was going on.

Bear in mind that I disassociated myself from Bitcoin once the scammers, con-men, and get-rich-quick types infiltrated the community around 2013 and 2014. But even back in 2011, there was a very high number of HNers who seemed personally affronted by the very idea that money was a social agreement. They seemed to believe that money was some kind of official, government activity, end of story. And that anyone who believed otherwise was an evil heretic, to be ridiculed.

> I have very little sympathy for people who profited from the hype, delivered approximately nothing of use to the rest of the world, and now have a sad that there are consequences.

This I agree with 100%.

We may be talking about different hate. I think gnarbarian is talking about their current experience, and I'm certainly talking about my current feelings.

That said, the 2011-12 critique that Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme turned out to be approximately correct. Much like Herbalife, the actual product was never good for much, and its actual utility was basically irrelevant to its rise. And as with many pyramid schemes, a collapse came when the supply of new entrants became insufficient. There are differences, of course. Pyramid schemes have a central authority, while Bitcoin doesn't.

I definitely agree that this is a perennial HN problem, though: "And that anyone who believed otherwise was an evil heretic, to be ridiculed." The field necessarily attracts idealists; so much of making software is continuing to insist on an idea until the computer eventually agrees. But it's regrettably easy to go overboard.

> But even back in 2011, there was a very high number of HNers who seemed personally affronted by the very idea that money was a social agreement. They seemed to believe that money was some kind of official, government activity, end of story. And that anyone who believed otherwise was an evil heretic, to be ridiculed.

This x10. If I were to anthropomorphise HN it would be a middle aged white collar worker, pretty smart, making fairly keen observations about the evolution of a company's product and social structure, but in the dark about executive-level play. Financially conservative, thinks of money as a necessary evil. Stashes money in the bank and is highly suspicious of financial risk.

To this character Bitcoin is a threat because it mixes that which they care strongly about (open source, distributed systems, impact) with that which they've largely ignored and of which they are suspicious (money).

Edit: grammar.

Your anthropomorphized HN rings amusingly true and strikes me as a bit sad. I was here in the early days, and back then HN was full of people reading PG and planning their own startups. I was one of them, but (until recently) ended up settling in as a middle-aged white collar worker, with cash in the bank and self-congratulations for my focus on craft over money. I guess I'm not the only one.

I never found Bitcoin threatening though. When I finally read Satoshi's paper, it struck me as beautifully elegant, and a great experiment in practical economics.

I smiled at your characterization. Although, more realistically, our archetype has done modestly well by working for the man, and has 100k-low millions in index funds and company stock, and some comfort with +/- 30% swings y/y.

But let's also remember, that middle-aged character has seen the hype cycles many times before in previous decades, and recognizes the scam. The sky-high and unstable valuations, the co-dependent press coverage, the hand-waving distraction from the absence of realistic uses, the flurry of me-too startups, the enthusiasm of lay investors.

Hype usually indicates pure bullshit, but sometimes something useful emerges out of it. Most often the original projects are decimated.

That's true, but someone less conservative would see the cycle and want to throw in on the next iteration. The HNer sees the iterations go by and mostly calls BS, but then profits tangentially by getting high salary jobs fueled by the cycle. I would also say the HNer has a bit of a doomsday/apocalyptic tendency, entertaining the idea that the next bust is "the end." E.g., crypto is dead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com