Hacker News Reader

Comment by sputknick | Hacker News Reader

I find the HN attitude to cryptocurrency to be fascinating. This is the site where I first learned about Bitcoin in 2011. At the time it was treated enthusiastically. People would "Show HN" projects they made that used BTC, people were intellectually curious about it. Then somewhere around 2014 it turned negative. I'm not sure what drove this change. IS it that engineers liked experimenting with it, and when those experiments didn't bear fruit they moved on? Is it that the engineers were replaced with marketers and financial analysts in the cryptocurrency community?

View on HN

> Then somewhere around 2014 it turned negative. I'm not sure what drove this change.

That is around when Bitcoin dropped its currency aspirations and went whole hog into being a vehicle for speculation.

> That is around when Bitcoin dropped its currency aspirations and went whole hog into being a vehicle for speculation.

Was that when we started to see all the scammy pump and dump schemes around random new cryptocurrencies as well?

I think many of us have tried our best to teach people about "shitcoins", but the greed and fantasy of riches has caused lots of people to buy Bitcoin copypastes.

The most recent round of dissapointment comes from blockchains being too expensive to use as write only databases, yet people using it for trivial means like crypto kitties.

I predict the next issue will again be unrelated to Bitcoin, but rather non POW coins getting hacked.

My opinion soured (~2017) once I realized the unavoidable environmental cost. The TPS limit was quite damning too. Hearing the faithful flip from currency to asset language smelled a lot like a pyramid scheme.

But who knows, maybe the offshoots like CureCoin can do some good without devastating the environment.

It's purely impatience, I think. Since blockchain hasn't "moved fast and broken things" quickly enough, it's clearly useless and will never have any purpose whatsoever, ever.

I imagine the HN of 1910 would be saying, "The Wright Brothers flew seven years ago and we aren't flying across the ocean yet, clearly aviation is a pointless new technology."

And it holds less songs than a NoMad. Lame.

The problem with any technology is that hype doesn't equal potential. Up until 2014, bitcoin was under hyped. It had a lot of potential. Since then the opposite has been true: shucksters sell it as the cure for cancer. Plenty of people here tried to get others interested in 2012 and then spent 2016 explaining to their non technical managers why the new block chain product they just bought won't actually work for what they want it for...

This place has been negative on bitcoin long before 2014. It turns into a yahoo groups chat with a quickness whenever bitcoin or cryptocurrencies come up. It's embarrassing for a site that prides itself on having insight into emerging technologies and ideas.

I'd blame the scamcoin wave of 2014 or so. And the gox fiasco, of course.

Many people haven't updated their opinions since then. Even if they've bothered to keep up, they see everything in the light of those days and never reconsider.

There's no actual use-case for bitcoin anymore. The enthusiasm got diverted to blockchain aka. the technology.

Except speculation.

I liked it when I went to Europe. I ran out of Euros and got some from a Bitcoin ATM at a university for less than the bank fee.

This was a few years ago, fees are probably higher now... Which negates your insistence that the technology is the value.

> This was a few years ago, fees are probably higher now

Anecdote: I have a U.S. online bank account with no minimums or maintenance fees. Travelled to Europe a few months ago. Took out Euros with the ATM fee reimbursed by my bank and an implied FX spread less than 1% to spot.

The use case is decentralized digital gold.

No idea why you are downvoted.

Although the term is "inflation hedged asset"

Store of value is the use case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com