Live data from Hacker News

How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

nytimes.com

281–290 of 309 posts

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. The Social Network made them out to be moneygrubbing fools, but everything else I've read shows them to be actually quite intelligent and prescient.

They competed in the 2008 Olympics. In my book, that is, without a doubt, “proof of work”. You don’t get to the Olympics without a fantastic amount of work.

If I, or virtually the vast majority of people who aren't among the ~0,01% richest in the world, didn't have to work one day in my life in order to sustain myself I could also focus on the Olympics.

Ergo; in the context we discuss, that's less of an achievement for rich American kids than for poor people.

Therefore not a good delimiter.

And certainly not inspiring. The circumstances for the vast majority of people on earth are different. To start with, their financial circumstances.

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#282
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They competed in the 2008 Olympics. In my book, that is, without a doubt, “proof of work”. You don’t get to the Olympics without a fantastic amount of work.

If I, or virtually the vast majority of people who aren't among the ~0,01% richest in the world, didn't have to work one day in my life in order to sustain myself I could also focus on the Olympics. Ergo; in the context we discuss, that's less of an achievement for rich American kids than for poor people. Therefore not a good delimiter. And certainly not inspiring. The circumstances for the vast majority of people on…

Are you seriously saying that competing in the Olympics is not impressive?

Less impressive because they're rich, sure, I'm with you. It makes it easier. But dismissing it as not a good delimiter and not inspiring is pretty ridiculous.

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they started ahead of most, I think it's silly to dismiss their returns. They made significant money. Being early in Bitcoin with a significant investment even considering their wealth is very forward thinking.

Here's why you are getting downvoted: 1. I'm jealous because they were born rich 2. I'm jealous because they made a lot of money with betting correctly on Facebook 3. I'm jealous because they also made a lot of money on correctly betting on Bitcoin 4. I'm jealous because they made the news and are probably getting all the hottest chicks. So let's all agree to only say negative stuff about them, and blame all their lu…

Ah right, the complaining about moderation card plus the projecting card. You mistake jealousy for seeing something in its relevant context & circumstances.

A tennis player who reaches exactly the same goal as another one (e.g. winning a grand slam) yet without rich parents is more impressive. Their circumstances gave them a harder time in life within the sport, and outside of it. Think of material, training costs, quality of life (that goes far!), etc etc. There's some sports which are simply elitist while others are more free for all due to lower barrier of entry.

Speculating with Bitcoin, including starting a business around such speculation in order to stimulate your speculation (huh-huh, sounds less brilliant than it is now) requires savings. If you got 100M USD and you spend 100k (0,1%) on speculation there's virtually nothing you will lose. Because even if that 100k evaporates, you're still a multi-millionaire. Compare that to a poor, hard working woman from Bangladesh who's making our Nike shoes so Bob can win his grand slams. She can only speculate with say a dollar, and that's a huge cut in her budget which she'll feel for time to come. Oh wait, she doesn't even have a computer to start with. Even if she did, 0,1% of her entire savings is still essentially nothing cause like the vast majority of people on earth she either cannot afford to spend that 0,1% or it isn't much so doesn't yield much. Like, she can't even afford fee costs with that. So much for this world-wide cryptocurrency called Bitcoin.

The fact is that the vast majority of people on earth, and even the vast majority of people in rich countries such as the United States cannot afford to speculate with large sums of money. And if they did, they'd be belly up if their speculating would go wrong.

These factors make their achievements a lot less impressive. Note that I'm not saying "unimpressive"; (and I'll repeat once more): I am saying a lot less impressive. Subtle difference.

And fuck being reliant on luck. That is a silly excuse from losers which I heard in gaming all the time (the other one is "not having their day"). Skill is what matters. Good players work around bad luck turning the odds in their favor. They end up with a good long-term ratio or track record. Provided the playing field is equal. The playing field in life is not equal. Some people are born rich, and that gives them an ample amount of chances to score in life. The Winklevoss Twins are a perfect example of that, and that makes them a boring example. The life stories of personae who became rich and famous via hard work and who wasn't rich to start with, like J.K. Rowling, are much more inspiring for the general population.

People are trying their luck all the time in the lottery. They're losing, but false hope keeps that "game" alive. By ignoring the circumstances of the Winklevoss brothers whilst articulating their successes, you're doing the same. Please stop it.

(And that's a post written without going much into the problem of speculation regarding Bitcoin, ignoring issues like Mt. Gox and Tether.)

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the risk you take in software in general. What stopped Instagram from copying Snapchat? Nothing. Micrsoft used to snuff out competitors in the office suite space all the time. MSN copied AIM. IE copied Netscape. It happens. You either work with founders you can trust or you don't.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that if you hire engineers who then screw you over you're a bad person and they're heroes.

For better or worse that is how it works.

And its not just with start ups. People who are more closer to work, generally tend to maximize returns for themselves above those are who are away from it.

This is true even in Big companies. Most product managers I know barely contribute anything to the product, most of the times its the engineers doing all the work and the product manager is just there to provide the validation 'This looks fine to me'.

There is a good reason why carpenters, plumbers, drivers, generally do better on the longer run than the supervisor ever does.

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#285
post #282
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I, or virtually the vast majority of people who aren't among the ~0,01% richest in the world, didn't have to work one day in my life in order to sustain myself I could also focus on the Olympics. Ergo; in the context we discuss, that's less of an achievement for rich American kids than for poor people. Therefore not a good delimiter. And certainly not inspiring. The circumstances for the vast majority of people on…

Are you seriously saying that competing in the Olympics is not impressive? Less impressive because they're rich, sure, I'm with you. It makes it easier. But dismissing it as not a good delimiter and not inspiring is pretty ridiculous.

Whether you or I find it impressive or not is a personal value you or I have.

For me, it depends on the sport. Some sports are simply elitist. Cricket is an example, tennis is another, hockey yet another. There's many more. You could even see the very notion of sport is elitist. Poor people need to focus on the bacon alone.

Furthermore, when I learn about the circumstances of certain sports(wo)men I get touched. Lance Armstrong was an example of that because of his illness. Unfortunately he was a fraud, and I watched him win the Tour de France 7 times. We had Sochi as well, where so many Russians suddenly were winning while normally that isn't the case, now is it?

Then there's the stories of poor people winning in sports. Those move me as well, but they seem to be rather rare.

These 3 realizations destroyed a lot of the respect I had for Olympics or sports in general. Even though I am a hobbyist sporter myself (jogging), and have been a competing gamer in the past (the same is true there: if you got rich parents you're one step ahead). Its a personal value, YMMV.

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#286
post #3

>> They said they might look at selling when the value of all the Bitcoin in circulation approaches the value of all gold in the world — some $7 trillion or $8 trillion compared with the $310 billion value of all Bitcoin on Tuesday — given that they think Bitcoin is set to replace gold as a rare commodity. But then Tyler Winklevoss questioned even that, pointing out the ways that he believes Bitcoin is better than go…

>>But then Tyler Winklevoss questioned even that, pointing out the ways that he believes Bitcoin is better than gold.

:)

Well. This could be another Facebook level embarrassment if it turns out false.

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#287
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin definitely isn't rare in kind as we've already seen how relatively "easy" it is to fork. Could just fork Bitcoin infinitely as one way to deal with its supposed scarcity. Bitcoin isn't even rare in the abundance sense if you consider that how hard it is to mine new coins is merely a function of a mathematical curve that can be adjusted as a software change. Certainly any change to the mining difficulty and/or…

The thing that is rare is the total amount of mining nodes behind bitcoin. That is what you are buying into, is mindshare. Of course the mining nodes are mostly profit driven. If another coin had a higher profit margin, the miners would switch over to that coin.

That rarity too is also software controlled based on the difficulty curve. Bitcoin doesn't have to boil the oceans, it could make mining easy enough again that transactions could be mined in a coffee break on an average person's smart phone's GPU.

As I said, the scarcity of Bitcoin is much more a political structure than an inherent nature of Bitcoin. The miners control Bitcoin so much as anyone does and it is their political intent as much as anything else that creates any scarcity in Bitcoin at all.

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#288
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin definitely isn't rare in kind as we've already seen how relatively "easy" it is to fork. Could just fork Bitcoin infinitely as one way to deal with its supposed scarcity. Bitcoin isn't even rare in the abundance sense if you consider that how hard it is to mine new coins is merely a function of a mathematical curve that can be adjusted as a software change. Certainly any change to the mining difficulty and/or…

Forking bitcoin doesn't create more bitcoins. It creates something else that is not bitcoins any longer that will not be accepted anywhere.

The philosophical and political reality of what makes a "real" Bitcoin that people can accept is outside of the question of scarcity. The fact that a Bitcoin can be endlessly "duplicated", at the whims of software developers and/or miners, regardless of how likely or improbable they may be able to be "spent" should definitely give people some pause in their Tulip mania that Bitcoins are not by their nature inherently a scarce commodity. They are scarce only so far as the political reality in which they are transacted continues to keep them scarce.

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#289
post #5

is it liquid in the way gold is ?

Let's call it "differently liquid". Your question implies that gold is itself liquid, but it can't be spent in the way of cash, and in its physical form it cannot be as quickly traded for another asset the way a paper asset could be traded. In this sense, bitcoin and gold are similar, though it is probably easier to trade gold as a paper asset, and easier to spend bitcoin as a currency. But I don't think any of the a…

Depends in some countries gold is absolutely a medium of exchange and I can convert say 10 mill in gold etf's to $ or £ in a few seconds

Re: How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn't "put into" Bitcoin. Every USD "put into" an exchange in exchange for Bitcoin was simultaneously taken out by the person on the other side of the trade. The future value of Bitcoin in USD is entirely dependent on people in the future wanting to buy Bitcoin for USD; if no one wants to, it is not worth any USD.

I guess the question should be rephrased then as "how much have the current owners of bitcoin collectively exchanged for their coins?" This question also becomes more interesting when you factor in every coin that has been mined but not yet exchanged for money. I believe the GP is correct in guessing that the number will be much smaller than the current market cap of BTC

The number is without question much smaller than the current market cap of BTC. The current price and number of shares traded on the exchanges is not very meaningful since exchanges are unregulated and you have behavior such as wash trading where you can manipulate the price and inflate volume.

What I would like to know is how much money has actually been transferred into the exchanges. That is what matters. If Coinbase has 12 million accounts, and on average only $100 was invested (I'm assuming there are MANY opened yet unfunded accounts), then we're talking about $1.2billion at play moving back and forth on that exchange. (this is just a hypothetical number, I would love Coinbase to produce statistics, but know they have no incentive to.)

If no new accounts get opened and no more money flows in, That $1.2b will slowly drop to zero as Coinbase and the miners eat up that pool with fees.

Post reply on HN