Live data from Hacker News

How the Winklevoss Twins Found Vindication in a Bitcoin Fortune

nytimes.com

291–300 of 309 posts

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

#291
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But they are in fact different. Maybe not as different as gold vs silver but similar in that gold and silver also have completely artificial values driven by hype.

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

#292
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, q…

Anybody with a computer/graphics card and an interest in technology could have money on Bitcoin and countless other cryptocurrencies. Neets from /g made money on it without spending a dime. Where were you?

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

#293
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, q…

Anybody with a computer/graphics card and an interest in technology could have money on Bitcoin and countless other cryptocurrencies. Neets from /g made money on it without spending a dime. Where were you?

It isn't about me, it is about the average world citizen.

You assume one wanted to be part of this specific pyramid scheme. I already experimented with another in the '00s and figured that I'm not fit for MLM (it involved sales though), or pyramid schemes for that matter. I'm a terrible salesman because I am too honest and extensive. I didn't expect the world would fall for this pyramid scheme either. Cause frankly, I found it sucked, cause the various times I checked I couldn't use it as currency anywhere (still pretty much true). Which would mean I'm locked, sitting on gold nobody wants to have. What good is a currency you cannot use? You never know beforehand for which ones they're gonna fall for and which ones they won't. Furthermore, it isn't anonymous either, so you can't use it to avoid taxes. At this point, its still difficult to execute transactions due to latency and cost. Its also difficult to find a shop which accepts it as currency.

The only thing Bitcoin has going for it, is that its the first cryptocurrency. The flaws it has cannot be solved easily without a full reset, or consensus of a majority. Plus, the question is if people are responsible enough to own a hardware wallet.

So yeah, what I was doing with my savings is I was investing and I had it on the bank. Which are both luxuries a lot of people in this world cannot afford. And yet, we're talking pennies compared to what Winklevoss owned the moment they were born. All cause of mom 'n pop. You cannot just take that out of the equation.

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really risky if you're already rich and you only stand to be "slightly less rich" if you bet wrong.

It's not one or the other If you settlement was 10Mi (example), sell 1Mi shares in cash: congrats, you're rich now, then invest the remaining 9Mi in higher risk stuff

The impression I got from the documentary film "The Social Network" was that they were already pretty well off even before the fb settlement.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. At one point Mussolini was alive. Therefore it is provable that Mussolini could live again. Sorry, try again. At one point, these grains of sand were in this glass. Then I poured them into the ocean. But they were in the glass so they could be in there again. Except no, no they couldn’t. The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes many things non-repeatable.

You are making the opposite claim to mine, they are not comparable. Try these on for size: Before his birth, Mussolini was not alive. Therefore, it is possible that he could not be alive again. At one point, there were no grains of sand in this glass. Therefore it is possible that there will be no grains of sand in this glass again. Thermodynamics is really not the tool you should bring to bear in this conversation.…

Are you really standing by your logic, or are you just arguing with me for sport? If it’s the latter we can continue but I’m not going to repeat myself if you’re not going to listen.

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

#296
post #285
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Lanc…

Accomplishing difficult things from a disadvantaged position is more impressive than those accomplished by someone without those disadvantages, but it doesn't mean the latter accomplishments are not impressive.

The world is full of people who want to tear down other peoples accomplishments - "Accomplishment X isn't that impressive because of starving people in country Y." Using that standard, nothing done by anyone who "won the ovarian lottery" by being born in a 1st world country would qualify as "impressive".

When faced with a beautiful sunset, you can say "Meh, I'm not impressed. The sunsets in Hawaii are much better." or you can appreciate the beautiful sunset for what it is. The latter approach is happier path in life I think.

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

#297
post #278
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So its a scam because there are transaction fees?

It's become a scam because of the incentive structure. The miners control the currency and are trying to maximize the money they extract not grow the usage of Bitcoin.

Why would the miners mine Bitcoin in the first place if there was no incentive?

Once the mining stops, they make money by transaction fees.

Do you expect people to work for free?

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

#298
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was never discussing what AAPL or Bitcoin is worth or not. Just the claim that "you can't put dollars into Bitcoin, because there is a seller on the other side which takes the dollars" somehow applies to Bitcoin in a special way. My claim is that this is true for most assets out there, stocks, commodities, or financial contracts.

So let's imagine you buy $1000 worth of AAPL, $1000 worth of pork bellies, and $1000 worth of BTC. Then, simultaneously, AAPL decides to close up shop, no one is interested in buying pork bellies anymore, and the Bitcoin network shuts down. What do you now own in each case? AAPL liquidates all of its assets, pays off its debts, and distributes the balance to its former shareholders. You probably don't get $1000, you…

That applies to currencies too. I can "put money" into USD (from AUD) which actually does generate X for Y (for example, it creates more purchasing power for all importers in the USA).

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

#299
post #297
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's become a scam because of the incentive structure. The miners control the currency and are trying to maximize the money they extract not grow the usage of Bitcoin.

Why would the miners mine Bitcoin in the first place if there was no incentive? Once the mining stops, they make money by transaction fees. Do you expect people to work for free?

I don't expect people in multi level marketing aka pyramid scheme to work for free either. But, their are plenty of incentive structures with good and bad rewards. One option for a hypothetical digital currency is to stagger payments so a miner gets say 1/2 of their reward in 10 years.

I am only saying the current structure ends up as a scam, not that the eventual successful currency can't solve these problems.

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military budget is $600B. Not sure what your point is though. A 51% attack doesn't give a government control, it just allows it to double spend. And that's until a hot patch to increase the required number of confirmations resolves the issue. Besides there's a huge supply problem here. ASICs need to be manufactured. You can't just buy several hundred thousand of them. The whole point of Bitcoin is that it's pr…

A simple fork invalidating coins originating from the double spend would be enough. You've just spent $2B to achieve something that the network can invalidate with a dozen lines of code. It would set a bad precedent, but it did cost you a lot of money.

One hell of a straw man. Bitcoin isn't going to do that. It isn't Ethereum.
Post reply on HN