Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The first Bitcoin post on HN

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 302 posts

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#141

Post by jaxn »

Joeri wrote: post #41
sentenza wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is not that black and white, is it? While it is quite clear that Bitcoin has "value" as long as people are willing to trade it (i.e., indefinitely), there is still no reason to assume that it will ever stop having these extreme fluctuations. To the contrary, I'd say that, as time progresses, we observe Bitcoin having the same problems that the gold standard had, mixed with an additional proneness to speculatio…

The value of a currency lies entirely in the perception of that value. I don't consider bitcoin different from a traditional currency, except that its rate of production is known in advance. It will keep having value because by now enough people think it does.

This is where the bitcoin boosters start to seem a little looney to me. 99% of my experience with currency has been with USD, which have been relatively stable from month to month.

It is a difficult situation because it appears that when people take the time to learn about it, they become big fans of bitcoin but also start worrying about the total collapse of the fed and the USD. I am trying to understand the argument, but I remain skeptical.

It is very interesting to watch and play with though.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#142

Post by moocowduckquack »

DanBC wrote: post #131
moocowduckquack wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't exchange your BTC back into electricity. Huh? Why not? Surely you could just buy some solar panels with bitcoins, or convert them to another currency and then buy electricity from the grid.

That's a tortuously inefficient way to get electricity.

Surely it is just what bitcoin miners have been doing anyway, the difference remaining being their profit.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#143

Post by Steko »

cfinke wrote: post #114
jeffasinger wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was posted in May 2009. On October 5th, 2009, $1 = 1,309.03 BTC [1], so you'd have bought about 1.3 million bitcoin. Which means you'd have over $500M dollars in Bitcoin. I bet that spending $1000 back then would have considerably changed the exchange rate though, and selling $500M now would definitely aversely affect the economy. 1: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History

so you'd have bought about 1.3 million bitcoin There weren't even 1.3 million bitcoin in circulation at that point [1]. If you bought every bitcoin, you could have accumulated about 1.1 million BTC for $850. [1] http://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins?timespan=all&sh...

I see claims like this all the time but it's important to realize that the price you can buy a small amount of something is generally the lowest price any seller will take, not a price all sellers will take.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#144

Post by NhanH »

digitailor wrote: post #99
jafaku wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying populations or startup stocks are broken. Do you think Facebook had a very smooth, progressive, and always upward growth? The stabilization comes at the end of the S curve. And Bitcoin isn't just a currency, it's a lot of things. One of them is a store of wealth, like gold, and it's doing wonders in that role.

Ahh, someone on HN who understands stores of exchange-value. Refreshing. Just one of the many, many ways bitcoin is better than gold as a store of exchange-value: embedded security. No armored trucks, no vaults. And look at China. BTC's recent rise is partially attributable to the fact it's a so-far-legal method of moving ¥ out of the country. And their government looks to be in support. The reason it's illegal to ex…

Can you clarify your point of bitcoin as a method to move ¥ out of the country? I don't quite understand it. Either way the thing that got move out of China would be bitcoin or USD, the Yuan never actually got moved out of the country. How is it different that it's bitcoin, instead of USD that is sent out?

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#146

Post by rms »

pg wrote: post #75

How much money would you have made if you'd bought $1000 worth of bitcoin on that day?

Corollary: how many bitcoins would you have mined if you'd bought $1000 worth of the best mining GPUs on that day?

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#147

Post by Steko »

ericb wrote: post #94
sentenza wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is not that black and white, is it? While it is quite clear that Bitcoin has "value" as long as people are willing to trade it (i.e., indefinitely), there is still no reason to assume that it will ever stop having these extreme fluctuations. To the contrary, I'd say that, as time progresses, we observe Bitcoin having the same problems that the gold standard had, mixed with an additional proneness to speculatio…

The fluctuations are a result of it's size. Currently the monetary base hasn't expanded enough to even cover the market cap of a single company the size of Tesla. At scale, things gain stability. If a newborn loses a pound, that's 10% of their weight. If I do, it is .5% of mine.

I'm sure there are currencies with a similarly sized monetary base but which are far more stable. Bitcoin's track record as a currency is pretty laughable but just big enough to provide a nice bullet point for the Bitcoin investment vehicle/get rich quick scheme sales pitch.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#148

Post by philwelch »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #129
jk4930 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The costs of producing BTC or USD are not their backings. You can't exchange your BTC back into electricity. The USD (and usually most other currencies) aims to be indirectly backed by the corresponding amount of goods they represent within the currency zone and their legal status. BTC isn't even indirectly backed. It just exists. And that's okay for its purpose.

You can't exchange your BTC back into electricity. Huh? Why not? Surely you could just buy some solar panels with bitcoins, or convert them to another currency and then buy electricity from the grid.

By that reasoning, I can convert my USD into donuts, and hence the USD is backed by donuts, hence the term "dollars to donuts".

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#149

Post by TomGullen »

gwern wrote: post #130
TomGullen wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest way to refute the tulip argument is simply point out Bitcoins total money stock is fixed at 21 million units, wheras you can plant new tulips at will. (The skill/time required to do this is irrelevant to the point).

Actually, the interesting thing about tulips is that that's not true. I don't mean to single you out here, but this is a demonstration of how most people know jack shit about Tulipomania (even though many of them are perfectly willing to bloviate about it and compare Bitcoin to tulips). One of the revolutionary things about tulips at that time was that the unique patterns caused by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip…

Interesting thanks, what's a good book to read abou it all then?
Post reply on HN