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

191–200 of 302 posts

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#191

Post by Houshalter »

Nursie wrote: post #169
crassus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin could revolutionize the foundation of the world's economy with a piece of software some guy wrote in a few months. You'd figure that would be the kind of thing that hackers would get excited about, as opposed to social-sharing startups (which are just a replacement for reality TV)

I, for one, will be very sad if it does revolutionise the foundation of any economies, because deflation is bad and creating a new aristocracy from a few BTC hoarders is also not something I consider useful. Crypto-currency good. Bitcoin not so much.

Some people getting rich of bitcoin doesn't make everyone else worse off. And a "new aristocracy" is a huge stretch. A few people will get rich off it but not like that.

And the value of bitcoin won't deflate forever. Eventually the price will stabilize.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#192

Post by yankoff »

notahacker wrote: post #176
jaxn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argumen…

People who take the time to learn about "alternative medicine" usually end up (or start off ) sceptical about evidence-based medicine...

And your claim, of course, is not based on any evidence.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#193

Post by JackFr »

Groxx wrote: post #171
maxerickson wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the U.S. government fell, any bodies of power that arose in the aftermath would be quite likely to repudiate the debts of the old government. So no, the dollar isn't quite backed by the material value of everything in the U.S. It is backed by the stability of the U.S. government though.

True, though it won't fall in an instant, so there's some warning. And other governments seem likely to hold at least some power over any brand-new government, so it's still unlikely/impossible that they'll get nothing back from the debts.

There are also examples of post-fiat currencies. Immediately following the toppling of Saddam Hussein there was still economic activity denominated in the old Iraqi currency, most probably on the assumption that it would be convertible at some rate with whatever came next.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#194

Post by dasil003 »

fragsworth wrote: post #71
Joeri wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's in a strange position right now, though. Its value is not based on anything that makes any sense. Public perception - yes - but public perception of what ? Nothing is priced in bitcoin. Once things begin to be priced in bitcoin, proponents hope its value will stabilize. This might happen. It did with fiat, but fiat had the advantage of a stable start and slow detachment from gold. The real funny thing to me is,…

> I don't know that bitcoin can be used as a store of value, especially for future adopters.

All else being equal, it seems to be designed to be a perfect store of value because it is deflationary by design. Obviously it is far more volatile and risky than something backed by major world governments at this stage, however it does come with certain guarantees that no central bank could credibly make (if the crypto holds). For people who have had their wealth stolen by governments this could prove a very attractive pull.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#195

Post by chavesn »

njharman wrote: post #174
cs702 wrote: post #7

That four-year-old submission has just two comments: one expressing doubt, one expressing optimism. Interestingly, despite growing worldwide adoption of Bitcoin, comments about it on HN continue to be more or less evenly split between doubters and optimists. And I wouldn't be surprised if comments to this submission are evenly split between those same two camps. No amount of evidence or reasoning seems to persuade ei…

Selection bias. If you lack strong opinions you are unlikely to comment. As with almost everything; small number of doubters and supporters on the ends, huge number of 'meh' in center of bell curve.

That's a good point, but I don't think the point is that its dividing the whole population into one group or the other.

Instead, I think the point is that the volume of doubters and supporters still seems to be about equal; whereas many technologies appear to shift proportion of support vs. doubt more significantly over time.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#196

Post by jk4930 »

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.

The meaning of a backed currency is that it's backed by the issuer with a specific commodity (or service). You can go to the issuer and exchange the money ("symbol of value") into the real thing ("value").

With BTC you can't go to some miner (=issuer) and exchange it back into the electricity that was used to produce it.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#197

Post by blibble »

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…

I dunno, armoured trucks and vaults are pretty hard to get into.

one critical bug in the main bitcoin client and the value will become zero (or close to it).

whilst I like the idea of bitcoin, I'm not betting my retirement on being able to draw out my BTC balance in 40 years

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#198

Post by dasil003 »

ericb wrote: post #96
this_user wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is different in that is the purest form of a fiat currency in the sense that it is backed by nothing and thus has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Traditional currencies, on the other hand, are at least fractionally backed by (usually) gold and government bonds which in itself are backed by a government's ability to tax its citizens. There is also a second problem in that BTC is deflationary by design. Deflatio…

You could argue that deflation is the cure to consumerism, and the start of environmentalism. HDTV's have had strong deflation for years, but I still have one.

I like your first point, but your second point makes no sense. Products are not currency, and talking about inflation/deflation in products does not make sense, unless people buy them as a long-term value-store in which case "assets" might be more appropriate. Except they're still not fungible so they can appreciate or depreciate, but that's not inflation or deflation.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#199

Post by mkramlich »

VMG wrote: post #107
mkramlich wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deflation risk can be solved, I think, if the core developers and core decision-makers (key movers and shakers in the community, like miners and vendors) all agree to a "split" event moment where every 1 previous BTC transmutes into say 1000 subsequent BTC (or whatever, picking numbers out of thin air). Making it easier to get BTC because old values which were too close to the smallest fraction floor now become s…

I don't think you understand the deflation argument. Also Bitcoin can already be split into 10e8 subunits (Satoshis)

1. I do

2. they can be split further, if ever needed. which is what I just said. if enough people agree to it and enough people migrate forward, via cooperation and "this-will-only-hurt-briefly" actions

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#200

Post by novalis78 »

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #175
DevX101 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When don't you spend all of your USD money today since inflation will make it worth less tomorrow?

to be fair, that comparison isn't too valid. Look at the wild yearly fluctuations in bitcoin, compared to the steady rate(3 percent) of inflation of the dollar throughout history. On the other hand, OP is wrong because bitcoins will eventually slow down massively in production(almost to a halt) and stabilize at that point.

I was also wondering if - at a future point where bitcoin adoption is more wide spread - could not the entire supply chain be "paid" in a matter of milliseconds? Allowing the prices to fluctuate quite naturally. Should not that be especially less of a problem when one bitcoin might be worth as much as, say, an entire city's internet infrastructure (and thus not even up for speculation anymore) and price fluctuations occur in the range of satoshis? The deflationary nature of the currency, turning private individuals into mini-banks, turning greed on to saving and thus optimizing investments and falling prices for economic value creation - aren't those attractive possibilities for a "bitcoin" dominated global economy?
Post reply on HN