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

201–210 of 302 posts

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#201

Post by MarkPNeyer »

Steko wrote: post #182
ericb wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps similar in size, but not in newness (the market needs to sort out fair value), untested exchanges, difficulty of moving money in and out. These are early adopter challenges, but they are also sources of volatility.

Bitcoin's volatility seems to be entirely a function of demand. People buy it because the price is going up. People sell it because they want to take profits or are scared the price is dropping. You'd be crazy to use it right now for legal goods and services. The view of many Bitcoin critics (including myself) that it's horrible as a currency but a massive success as an investment vehicle seems stronger than ever.

you'd be crazy to buy hosting anonymously - especially if your government protects its people from bad ideas

you'd be crazy to buy weapons anonymously - especially if your government protects its people from harm by keeping them unarmed

you'd be crazy to trust mathematics more than governments because governments never lie, whereas numbers are made up all the time

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#202

Post by splintercell »

Nursie wrote: post #165
digitailor wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re your comment about currency production costs: A spike in electricity costs would directly effect existing bitcoins' value. A spike in cloth paper prices would not cause a meaningful change in the value of already-printed dollars. And the price of the dollar would spike with electricity costs indirectly . They're not the same, it's an invalid comparison that neatly evades their inherent technological and conceptual…

>> A spike in electricity costs would directly effect existing bitcoins' value How? Please explain? It makes mining more expensive, and some people may be switched off mining as a result, but the same number of BTC will be made.

That means the rate of inflation of bitcoins will slow down, thereby causing a spike in the value of existing bitcoins.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#203

Post by dasil003 »

Psyvho wrote: post #125
jamesbritt wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Account may have been hellbanned.

its a great example of the failure of the hellbanned concept. time to ditch it and stop looking like "TOTAL ASSHOLE HACKER NEWS YCOMBINATOR"? Or are the admins/moderators really this oversensitive? Cry more. Grow up noobs.

So HN can be more like every other internet forum since Usenet in 1985 and angry repressed basement dwellers can unleash their fury anonymously to make up for the fact that they can barely look other human beings in the face?

Plenty of places to do that on the internet, I'm happy for one place enforce a higher standard.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#204

Post by novalis78 »

aestra wrote: post #153
sliverstorm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is still no reason to assume that it will ever stop having these extreme fluctuations. Actually I was thinking about this yesterday, and I think if/when goods start to be priced in BTC (not just "fixed USD value converted to current BTC equivalent") that could help anchor the value of BTC.

Except this isn't going to make sense unless my paycheck is in Bitcoin. I'll still have to do the currency conversion in my head because I get paid in USD.

...which is something to start considering. Maybe not your paycheck right away, but small amounts of money, you know, the type of "savings" that women in China pour into bitcoin these days. Coming from a culture with a very strong "savings" ethic, there is a certain "pull" exacted by bitcoin. It's also fascinating to study some deflationary models which until recently I was convinced (like everyone else) could never work, well, I am not so sure anymore whether they would not lead to an improved economic system:

http://mises.org/document/3726/

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#205

Post by notahacker »

yankoff wrote: post #192
notahacker wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you actually think there is any possibility that my unsupported assertion that people committed to therapies like homeopathy or reiki are generally a bit less enthused with medical testing and conventional medicine than the general population is incorrect, please feel free to make that argument...

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#206

Post by Jtsummers »

Houshalter wrote: post #191
Nursie wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When will the price stabilize? Serious question, I can't figure it out. What conditions would need to be present for the bitcoin economy to be stable so that prices of goods/services are consistent over extended periods of time? Do you mean that deflation will actually end or that the rate of deflation will be reduced from its current excessive rate (from a currency standpoint, as a commodity/investment it's great)?

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#207

Post by Steko »

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #201
Steko wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin's volatility seems to be entirely a function of demand. People buy it because the price is going up. People sell it because they want to take profits or are scared the price is dropping. You'd be crazy to use it right now for legal goods and services. The view of many Bitcoin critics (including myself) that it's horrible as a currency but a massive success as an investment vehicle seems stronger than ever.

you'd be crazy to buy hosting anonymously - especially if your government protects its people from bad ideas you'd be crazy to buy weapons anonymously - especially if your government protects its people from harm by keeping them unarmed you'd be crazy to trust mathematics more than governments because governments never lie, whereas numbers are made up all the time

The first two are covered under the word "legally". If your government doesn't allow something it's illegal. It might sound great to frame that as applying to things we all love like "speech" and "self-defense" but it applies equally to all things illegal like "laundering money" , "hiring an assassin", "buying heroin" or "acquiring a stockpile of illegal explosives to blow up an old folks home".

The last of your lines is just conspiracy theory catnip for monatery cranks. The mathematics of a given e-currency can be favorable or unfavorable for a global economy. As it turns out, the mathematics of Bitcoin are absolutely terrible for the way the world's economy is run.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#208

Post by ThomPete »

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…

It actually has three :)

But it's ram1024 and he is hellbanned:

ram1024 1656 days ago | link [dead] | fold

i'm having trouble wrapping my head around the logistics of this... -----

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#209

Post by andrewla »

g8oz wrote: post #101
mpg33 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate when people use the tulips comparison. The basic protocol of bitcoin that allows people to send value anywhere in the world and solves the double spend problem must have some value unto itself. I don't know it's worth $0.10, $100, or $1000000 per bitcoin to use the protocol but to compare it to a plant seems kinda ridiculous.

But those attributes can be replicated by another crypto-currency right? So the distinct edge of both bitcoins and tulips are the maddened crowds. They have that in common.

This is actually a really good point that I don't feel has been adequately answered -- usually people say something like "well, bitcoin has momentum" or somesuch, which strikes me as being nonsense if you accept the idea of why bitcoins have value as being an intrinsic property related to their fungibility, scarcity, and non-consumability; in theory the same things that give all currencies their value.

The only explanation I've come up with that sounds plausible is that a new currency, even just Bitcoin with a different genesis block, should be as valuable as Bitcoins, but fails the test of scarcity -- it's too easy to counterfeit them by double-spend attacks because of the smaller power of the network.

I don't trust this idea, though -- it smacks of post-hoc reasoning. I guess by extension the value of a proof-of-work-backed currency in aggregate should be bounded by the expected cost of a 51% attack given rational actors; doing this math for the Bitcoin network would either give strong evidence that the current pricing is irrational or weak evidence that it is rational.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#210

Post by ericb »

dasil003 wrote: post #198
ericb wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To explain: The fear that often is associated with deflationary currency (like bitcoin) is that no one will spend it, because waiting always gets you a slightly better deal. And if that happens the economy will grind to a halt with everyone waiting to spend. The point of my second statement is that we have examples of cases where even though every month your money buys more, people still do buy things.
Post reply on HN