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

Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

bridgewater.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#101

Post by notahacker »

solosoyokaze wrote: post #92
notahacker wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case they're filtering for readers who are susceptible to a particular type of groupthink: people who've read mostly positive stuff about Bitcoin and are inclined to believe it. It is impossible to argue with a straight face that glibly dismissing one side of an argument as "a few scared souls cowering in a corner" (as opposed to "most people") is a statement embracing heterodoxy. As pointed out in other subt…

I don't take "a few scared souls cowering in a corner" as a put down. It's a tongue in cheek comment about the massive (monstrous) growth of BTC. The only people who would take that seriously and get offended are people with preconceived notions. Most people would just find it humorous.

Oh, I don't think it's likely to cause offence, I just think it's a bit of a daft comment. Same as an article which opened with a tongue in cheek comment about Bitcoin's growth showing a bright future for ransomware shouldn't really be triggering any cryptoenthusiasts, but I'm sure they'd feel justified in skipping the article, whilst r/buttcoiners would be delighted that someone else gets it (and maybe get suckered into reading the analysis bits about buying Asset X instead)

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#102

Post by christiansakai »

solosoyokaze wrote: post #86
christiansakai wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cardano will prove PoS sooner than Ethereum, and it has hard cap. Yes I am a Cardano shiller.

How would you recommend acquiring Cardano? Is there an exchange you can buy it on?

You can just get it in majority of exchanges. In case your exchange doesn't support it (like me, Coinbase and Gemini, NYC, don't support Cardano), just use swapping service like changenow.io, so buy ETH from Coinbase and use changenow.io to swap it to ADA

I've been using changenow.io and it always works. As always, don't send in really large transaction, but one by one, maybe like 3000 ADA each time (this is what I do).

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#103

Post by christiansakai »

agotterer wrote: post #73
christiansakai wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cardano will prove PoS sooner than Ethereum, and it has hard cap. Yes I am a Cardano shiller.

Cardano has already demonstrated that it's working. The network is currently 86% decentralized and on Mar 31st will be 100% decentralized.

Yes, exciting times ahead.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#104

Post by mindcandy »

superbcarrot wrote: post #65
ralala wrote: post #61

The rising of Bitcoin can be a threat to working democracies - at least if it is used as a currency. Monetary politics are important for our society to function properly. On the other hand: For broken countries, it can help the people as a temporary replacement.

How do people in those broken countries get Bitcoin? To buy Bitcoin in a first world country I need a valid ID, an online exchange that operates in my country, access to the internet and a bank account. And it can take days if you've never done it before. Is that realistic for someone living in a third world country? What does bitcoin give you that you don't already have if you have access to all the items listed abo…

You don't need those things to get Bitcoin. You need those things to stay out of trouble with your government. If your government and financial system is broken it's even easier for you to get Bitcoin because no one is demanding you jump through their tacked-on hoops.

What Bitcoin gives you in this case is that you and I can be in two different broken countries with adversarial governments, but you can I can still transact from around the world without the blessing of our broken governments or their broken banks.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#105

Post by Matticus_Rex »

sebastien_b wrote: post #46
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't; they're very open to being shown to be wrong. That's a key feature in their company culture. They're just not shy about how they phrase their current beliefs.

Then they should really think about how they phrase their intentions. To me, this read like someone at a congressional hearing asking "Why are you against protecting children from predators?" to a witness opposing something on totally different grounds (ie. being needlessly confrontational from the get-go).

Bridgewater doesn't need to convince their audience of their credibility. They're consistently one of the most profitable investment firms in the world. If they were just finding an audience, it might be necessary for them to temper their phrasing, but from their position it may be valuable to be intentionally provocative.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#106

Post by anthonygd »

dang wrote: post #98
adflux wrote: post #17

Another company shilling a coin, hoping to convince many more greater fools. Only goal of this article is to convince you to buy, and to transfer a part of your wealth to them.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's tough when so many shallow dismissive articles show up.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#107

Post by solosoyokaze »

sebastien_b wrote: post #99
solosoyokaze wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't take "a few scared souls cowering in a corner" as a put down. It's a tongue in cheek comment about the massive (monstrous) growth of BTC. The only people who would take that seriously and get offended are people with preconceived notions. Most people would just find it humorous.

So why not simply say "Bitcoin skeptics" instead? I had never heard of Bridgewater; I had no opinion about them either way. Was more than willing to read up on their "thoughts on Bitcoin". But immediately going down that hole with such a characterization will not encourage me to engage or evaluate their thoughts objectively. Had they used 'skeptics' I certainly would have kept reading (though I suspect there's probab…

Because "Bitcoin skeptics" isn't funny or entertaining writing? I'm sure the author knows what tone works for their audience. Not everyone wants the completely antiseptic take.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#108

Post by solosoyokaze »

notahacker wrote: post #101
solosoyokaze wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't take "a few scared souls cowering in a corner" as a put down. It's a tongue in cheek comment about the massive (monstrous) growth of BTC. The only people who would take that seriously and get offended are people with preconceived notions. Most people would just find it humorous.

Oh, I don't think it's likely to cause offence , I just think it's a bit of a daft comment. Same as an article which opened with a tongue in cheek comment about Bitcoin's growth showing a bright future for ransomware shouldn't really be triggering any cryptoenthusiasts, but I'm sure they'd feel justified in skipping the article, whilst r/buttcoiners would be delighted that someone else gets it (and maybe get suckered…

I found it humorous (slightly, it's not like it's hilarious). Ray Dalio presumably knows his brand and what his audience wants to hear. The information in the piece is legitimate, people can ignore it at their own loss.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#109

Post by nfin »

wmf wrote: post #81
nfin wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you missed the elephant in the room: bitcoin can almost double (2x) in value every 4 years without an increase of energy usage by miners (if you put a wide enough filter) - I guess most understand that the reason is the supply halving finding place every 210.000 blocks (roughly 4 years), and nothing to do with technology/moore's law or anything else - this will probably be true (more or less... lets say 1.8x -2x) for…

That's not good enough. Even a $10T market cap doesn't justify 6 GW of power consumption when PoS would consume effectively zero.

Here something to read for those really interested in knowing both sides of the argument (PoW side in this case, as the potential benefits of PoS are clear to everyone):

https://medium.com/coinmonks/blockchain-myth-5-proof-of-work...

https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

https://medium.com/coinmonks/proof-of-work-vs-proof-of-stake...

That's a bit to read, but not a topic that one should just think he knows about (and these articles have quite a lot of overlap)

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#110

Post by rdsubhas »

01100011 wrote: post #18
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

The section about the fallacy of limited cryptocurrency supply is one of the key insights missing from many Bitcoin discussions: > For those reasons the “limited supply” argument isn’t as true as it might appear—e.g., if Blackberries were in limited supply they still wouldn’t be worth much because they were replaced by competitors that were more advanced. I agree that Bitcoin is interesting as an alternative asset, b…

I agree but to play Devil's advocate I think the answer is "the network effect". Facebook could be replaced at any time, yet it continues to dominate social media. At some point, BTC could become, if it has not already, big enough to become self-sustaining.

Regarding free services, one could have said the same thing about Orkut or Myspace. Community tends to flock in via one door, and flock out via another door, as long as the product or service is free.

In this case however, completely agree with you. BTC is a paid network (a very expensive one at that). It could remain self-sustaining for quite long.

Post reply on HN