Live data from Hacker News

Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

bridgewater.com

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#91

> while those who are against it (which are a few scared souls cowering in a corner) Way to win over your audience.

HN BTC skeptics are not the target audience. This is an ad targeting rich, nontechnical boomers who are unhappy they missed the ride up.

It's possible, but I don't think so. This isn't Bridgewater's style; they're too uncharismatic to meaningfully influence investor sentiment the way Donald Trump or Elon Musk can.

I think this is a starting point to try and solicit countervailing facts. Dalio's putting his reasoning out there because he wants to be proven wrong. Reading between the lines, he's probably doing this because his global macroeconomic thesis is that inflation is coming, his normal response to this would be to buy gold, and he's heard that this Bitcoin thing is the new "digital gold" that could replace physical gold ownership. If this new thesis is right, his impulse to buy gold is wrong, and the money that would've gone into it will go into Bitcoin instead. If it's all just hype, though, he should buy gold. So he puts out a public piece explaining the pros and cons of Bitcoin and then waits for the controversy, while his assistants read the online commentary and take notes of anything that might be relevant to evaluating the investment thesis.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#92
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact opposite. Echo chambers shutdown heterodox thinking, Bridgewater apparently embraces it. They’re filtering out people who are most susceptible to getting stuck in groupthink.

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.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN BTC skeptics are not the target audience. This is an ad targeting rich, nontechnical boomers who are unhappy they missed the ride up.

It's possible, but I don't think so. This isn't Bridgewater's style; they're too uncharismatic to meaningfully influence investor sentiment the way Donald Trump or Elon Musk can. I think this is a starting point to try and solicit countervailing facts. Dalio's putting his reasoning out there because he wants to be proven wrong. Reading between the lines, he's probably doing this because his global macroeconomic thesi…

So they're basically taking the "pulse" of the population to figure out what to do.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no? if there was some successful state-sponsored or populist uprising against bitcoin’s energy then the energy use will decrease and bitcoin will continue functioning as normal it just incentivizes more efficient hardware or lower yield for miners the network can decrease in difficulty or have steady difficulty forever the value that the network can support is still several orders of magnitude higher, and there are a…

you can't support saying it would encourage people to develop ways to prevent it

you say that but that’s how electronics work

you are limiting one variable: power consumption, and people will have to work around that tighter than they already do

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#95
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been trivial to short bitcoin for years

In that case, I wonder why nobody has profited off it yet. I mean the volatility seems very helpful here.

Shorting is risky since it's not solely a bet on that the asset value will go down, but rather a bet on when exactly it will go down.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but I don't think so. This isn't Bridgewater's style; they're too uncharismatic to meaningfully influence investor sentiment the way Donald Trump or Elon Musk can. I think this is a starting point to try and solicit countervailing facts. Dalio's putting his reasoning out there because he wants to be proven wrong. Reading between the lines, he's probably doing this because his global macroeconomic thesi…

So they're basically taking the "pulse" of the population to figure out what to do.

Not quite. This isn't a poll: they'll probably tally up the overall sentiment but that's just one data point among many.

I think they're looking for arguments. They want to get the folks who've been in Bitcoin for the last 5-6 years to come out and say "Here's where you're wrong. Bitcoin can do X, Y, and Z and here are the projects that demonstrate that. People are using it for A, B, and C in countries Alpha, Beta, and Gamma and that shows exactly why Bitcoin is going to take over the world." Then Bridgewater's going to research projects X, Y, and Z and countries Alpha, Beta, and Gamma, and determine if those arguments are actually relevant.

It's intelli-trolling, basically. They're crowdsourcing their research by writing a provocative piece, targeting it at people who might know better than them, widely disseminating it on the Internet, and then seeing who responds.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deflationary nature of Bitcoin is a commonly used property to assert that Bitcoin is designed to increase in value over time due to artificially programmed scarcity. However, I don't think GP's parallel lines up, as another commenter pointed out. In any case, a single satoshi, which is the smallest denomination of Bitcoin (10^-8 of a Bitcoin), is worth about 0.05 cents as of writing this comment. If Bitcoin didn'…

That doesn't sound right. $50,000 * 10^-8 is $0.0005, or 0.05 cents.

Oops, my mistake.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#98
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

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#99

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.

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 probably half a dozen or more similar characterizations in the text).

You can call it an emotional response on my part if you want (I don't see it that way), but I'd counter their own characterization shows emotional aspects on their part as well.

Re: Our Thoughts on Bitcoin

#100
> 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 still don’t know the answer to why that isn’t a risk, but I would welcome my naïveté being corrected.

I think he's missing the mark a bit about the limited supply argument, which I think is as strong as ever, even with so many competing cryptocurrencies. For one, Bitcoin isn't set in stone and can change over time, albeit very slowly. Additionally, network technology is generally built in layers, and the bottom layer doesn't have to be where all the innovative features live. Bitcoin can serve as layer 0 of the future financial system, and we can build fast payments (lightening network), smart contracts (RSK), and other financial services on top of it. The most important thing is to have a robust and secure bottom layer that can serve as a financial clearing house, and Bitcoin has performed flawlessly in that role for 10+ years now.

I also wrote the following recently about some of what makes Bitcoin unique, and gives it value even in an ever growing sea of cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin has some unique properties that are hard (or even impossible) to recreate in a new cryptocurrency, which form a large part of its primary value proposition. This is why you can't simply fork Bitcoin or create a new crypto from scratch and beat it.

1) Immaculate Conception. The fact that no one ever knew who Satoshi was and that he disappeared (died??) is hugely important. Crypto is all about removing as much trust from the system as possible, and having a leader (or worse, a company) behind a crypto provides a point of potential failure/corruption. I'm also a big fan of Ethereum, but having a figurehead like Vitalik incurs a large risk that he has disproportionate power to drive things in directions that aren't to the benefit of the entire network. It's almost like Bitcoin was a gift from the gods.

2) Extremely hard to change. I hear it all the time, Bitcoin is too slow, has too few features, is too hard to change, etc. Resistance to change is a very good thing for a monetary system. This is a distributed system that's now trusted with over 1 Trillion USD. Do you really want such a system to be easy to add new features to? If I'm Papa Musk and I'm dumping 1.5 Billion into Bitcoin I want security and reliability to be top priorities, not features. Bitcoin has had consistent development over the years by top notch engineers, but the rate of change has always been extremely conservative in an effort to preserve what makes Bitcoin unique and valuable for the long term.

3) Large market cap. Large market cap IS a feature. Imagine you're Tesla and you want to store 1.5B in BTC, you can't do this if the market cap is too small, because there either wouldn't be enough value in the network, or you'd drive prices up wildly acquiring your stake. A high market cap allows individuals, corporations, and governments (next wave of demand I believe) to store very large amounts of wealth. As such, there's a tremendous advantage to being the frontrunner in the crypto game, because you have the largest market cap, and thus attract more investors, which further drives the market cap up. This is a feedback loop that strongly favors the coin with the highest market cap, the highest security, and the longest record of trust. I'm not saying it's impossible to break this cycle, but it's going to be extremely unlikely at this point.

4) A name that's synonymous with cryptocurrency and money. Bitcoin has an enormous branding advantage, in that when people hear it they instantly think crypto/money. Ethereum, eh not so much. I like its name (ETH) more than a lot of other cryptos (Polkadot, WTF!), but it's not even in the same league as the iconic name Bitcoin. A lot of people are simple minded, they don't want to invest in something with a name they can't trust. You always have to keep in mind that money is more a social/psychological phenomenon than a technological one. Yet people get lost debating the merits of various crypto features, and forget about all the social reasons BTC is number one and has set in place the positive feedback cycles that will most likely keep it as number one. People are highly irrational when it comes to trust, and having a reliable brand name that's proven over time is disproportionately valuable.

5) Most secure network in crypto. Bitcoin is by far the most secure, and a double spend attack would be ridiculously expensive at these prices. This is another positive feedback loop that favors the coin with the largest market cap. Higher market cap leads to more people mining, which increases security via increasing the cost to double spend, which increases demand and further increases market cap.

Post reply on HN