Bitcoin is a braindead bubble with no fundamentals whatsoever, these guys just happened to have a few million lying around, they put it into something that made absolutely zero sense and ended up billionaires.
Getting lucky once can happen. Getting lucky twice, with Facebook and Bitcoin, is so improbable that it asks for a different kind of explanation.
However, both those things together are starting to get just a little bit improbable from the pure luck standpoint, don't you think?
You can entirely explain away the Winklevoss' success by supposing an investor pool of sufficient size that you can pick a set of first-pass winners (1:10000, say) and then pick a second-pass winner from that set (1:10000 again), where they happened to be the ones to be drawn, and everyone else wasn't. The sheer number of people trying to win explains away the improbability required to win—in exactly the same way that the number of people entered into a lottery explains away the improbability of the winner's guess.
Also, we only know who the Winklevosses are because they were a first-pass winner. So there's no reason to privilege them here; it'd make much more sense to look at all first-pass winners (in this case, early Facebook investors), rather than this random famous example of one, and then ask about this set's cumulative probability of at least one of them having gotten even richer from an early Bitcoin investment.
Instead I bought stocks that trebled in price and made some financial sense, and will keep making financial sense in the future.
Then why do you accuse them when you had the exact same chances and only your respective choices produced the different outcomes?
It's a sad state of the HN community that this post isn't already downvoted into oblivion.
edit: Oh look, a throwaway account!
There are other currencies with vastly superior usage properties (for example ethereum), for which I could understand an investment based on the fact they might actually be adopted as infrastructure
I'm constantly buffled how HN audience completely misses the fact that Bitcoin is nowadays used in most of street-level drug transactions that give it most of it's liquidity.