Hacker News Reader

Comment by lawn | Hacker News Reader

> No, you mentioned it yourself: Bitcoin is a store of value. Moreover, it's one with a high liquidity, strong brand, limited supply, available in 180 countries, without banks involved and super reliable (gold doesn't have that features and please show me any other asset that has these features). So, it has a use and value.

I said Bitcoin's usefulness is diminishing by becoming less useful due to the high transaction time and price. Other coins are taking over the exact use case you're refering to.

> Maybe you should check the definition of a Ponzi scheme again.

It's more a greater fools game at this point and I only mentioned ponzi scheme as it was what I was responding to.

> However, do you own or did you ever own any BTC?

Yes I've owned and used BTC a while but recently stopped using it since it doesn't make sense for me anymore as it's too expensive.

View on HN

> I said Bitcoin's usefulness is diminishing by becoming less useful due to the high transaction time and price.

If I want to store my assets I don't care about high transaction prices.

> It's more a greater fools game at this point and I only mentioned ponzi scheme as it was what I was responding to.

But you still used it in the wrong context. Bitcoin can't be a Ponzi scheme because the founder and the early adopters clearly didn't have this intent.

I guess you didn't address my main point: Why would Bitcoin be a sane store of value if other coins can fulfill the exact same niche while also being p2p digial cash? Why would you pay very high fees when you get the same features with a coin with very low fees?

For now Bitcoin is valued higher and has better liquidity than other coins but with use cases quickly moving away from Bitcoin this is changing. The only thing Bitcoin has going for it by that point is FOMO and selling to greater fools.

You gave the answer yourself. Brand and popularity might change over time. But at the moment it is BTC. Just go to Google Trends and no other coin is that mainstream. The search volume for Bitcoin is 50% of 'iphone' which is massive itself.

Re other coins: There are just two which are scalable because of their semi-central nature (XRP, XLM) but they have to get there first which will take time. The other millions of coins are usually decentral (and slow) tech and often they are shaky not working or don't have any own blockchains while valued in the billions (eg EOS). And you should not forget the upcoming lightning network for BTC.

But why do I try to convince you, at the end of 2018 BTC is at 100K, you missed another opportunity and you come again here and tell us the same FUD.

But why do I try to convince you, at the end of 2018 BTC is at 100K, you missed another opportunity and you come again here and tell us the same FUD.

I don't have strong opinions either way on this entire thread but I find the back and forth extremely entertaining (although the repetitive nature of both of your arguments I wish would be replaced by more creative replies at times). But I will point out that, at the end (almost the very end) of 2017, it's not even 20,000 -- BTC is at 13,000.

> But I will point out that, at the end (almost the very end) of 2017, it's not even 20,000 -- BTC is at 13,000.

BTC just hit 10K a month ago and the mainstream end-of-2017-forecast through summer and fall 2017 was ~5k. Then 13K is a fine number (13x in 2017).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com