- https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=astund
- https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=simplemath__
- https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=astund
- https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=simplemath__
There's no apparent relationship between those accounts, they're not arguing the same things at all, and it's so unfair to call out specific users that way. Imagine what a message you're sending to new HNers to put them on a list like that!
It's true that we banned one of those accounts for serial abuse of the site, but that's all the more reason to be careful about how you treat the others. Guilt by association is not legit.
The more I think about it, the more it seems like the entire proliferation of cryptocurrency is an attempt to sponge money out of the hyper-capitalistic West. Too many bots/fraudulent trades, and too much hyper-positivity online. It feels incredibly skeezy, even coming from the usual online trader bros.
Also, "whataboutism" has become the worst internet cliché in recent memory and I'm starting to feel like we should add software to just autokill comments that use this word, since it's such a strong signal of unsubstantive bickering.
Upon further reflection, maybe it is just the 'top' comments in a thread that have the unrealistically positive sentiment. Yes, down-threads do tend to be more nuanced, but those also tend to have less comments and sub comments. I don't have the data, and I do have my own biases of course, but I feel that I see large comment blocks of thread derailing and bickering at the top. The more 'reasonable' comments then get shoved to the bottom (in XYZcoin threads).
The bias is the Semmelweis reflex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex)
Are you not able to be anonymous with an HN account if you choose? So much so that creating multiple accounts doesn't matter?
If you had millions of dollars in crypto you would too. It's not nearly the same as having it in a bank or mutual funds which cannot easily be taken from you in a flash.
People can simply hack your laptop or bludgeon you with a hammer until you give them up instantly.
Because it's easy to have enough crypto to be worried. For example, if I had bought 10 BTC @ 100€/BTC = 1.000€ (which, at the time, was a reasonable investment size for a crypto starter, and a droplet of water for a seasoned person with a bit of money to throw around) and held them until now, I'd have 100k€ worth of BTC.
That's more than enough motivation for a criminal for example to fleece your home while you're away (e.g. if you posted on your HN-relatable Twitter account that you're off to a conference) and look for a paper wallet. I have seen people literally stab each other over 100€ worth of marijuana, to put things into perspective...
My question reflects my suspicion of astroturfing. What would explain an anomalously high number of new accounts fighting the claims of price manipulation in bitcoin? It's unlikely to be people just hiding themselves - they would already have accounts.
I apologize - I messed up the indentation and thought you were replying to another comment. Sometimes I feel HN could use some Reddit features...
> It's unlikely to be people just hiding themselves - they would already have accounts.
Yeah but for example my RL identity can be inferred from my username, my post history and probably my Twitter feed. So if I were someone who had a stake in high BTC rates - no matter if as a plain wallet holder or as operator/stakeholder in a BTC/coin-related enterprise - I would certainly make a new account, and probably even a new one for every comment, to hide the association.