People love to pick out the comments of the past that seem most wrong now, because—let's be honest—it makes us feel superior. But if you go back and look at that original 3-comment Bitcoin thread, what you find is that those 3 comments span an entire spectrum: elated, skeptical, and bewildered: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=599852.

The first cryptocurrency thread on HN—about 9 months earlier—was even more interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253963. It contains another skeptical comment: "The bigger problem is that everyone has a incentive to run their computers day and night cranking out solutions, which burns up lots of natural resources and processor time for a zero-sum result." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253999), which seems astonishingly prescient now, even though the objection is still hotly (no pun intended) debated.

Cherry-picking the wrongest-seeming skeptical comment from that collection of data points is a case study in survivorship bias. (I don't mean to pick on you personally! This is common of course.) The infamous Dropbox comment from 2008 is similar in that it has gotten repeated out of context in a way that is unfair to the original commenter (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275). When we repeat these things, it says more about us than it does about the thing we're repeating.