Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?

63 pointslaszlo-kiss145 comments

I admit, I believe that Bitcoin will have an important (and positive) future in our lives. Yet every day I open HN and scan the articles I get the sense that most (not all) articles are anti crypto currency. The sum of these articles appears to me as "propaganda". Does anyone else feel the same way?

It would be interesting to know why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard? Especially in light of the continual debasement of the dollar since it was decoupled from gold.

I for one, take this perceived negative bias as a confirmation that Bitcoin is a genuine threat to the existing financial system. When Bill Gates (and other powerful people) bad mouth Bitcoin I smell a rat. Does anyone else think this way? Am I just a dumb ass? :)

View on HN

Because HN readers skew more technologically literate, people here are on average (slightly) more capable of seeing though the techno-babble hype than on other social media sites. It's not that the financial status quo is held in high regard, rather that HN readers see crypto's empty promises to fix existing issues for what they are: bullshit designed to lure in ever more dumb money.

similar empty promises were made in dot com era. Does it mean dot com period of 1995-2001 was wasted and meaningless?

Whataboutism. Crypto is going on for over 12 years now. You can’t compare dotcom with crypto because 12 years after dotcom FAANG was up and running.

The scale is different because back then there were circa 100 000 000 +/- mln onboarded onto the hype.

Now They expect 1BLN+ to be onboarded to crypto with internet access.

More growth potential takes more time to play out.

Most people were ignoring crypto in 2017 like internet was ignored in 1993 by most people.

Period of 2009-2016 is like 1980-1992 for the internet. Almost no one was using it beside geeks and tech passionate youngsters.

Institutions are getting interested only from 2021 in a serious manner like in 1998-2001 for the internet period.

So you are saying we will see crypto crash in 2-3 years? We are living in times were onboarding is the fastest and is getting faster all the time. TikTok first to 100 Million users was 1000x faster than Facebook. I strongly believe you have it in reverse.

> So you are saying we will see crypto crash in 2-3 years?

It's already crashed a couple times now. Each time it did, it came back a couple years later stronger than ever.

dotcom dipped and recovered all the time before the big crash... it was joke.

What in real economy in terms of "charts" and "ticks" and "emotions" happens in 20 years, in crypto it happens faster probably in 4 years.

I don't know, but the way it is. People in crypto are used to 90% off within few weeks, where people in the other world probably won't experience it in a lifetime with their "traditional" investments. This is why it's so hard to explain..

It's much harder to onboard into a new currency, than to onboard to new social media platform.

It's like learning to fly an airplane VS learning to drive a car.

People treat their financial stuff with more caution than opening an account on TikTok.

No, crypto did not invent the financial scam either. I got lucky myself but I wouldn't tell my mom to put their retirement money into crypto and your sales pitch sounds more like a pitch for a cult than sane investment advice.

In general, people on HN doesn't get crypto and put minuses on my comments.

History rhymes. Everything takes long time to play out. Internet took 40 - 50 years, crypto is just 10 years old and they say it has to bust, soon.

There were also plenty of real products being adopted, taking advantage of technical growth and penetration of the web.

When we threw the bathwater out after the bubble crash, there were a few babies left.

13 years into the cryptocurrency bubble and I still don't see any productive use. Unless you're in the ransomware industry, or trying to evade sanctions.

Good worthwhile valuable things were actually created on the web in the late nineties. The bubble was that they just didn't live up to the speculative financial hype.

The problem with crypto is that all that it is is speculative financial hype. The entire worth of crypto is a bet on its future utility.

The difference between the dot com bubble and web3 is that there is no web3 craigslist or geocities or usenet or altavista or webmd or ebay or amazon or anything of utility or value other than as an investment asset.

> Good worthwhile valuable things were actually created on the web in the late nineties.

And good worthwhile things are being created in the cryptocurrency/blockchain space now. Likewise, there was a lot of useless bullshit on the Web in the 90's, and a lot of useless bullshit in the blockchain space today. And likewise, there were a lot of pre-Web "experts" making the Web out to be some passing fad due to all the bullshit, and there are a lot of pre-blockchain "experts" making blockchains/cryptocurrency out to be some passing fad due to all the bullshit - in both cases ignoring the potential, only to find themselves and their opinions irrelevant.

I don't know whether blockchains are going to end up being as fundamental to the world economy in the coming decades as the World Wide Web is today, but I do know that history repeats itself, and I ain't arrogant enough to assume this to be some exception.

> good worthwhile things are being created in the cryptocurrency/blockchain space now

like what?

Aaand the answer to your completely reasonable question seems to be: <crickets>

Ask the people in the developing world using it to replace their countries' failed monetary systems. Ask the people taking out loans on DeFi platforms and not needing to worry about discrimination by some bank's underwriters. Ask the working class in my country and others who want what little savings they have to have at least some chance of appreciating in value. Ask the migrant workers in my country who are now able to send money home to their families without Western Union's predatory fees.

Cryptocurrency ain't perfect, but people are using it for its intended purpose, and it ain't going away anytime soon.

> Ask the people in the developing world using it to replace their countries' failed monetary systems.

Where oh where is this happening?

The El Salvador experiment failed: https://restofworld.org/2022/el-salvador-bitcoin/

And I hope you don't mean millionnaires of the developing world because they're people who've escaped the rigours of being in a developing world.

> Where oh where is this happening?

broadly gestures at Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe

not-so-broadly gestures at Ukraine

> The El Salvador experiment failed

A few growing pains != "failed"

And from that same site:

https://restofworld.org/2022/ukraines-tech-community-rallies... <---- Bitcoin donations serving as a critical part of the initial lifeline for Ukraine's self-defense.

https://restofworld.org/2022/were-still-very-afraid-of-failu... <---- It ain't just me saying that cryptocurrency is a solid bet to unshackling the Global South from the Global North's financial hegemony.

https://restofworld.org/2021/stablecoins-find-a-use-case-in-... <---- People in Nigeria using stablecoins in the midst of local currency inflation and restrictions on accessing foreign currency.

If you invested, yes. Plus this assumes technology wouldn't have advanced regardless and ignores the massive financial pullback in the tech industry that hampered progress for years after the crash.

This is a very poor comparsion. Sure, many companies went bust around then. But many didn't. Plenty of real value was created by companies doing real useful things.

100%. I think I share a pretty common trait on HN that, if someone gives me marketing speak, I just want to ask "OK, but what does it do?" There are a lot of promises of the crypto community that are just fundamentally wrong, and when these issues are pointed out, you get lots of non-answers in the form of "OK Boomer". 2 simple examples:

1. Proof-of-work has inherent, fundamental, no-way-to-work-around-it issues regarding scale. The more value Bitcoin holds, the more Argentina's-worths-of-energy that is needed to keep it secure. That is by design when it comes to proof-of-work. It is a guaranteed dead end. Proof-of-stake does not have that same problem, but ironically I see so much antipathy towards proof-of-stake by large swaths of the crypto community.

2. The fundamental idea that crypto can "escape" government financial controls is false. Or, at least it's no different than the fact that selling meth is also capable of evading government controls, but at huge risk. Government can make anything it wants illegal if it so desires.

What "government financial controls" are you referring to?

Not everything is black and white. While the government can enact laws, and enforce those with courts and guns, on a practical level it is easier, for example, to flee a hostile country with Bitcoin than with a checking account held at a local bank.

> it is easier, for example, to flee a hostile country with Bitcoin than with a checking account held at a local bank.

This incentives engagement by people who wish to evade legal and regulatory controls. For the most part, in the West, these are not people escaping corruption or autocracy.

> on a practical level it is easier, for example, to flee a hostile country with Bitcoin

This feels like something that could be proven given the current climate. How many refugees from the multitude of currently-invaded countries are carrying their assets as bitcoins vs. traditional items of value and cash?

Given the tremendous volatility of a bitcoin investment, I doubt many people outside of the upper middle class have bitcoins to begin with, and I really doubt they'd buy bitcoins with what wealth they have access to before fleeing (traditional wisdom says that purchasing items with inherent value that are easy to carry).

But again, that's something that could be proven with the ledger. It would be a good story if the evidence backed it up.

> The fundamental idea that crypto can "escape" government financial controls is false.

This. I was thinking seriously about investing in bitcoins, but realized governments across the world won’t give up their control over people’s behavior by controlling money supply, either by minting currency or by means of interest rates.

I agree with you regarding POW but my understanding is that POS has nontrivial security issues. But, again, I agree there's this disconcerting disconnect between efforts toward crypto bandwagoning and efforts to implement something better.

I came here to write exactly this but you put it so perfectly I did not have to. Thank you for making me feel like I am not alone. Sometimes I do get a bit depressed that maybe I’m the only one who can see all the BS.

You are definitely not alone in that. But at times the people who want to hype cryptocurrencies manage to shout higher than us critics.

Technical literacy has nothing to do with social, or economic literacy.

Bitcoin works exactly as technically scoped. Which part of "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is technobabble? I think its a pretty good choice of words.

> rather that HN readers see crypto's empty promises to fix existing issues for what they are: bullshit designed to lure in ever more dumb money.

I would say rather that HN readers are blinded by their own technical abilities, so much so that they think they are right when it comes to social or economic ones.

Good news is the future years will determine which theory is right. Either its "bullshit designed to lure in ever more dumb money", or its an innovation that created something that provides real value to the economy.

I promise, one of us will be deterministically wrong.

Eh no

HN hates on bitcoin because it’s incredibly wasteful and overhyped.

HN hates on blockchain because it’s a convoluted way of solving problems that could otherwise be done simply.

> Eh no

> HN hates on bitcoin because it’s incredibly wasteful and overhyped.

> HN hates on blockchain because it’s a convoluted way of solving problems that could otherwise be done simply.

There is nothing in your comment that isn't accounted for in my original comment.

Technology does not solve social or economic problems. How we use that technology is how you solve social or economic problems.

How are we using Bitcoin? As a ponzi scheme where the earliest of investors win by bringing more people in.

How are we using Blockchains (specifically NFTs)? Outright fraud.

Ponzi schemes and fraud won't solve our social or economic woes. What few good things Bitcoin and the blockchain ever provided has been completely overwhelmed by the crap.

As a result, governments are going to crack down on these technologies hard. They've already started by taxing these virtual currencies the same way they do stocks.

> Technology does not solve social or economic problems.

Never said that it did. Only that HN'ers suffer from a kind of overconfidence of other aspects of this world because they are used to being right on technical things.

> How are we using Bitcoin? As a ponzi scheme where the earliest of investors win by bringing more people in.

The US dollar fits a better definition of a ponzi scheme, its just a different kind of pyramid. The closer you are to the regulatory environment, the more disproportionate your gains. Bitcoin will store value better than the dollar. Doesn't matter if you're "late" or "early". So its not a system that favors those who got in early, its a system that favors everyone who uses it.

> How are we using Blockchains (specifically NFTs)? Outright fraud.

Lets not discuss nft's or other cryptos. Only bitcoin.

> Ponzi schemes and fraud won't solve our social or economic woes. What few good things Bitcoin and the blockchain ever provided has been completely overwhelmed by the crap.

Again lets not talk nft's or other cryptos. Only bitcoin.

> As a result, governments are going to crack down on these technologies hard. They've already started by taxing these virtual currencies the same way they do stocks.

Thank goodness. Regulations and legislature is necessary for this emerging market. We need to work with it, not against it.

> How are we using Bitcoin? As a ponzi scheme where the earliest of investors win by bringing more people in.

In the developed world, sure. In the developing world, people are using it as actual money to replace traditional financial systems that are rife with corruption or have outright failed.

> I would say rather that HN readers are blinded by their own technical abilities, so much so that they think they are right when it comes to social or economic ones.

I agree with you on that. Never mind the money laundering, the criminal extortion, the unfettered grift, the ponzi schemes, the lack of regulation, smart contracts which aren't, securities sold in exchanges that aren't secure, the gross misappropriation of other's work making profit in NFT's as genius level crypto godhood, and the never ending supply of pretzel logic to convince others that while 90% of it is all shit, the 10% that isn't justifies crypto's entire existence.

Is that because they're blinded by their own technical abilities? Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck before the regulator's swoop in?

I don't see you addressing this in your post, so I thought I'd ask.

> Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck before the regulator's swoop in

I don't know who the "they" you're referring to is, but I'm pretty sure the people who are really into NFT's actually believe in it. My guess is there's still more scammers than not, but they remind me of card traders. You can laugh at them all day, but some of those pokemon cards are worth a lot of money. I don't think they think its a fraud, they like the feeling of owning that NFT.

So getting back to it, "realize its all a fraud", that's already poising the well before you ask the question. It would actually have to be one(a fraud) for someone to "realize" that it is. Otherwise you need to talk objectively and work your question from the standpoint that "NFT's/crypto is a fraud" is merely an opinion and not a hidden fact that needs to be realized.

Hi, thanks for responding.

What do they "like" about holding an NFT? They don't own the copyright usually, and they also don't own the original. Do they like seeing their name as the owner on some website? Because we can do that with credit cards and databases and html.

If the well has been poisoned already, asking someone for proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff. This is the kind of pretzel people try to logic themselves out of.

> What do they "like" about holding an NFT?

What do they like about holding Joe Montana's rookie card? Or a first-edition Charizard? Do they like having the physical card? Because we can do that with cardstock and inkjet printers.

It ain't my cup of tea in any case, but it also ain't my place to judge them for it or interrogate their motivations. If they want to collect Yu-gi-oh cards or bored monkey NFTs, power to 'em.

Sure, but certain people also like holding things like CSAM, which we as a society agree are more destructive to society as a whole.

So if collecting doesn't involve adding to the global warming crisis, I'd be much more okay with it.

> Sure, but certain people also like holding things like CSAM

And if holding an NFT (especially on a proof-of-stake blockchain, wherein the carbon footprint is negligible) was in any way comparable to holding child porn, then maybe that'd be a valid point.

Etherium just pushed back their proof-of-stake transformation again. It's reading more like vaporware than actual software delivery.

And there are a lot more NFT-capable proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies out there than just Ethereum.

I have never owned an NFT so I can't necessarily relate specifically on that front, but I do own bitcoin and ethereum. When it comes to ownership of digital assets/property obviously you can't own the jpeg picture, or the image, or the blockchain that hosts the information since they can be endlessly copied. But you do own the rights of the keys to make any changes regarding the objects you control to the blockchain.

No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters.

Same thing with credit cards and databases. Those are centralized databases owned and operated by a central organization. When it comes to blockchain technology, to make entries regarding the portions of the blockchain that you control, no one else can make changes to that portion of the blockchain without the keys. This is the aspect of ownership that makes digital assets ownable. The ability to control the asset that no one else who doesn't own it can.

Look, I can't speak for ownership of NFT's, but to be honest, you probably can't either. Your entering the stage with a pitchfork and torch trying to hate it before you've even tried to see what its about.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with seeing their name on some website, its about ownership.

> proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff.

You're not making a lot of sense here. Maybe you don't know what "poisoning the well" means.

poising the well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

> is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.

Again, we don't know that NFT's are a fraud, so to say "Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck" asserts the question from the standpoint that they are, when we can't know that.

You are coming to the stage proclaiming the New England Patriots have won the Superbowl when the Superbowl has yet to start. That's all I'm saying. That to me sounds more like the pretzel logic.

> No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters.

Well, that's the ideal right? The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier -- which you haven't addressed yet.

So now you're arguing the low level details now and smearing your opponents intention rather than trying to make the big arguments in supportive of your point. That seems to me you have no further big arguments to support your point and are willing to go into minutae to score debate points.

> The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier

Your communications of the reasons you've stated must have not come across very well because I didn't understand them from rereading your previous comments. What were the reasons again?

> smearing your opponents intention

Where is the smear of the intention? Was it because I said you are attacking the argument from the standpoint that something is a fraud, when the argument cant be attacked from a position that it was a fraud because that's a fact we cannot know?

I'm not sure this explains it. Look at the comments on any mainstream media article about crypto. The polarization is still there, and the more negative the article more attention there is.

Many of us were excited when bitcoin came out, about both the technology, and the concept of a currency that sovereigns can't control. The problem is, blockchain / cryptocurrency failed to deliver in any practical way, and as a concept was hijacked by scammers, so the only real hype now is from people trying to bypass securities laws so they can scam you.

Find a way I can actually electronically teleport money to pay for something without a trusted authority, without volatility and fees and scams, and I'll be all over it. But most of us went up and down the hype cycle on bitcoin years ago, and are just watching it's vestigial promise be used to promote a scam, so we're negative about it.

I think it's more that it's delivering in a practical way to people that live in authoritarian governments with currencies that are more unstable than bitcoin. In places where the citizens have to deal with their governments literally trying to steal their hard assets.

For those of us who live in countries with a good banking system and mostly stable currencies (which is most of hn), bitcoin isn't a necessity.

It seems Canada matches the 'good banking system' and 'stable currency' attributes, yet didn't the truckers get robbed by the government?

When a government is able to engage in financial retribution against its critics, its own citizenry, Bitcoin might be necessary.

Idk about that characterization, but I don’t see how crypto changes anything. They’ll just hold you in contempt until you turn over the keys or hack you.

Plenty of us have cold storage wallets from years ago. Not theoretically impossible to track but pretty darn difficult. To contrast, any and every bank account and ETF holdings (in the USA) are extremely KYC'd.

> yet didn't the truckers get robbed by the government?

No.

In the end, a few accounts were proactively and temporarily frozen by banks acting on their own, which they could (possibly would) have done due to fintrac [1] requirements.

[1] https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/intro-eng

Indeed using Bitcoin for payment does not seem a good fit. However, Bitcoin could be viewed as the world reserve currency that is impossible to debase. This can give stability to all other currencies that are based on it. I think that would be a good thing. It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wars entirely, but would make financing them very difficult.

Unfortunately, scammers are everywhere. I think it is my responsibility to do the best I can to avoid falling for various schemes. I hold that Bitcoin is not the cause of the scams. I unfortunately missed the early days of Bitcoin because I was concerned about being robbed and secondarily I did not understand (or even known about) the intent Satoshi had when he invented the thing...

Thank you for your feedback!

> I hold that Bitcoin is not the cause of the scams.

I wish I could agree, as someone who remains eternally hopeful for crypto. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly not the case.

When half a billion dollars goes missing from the US banking system, we can follow the paper trail every time. Criminals never cash out at that scale, especially when they wire money digitally. There's always an account to find, a wire transfer to track, or another bank to contact. The centralization is their saving grace against these scams. When half a billion dollars goes missing from a DAO or someone's cold wallet, they're fucked. Those coins get tumbled and are almost certainly never seen again. The bad guys win every time, which makes it highly unattractive for any investment at scale.

Which raises the ultimatum of Bitcoin, and cryptocurrency as a whole: to hold, or not to hold? That is the question. Custody is the bottom line here, and there's no easy answer. The public will always prefer to have someone else manage their account, which removes their agency and increases the capability of private parties debasing the asset. The higher the demand, the further the centralization progresses. Unfortunately, that demand is nearly unlimited and the benefits of managing your own wallet are slim compared to the work and upfront knowledge it requires.

> It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wars entirely, but would make financing them very difficult.

This is completely false. There is not a single first-world country that would base the value of their currency on crypto, and having cryptocurrency exist as an independent fiat makes it extraordinarily easy to fund combat. Terrorist organizations could accept donations via untraceable coins and cash out anonymously. Extremist sects could fund themselves privately without scrutiny. Even in your idyllic example, it would only embolden countries like Russia to pillage their neighbors since they don't need to worry about the consequences of financial sanctions, being cut off from the world's banking system, or even worrying about the value of their own currency.

If anything, the world embracing crypto all at once would escalate the financing of combat to unconscionable heights.

But.. this isn’t true on two counts: Cartels smuggle huge amounts of money all the time, and the bitcoin hack involving a YC founder ended with the coins recovered. They were unable to tumble the coins without losing them.

Cartels smuggle cash. Cash is fairly untraceable, so it makes sense. If anything, it reinforces the idea that removing accountability from money encourages bad behavior.

> the bitcoin hack involving a YC founder ended with the coins recovered

Sometimes you get a happy ending. There's plenty of stories about the Wild West that don't end with two dead cowboys. On the other hand though, our banking system can almost universally guarantee a happy ending. Axie Infinity hacks simply don't happen on there. When someone is dumb enough to try it, they're in custody by the end of the day and their money likely never even left the source account in the first place.

Cartels smuggle hundreds of millions of dollars through the actual banking system. It's scary how connected they are. I was very surprised.

Be that as it may, do we really want to enable everyone to have cartel-level money smuggling capabilities? Is that the sort of power we should strive to democratize?

Yes. Everybody, or nobody. Why should some have it and others not?

Note well: In this post, I am not taking a position as to whether "everybody" is the correct answer, or whether "nobody" is. I just want everyone to be at the same level.

I'm not saying that the US would tie the dollar to Bitcoin willingly. It would have to do it out of necessity to be able to interact with nations that have resources that the US needs.

This of course applies to all countries, not just the US. The dollar as the world reserve currency enables the US to rob the recipients of the value of their holdings after the fact. I don't think any nation is happy about that. It would also reduce undue influence of a single nation across the world and therefore maybe reduce the attractiveness of terrorist organizations' railing against it.

A currency that can't be debased is a stabilizing factor in international affairs (my take). This also translates to each country's citizens, they can't be robbed by their government...

Financial (or economic) sanctions affect the target country's citizens. I would submit that after the sanctions on Russia, Putin has gained support from the Russian people. Iran has been sanctioned for how many years? Yet Iran's citizens don't find the means to depose of their leadership... Maybe they like the way things are... Sanctions and all.

In my opinion your statement "the world embracing crypto all at once would escalate the financing of combat to unconscionable heights" is unsupported. Bitcoin is available now (has been for a decade), so what keeps bad actors from using it to purchase arms now. The international monetary system is not a gate (to cash out Bitcoin purchases). The Mexican cartels apparently have no problem using the banking system to finance their operations...

> I'm not saying that the US would tie the dollar to Bitcoin willingly. It would have to do it out of necessity to be able to interact with nations that have resources that the US needs.

I think the idea that the dollar would be replaced by a faceless, useless currency is pretty unfounded. There's no draw to using Bitcoin, even the digital yuan has a better shot at dethroning the dollar than Bitcoin does. Plus, what makes Bitcoin any better than the hundreds of altcoins that came after it, many of them fixing the problems inherent to Bitcoin?

> This also translates to each country's citizens, they can't be robbed by their government...

Right. Now they can only be robbed by each other and the rapid fluctuation of an asset they have no control over, with no stability guarantees. Every day can be a bubble in the Bitcoin-based world!

> Maybe they like the way things are... Sanctions and all.

They have no choice but to like it. I can assure you that the wealthier Russians who woke up to a post-SWIFT nation didn't "like the way things are", nor was Putin very happy when Apple and Google decided to close up shop domestically. I'm not an extremist proponent of sanctions, but there is definitely value in having a network that can shun a nation when they start committing war crimes.

> Bitcoin is available now (has been for a decade), so what keeps bad actors from using it to purchase arms now

Nothing. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin kicked off a digital arms race to make even more private currencies like Monero which are now the preferred medium for transacting pretty much anything illegal, from drugs to weapons.

> Criminals never cash out at that scale

Of course not; that's what hole-in-the-wall restaurants that inexplicably stay in business despite having next to zero customers are for ;)

Debasement of currency happens for a few key reasons, most of which are far removed from modern financing in the West. And Bitcoin is, by design, both wasteful in terms of energy, and volatile, which excludes it from any reserve currency status. Remember, these are emergent from the design of the platform and incentives keep Bitcoin from changing.

Deficit spending... sigh. I am sorry, but this idea that deficit spending is irresponsible is often tied to beliefs in gold-backed currencies, hyper inflation being inevitable due to 'money printing' and other misconceptions.

Deficit spending is not bad. Any government who did not deficit spend is basically tying both hands behind their backs. It is an incredibly useful tool that can be used as both to kick-start an ailing economy, or cool an over hot economy through higher interest bond sales. Politicians who insist on no-deficit budgets are generally scammers or populists and, in my experience, will ignore this rule once in power.

The main reason deficit spending is not an issue is that inflation eats away at debt over time. Countries, being effectively immortal, don't have to worry about retirement and so can continue to build wealth and finance debt for centuries to come.

How those loans are spent is a whole different kettle of fish.

+1, plus the negative effects bitcoin mining are having on the environment as well as the chip shortage.

I use bitcoin to do my sports gambling all the time. Works out great and the online bookie I use gives incentives to use it as well. It works perfectly for that. I also give BTC as gifts. Also works perfectly for that. It's not a day-to-day thing for me because I use USD and my insurance-backed credit card for that.

How about Dogecoin via a random Starlink base far from your normal route?

That could be coming soon. If it doesn't, something like it will.

It's hard to see Bitcoin's value proposition when you live a life of financial privilege. Bitcoin's value proposition is this: censorship-resistant money. If you don't care about being censored, you won't see the value proposition. If civil asset forfeiture seems like no big deal, then Bitcoin will seem dumb. If routing literally every payment you make through a surveillance apparatus seems fine then Bitcoin makes no sense. If weaponization of your local currency to fight those who disagree with the regime in power seems legit, Bitcoin is just a scam.

Here's the problem: you give a government an inch and they'll take a foot. Give them a foot and they'll take a yard.

The financial weaponization and surveillance policies put in place by western "democracies" are never, ever going away. They will only be expanded. Today they knock on the door of the crackpot. Tomorrow it could be your door they're knocking on. It's easy to stay blind to this simple fact until it's far too late to respond.

With most forms of crypto the government can look at the ledger. Frequently the US has success at tracking down and seizing Bitcoin and other forms of crypto.

Since the ledger is public you can replace your elected and somewhat accountable 'government' with

* North Korea, Iran, ...

* Scientology or Jeffery Epstein's lawyers (if you are a victim looking for justice)

* the Mafia, Yakuza, Triad, ...

* Greenpeace, ACT UP, Proud Boys, ...

really anybody who wants to make your life hell. So going to crypto is going from the frying pan to the fire.

The key is that they can look at the ledger, but not alter the ledger. But also privacy improvements to the bitcoin protocol, privacy focused transactions like coinjoins, and payments on the lightning network help hide that even more.

> The key is that they can look at the ledger, but not alter the ledger.

This is only true if you think governments are not capable of pulling off a 51% attack. It would absolutely be feasible for a few of the world powers to pull it off, if not a single world power.

Sure for smaller proof of work coins, and maybe today. It would require a massive amount of money, energy, coordination, and time - and it's getting harder to do as the total hashpower grows every day.

But who needs that?

If "they" can track you down "they" can arrest you, kill you, torture you, extort you, ...

There are ways to avoid your transactions being tracked. Coinjoin transactions, purchasing a miner for non-kyc bitcoin, payments on the lightning network, etc

Also, they can do all of those things, but you can setup your private keys in a way that your family will still have access to the bitcoin even if you are killed

"Lightning" protocol and other sidechains don't deliver on their promises as well as the base bitcoin protocol.

"Help" with privacy isn't enough, you need something that is bulletproof and either resistant to you screwing up the OPSEC or otherwise you have to get OPSEC right all the time.

Using the same mixer as terrorists could get you charged under anti-terrorism laws.

Before you use one I'd ask you to ask yourself if you want to be complicit in large-scale tax evasion, international sex trafficking and all sorts of awful things that make the mixer more than a game where you can imagine you're important because you're a spy or something.

Theoretically I can stand up a mining operation in my apartment. That means that the 51% attack (as long as it can be detected) can be thwarted by folks at the grass roots level (as long as they actually care). Am I wrong about this?

You are practically wrong about this - the number of people who need to notice and attempt to a 51% attack is enormous ... and not possible to do after the fact

Before the fact? Sure - but then the 51% issue doesn't happen, and you get to precrime

They can look at the ledger, and show up to your house, take ownership of your house and put you in jail.

Why look at the ledger?

They can show up to your house and shoot you.

Censorship-resistance is not an all-or-nothing game, but a gradual refinement.

If you want something where they can't just look at the ledger, look at Zcash:

https://z.cash/technology/

There are countries with totalitarian governments where you can still make private transactions, as long as you don't get too loud about it. And there are countries where any financial transaction will put your family in labor camp for three generations. Some fancy bits on the internet won't help anyone in a rut like that. Doesn't make them useless.

Everyone can look at the ledger. This is of course the whole point. But it means nothing by itself. Privacy is eroded by linking ledger pseudonyms with other identities. It's especially bad when a record of that link is made in a database. This is something that users do for various reasons, but it's not required.

There isn't a lot of practical evidence that the rhetoric of bitcoin's value proposition is actually manifest.

What kind of evidence would convince you?

>routing literally every payment you make through a surveillance apparatus

This is pretty much exactly what BTC is too and in some senses is way worse, people only need to find a way to associate wallet addresses with identity and all your financials are open to them.

There are of course options that truly do solve the censorship issue, like Monero.

True, privacy in Bitcoin takes diligence. But that association between pseudonyms and identities is not part of Bitcoin but rather some of the things that happen around Bitcoin. Understanding the risks is key. I'm not saying it's easy, just that it's possible to maintain far better privacy than with credit card payments.

To put it simply, it's because a greater number of HN users upvote those articles than upvote pro-crypto articles. One can speculate about more precise reasons, or about the actual positive/negative value of crypto, but those are all kind of beside the point.

> The sum of these articles appears to me as "propaganda".

Do you realize how much you sound like a conspiracy-theory propagandist yourself? Allow me to illustrate with a couple of examples.

> why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard

I don't think I've seen anyone espouse such an opinion, and it's not necessary to be "down" on crypto. Two things can both be bad. It's kind of like the old saying: democracy is the worst system of government, except for the others.

> take this perceived negative bias as a confirmation

"Rejection as confirmation" is absolutely classic conspiracy thinking. It's non-falsifiable; the harder one tries, the firmer the conviction becomes. You might want to ask yourself which evidence would actually cause you to change your mind. Be honest with yourself. If the answer is "none" then congratulations, you've been drawn into a conspiracy theory.

> When Bill Gates (and other powerful people) bad mouth Bitcoin I smell a rat.

Odd, in a community where most people lionize financial success without regard for any ethical dimension. How does his wealth or power make his opinion less valid, other than by implying that he's part of a conspiracy?

This is a false dichotomy:

> It would be interesting to know why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard?

Plenty of people see problems with the status quo financial system and also with the crypto ecosystem that purports to replace it.

It’s not that I’m leaping to defend the current system. It’s that you want to replace it with something I think is worse. That’s why I’m resisting the change.

The reason is because the real things that are happening in the cryptocurrency space are overwhelmingly negative.

People are getting their wallets hacked, losing their savings by investing in pump-and-dump schemes, using "custodial" crypto wallets that defeat the whole purpose of crypto, raising "ICOs" that skirt securities laws, starting underground markets that sell heroin and guns, quitting their jobs to make a living in "play-to-earn" schemes that can't possibly last. It goes on and on.

If you have an article about how crypto is positively affecting people's lives (not just the lucky ones who made some good trades and profited), then please share it on HN!

I read somewhere that a large number of Ukranians are currently holding crypto as they flee the country, as they view it as a good way to transfer funds in the midst of a lot of uncertainty. If so, I view that as a positive (assuming many of them don't end up losing their funds one way or another).

I wouldn't be surprised if most in the HN community thought some form of "blockchains are a really neat idea." It's just that the technology is in its infancy, and so far it has attracted a lot of criminals, fraudsters, and speculators. Not much to write home about.

Interesting, this sounds like the Old West. Look at it now.

I think these hardships are the exact indicators of a dynamic new frontier. Apply caution, yes, but ignoring it might not be a good strategy either.

Great analogy.

Yes!

Especially considering Bitcoin is built with the property of scarcity to mimic gold. :-)

Your analogy is fair, but I'm not sure it works in the way you want it to. Cryptocurrency now exhibits a lot of the same issues that the Old West exhibited then (lawlessness, criminality, etc). But the Old West didn't result in some free-market hard-currency utopia. Eventually the powers that be brought in the same regulations, police, courts, etc that governed everything else. So that "Old West" was destroyed. In your analogy, that would be the "status quo financial system" taking over crypto and either outlawing it or changing it beyond all recognition.

> I for one, take this perceived negative bias as a confirmation that Bitcoin is a genuine threat to the existing financial system.

I think you are taking things the wrong way. I, too, dislike our current financial system and want it to radically change. And I, too, hope that cryptocurrency can play a part in that. Your assumption that others feel "threatened" by cryptocurrency just because they point out the negatives isn't a good one. They are just being reasonable and fair.

> Am I just a dumb ass?

No, but be careful of becoming a shill for crypto. Don't slide down the slippery slope of ignoring things that are bad -- or claiming that they aren't -- just because crypto may align with some of your values and beliefs. I'm not saying you are. But the wording of your original post leaves one to wonder whether you value your vision of a utopian financial system above the very real tragedies occurring every day in crypto. You can both love crypto and hate those tragedies.

The only time I hear positive, real-world crypto news is when a country's economy goes down the drain and people are desparate to transfer their assets so they can buy things or get out. Or when a totalitarian government is withholding its citizens from receiving USD from abroad. In those cases, the volatility of Bitcoin is less than that of their own currency, and you can transfer it with a droplet of internet.

I think the value of free money is lost on most people who live in highly functioning societies where the trade-off of centralised money doesn't show its backside, and the tradeoff of decentralised money at its infancy mostly just shows the backside.

Another issue is that the actual, theoretical benefits of blockchain are very narrow.

Right now global financial system is much more stable than cryptocurrencies, and even if society collapses, Bitcoin is unlikely to take over or buy you anything. In practice, centralization is fine for most tasks, and even if something is decentralized it doesn’t always need blockchain.

Most problems can be solved with encryption, asymmetric encryption, torrenting, and consensus protocols. I honestly can’t think of any real situation where those aren’t enough and you need blockchain. (although i’m pretty sure blockchain is a combination of those…I should say, i can’t think of any real situation where things like BitTorrent aren’t enough)

And then that leads to all of blockchain’s drawbacks, mainly incredible space and computation redundancy. There are proposed and implemented ways to reduce this redundancy, but most of them actually end up redoing centralization. Even if we can somehow completely eliminate the redundancy and make blockchain almost as fast as centralization, like I mentioned, there’s still just not much benefit.

I’m not at the point where, whenever i hear blockchain, i throw my hands up and claim “useless”. Honestly, whenever I see something blockchain or web3, i usually read about it and try to see how it works. But surprisingly often I just find confusing filler text and buzzwords. And moreover, so far i’ve never found any technology where I actually thought both “this is useful” and “this needs blockchain”.

There are other comments mentioning technical and social drawbacks and limitations of today's concepts of cryptocurrencies, so I'm going to respond to this one point:

> It would be interesting to know why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard? Especially in light of the continual debasement of the dollar since it was decoupled from gold.

Note: a few years ago I worked with a team developing an automated central bank intended to manage a cryptocurrency replacement for the monetary system of a sovereign state. You might note that no country has actually implemented this yet.

The status quo financial system is held in high regard because it works, and has contributed mightily to the prosperity of people at all levels. People mostly concentrate on its problems, which is good: those problems need work. But we have plenty of experience of the gold standard and its significantly worse problems. One of the points of today's cryptocurrencies is that they should behave like gold.

Long before bitcoin (or even before Chaum's work) smart people did "going back to the gold standard" analysis in the hope of justifying it. I've read papers on the costs and consequences of warehousing gold, for example. So people have really thought it through...and it sucks.

At a macro level we need simply look back at history. We have financial crashes from time to time, which is used as an argument for gold. But look at the period from the 1840s to WWI. They were wracked by both inflationary spikes (due to gold strikes in California, the Yukon, Victoria, etc) and deflationary depressions (when their economies outgrew the gold supply).

The asset base of a modern economy is much greater than the world's gold supply and anyway grows much faster than that supply becomes accessible. If your money supply can't grow in proportion to the asset base it represents, you can't possibly monetize your assets, which impoverishes everyone, even the wealthy.

And to make things worse there's an absolute amount of tokens like bitcoin. Though you can trade fractional coins, there's a floor at which the cost of validating the transaction exceeds the denomination. So for it not to be a destructive deflationary medium you need...different currencies alongside it, which in the end just means...fiat currency.

And that's simply a taste of the problems at the macro level.

As someone who thinks that bitcoin etc are just a techy form of alchemy (the old dream of creating something of value from nothing), if not an outright scam (for anti-social losers to escape from 'teh rulez'), I wouldn't say that it's not so much that I hold the existing order in high regard, but that the alleged 'disruption' does not appear to be anything other than an old ruse in a new guise.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'old ruse'. The use of gold in ancient times was adopted because it removed the need to trust the other guy's currency.

Unless Satoshi shows up tomorrow and cashes out his coin I think we are not in danger of diluting the value of Bitcoin - which would be like the 'old ruse' I think.

Historically, 'trusting the other guy's currency' has always been a problem. not matter what it was made of.

>I believe that Bitcoin will have an important (and positive) future in our lives.

Can you elaborate how? From my point of view, the reason the general tech community despises crypto is precisely because of that; every now and then someone shows up saying that the tech is important and positive, yet none of them can come up with a single valid reason why.

For people who are outside of it, the answer to why this is the case is clear.

It allows for uncensorable transactions. Which is an improvement to people living in authoritarian countries with governments trying to stop its citizens from saving and transacting freely.

If authoritarian governments can monitor and track the transactions, then arrest those people who make transactions that the government considers illegal, it seems pretty censorable.

There are ways to avoid your transactions being tracked. Coinjoin transactions, purchasing a miner for non-kyc bitcoin, payments on the lightning network, etc

I can't imagine a quicker way to get on a government watch list than to participate in a Bitcoin mixer. How do you ensure Coinjoin isn't secrely being ran by your authoritarian government?

You can use a protocol that doesn't allow for a centralized coordinator with insight into the coin paths, like samourai whirlpool. It could potentially be logging ip's but can be accessed through vpn/tor

How do you know the tor exit nodes and/or VPN aren't being ran by your authoritarian government?

You don't, but all of this makes it harder to track.

Even if the government can track you through all of this, you can setup your private keys in a way that your family can still access your money if the government arrests you.

https://xkcd.com/538

It's funny that this comic is from long enough ago that "Crypto" referred to "Cryptography", and yet it is still relevant :-)

I think the biggest 'positive' is that the government in control of the currency is unable to alter the value of it. It is clear that inflation is bad for the citizenry, yet that has been done throughout the ages by every dying civilization. I'm simply looking/hoping for a mechanism to stop it. It would be a 'positive' for you too!

Is Bitcoin the ultimate answer? I can't say, but it is a good first step.

"It is clear that inflation is bad for the citizenry."

No. It is clear that both hyper-inflation and deflation are bad for the citizenry. However, modest inflation is generally a net positive.

"yet [inflation] has been done throughout the ages by every dying civilization." Do you have any real data for this? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Also, it seems preferable that government be in control of the currency rather than random speculators. Controlling the currency can be a useful tool if used responsibly. If you have bad government, then bitcoin isn't going to save you.

Roman Empire is a biggie. The Weimar Republic is the most obvious.

I guess we are now arguing 'Austrian Economics' vs. 'Keynesian Economics'... This is a fair simplification. As long as you hold real assets to protect your wealth, the government's debasement of the currency (modest inflation) is of no concern.

Clearly, when a person lives from paycheck to paycheck the only concern is "Can I buy food next week?" and "Can I pay the rent on the 1st?". Wealth preservation and modest inflation is not on the radar. However, it is still hurting the man that earns $12/hr, no matter the modesty of the inflation.

Just look around right now. Is the current inflation rate modest? Did everyone get a raise to account for the CPI going up? Will everyone get an 8.5% raise next year?

In my opinion decoupling the currency from anyone's "control" is the key idea behind Bitcoin.

It doesn’t de-couple it though. Bitcoin can and is manipulated by “whales” just like any other market.

If it becomes a reserve currency governments and the very wealthy will still hold the vast majority and thus maintain control right?

I hate to break it to you, but the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic ended around 1923 and the Republic prospered afterwards. Till the Great Depression, which was in big parts driven by speculative assets .... Wonder where I've heard that before. And in the aftermath, the 1930s introduced austerity and deflation policies to the Weimar Republic, which was the final straw.

Not sure why the correction of a common misconception is being downvoted here.

If you want to learn more about the history of the German economy between 1900-1945, the authority on the subject is the British historian Adam Tooze. He has a couple of books on the subject, listed on Wikipedia if you want to check them out.

Inflation in the form of government spending on infrastructure or wealth transfers to poorer citizens is not 'clearly' bad, there's significant academic debate on the subject. Disincentivizing cash-hoarding drives economic growth, and has done so for the past 50 years.

> Disincentivizing cash-hoarding

And the reason why this is important is because an asset that is not liquid has no utility as a currency. Put another way, if my $1 today would be worth $1.20 tomorrow, it would be in my best interest to "HODL" on to it instead of using it.

This would be a fantastic scenario for me as an individual, in the short term. Eventually, though, I'd have to buy some bread; the problem is that the baker decided to HODL their currency instead of buying flour (because that would be in their own best interest). Everyone would be sitting on heaps of unusable wealth.

Government action around the world has had a definite impact on cryptocurrency pricing, both positive and negative. The idea that a government cannot control cryptocurrencies is ludicrous, because they can simply ban them if they feel the need to.

If any real cryptocurrency actually manages to catch on for normal payments, I'd expect the government to force businesses accepting it to only accept transactions from "validated" wallets to ensure that the proper amount of tax is being paid. Any "unvalidated" wallets would risk a visit from the local tax agency for attempted tax fraud or whatever. Technology won't stop legislation.

Also, if anything is inflated right now, it's the price of cryptocurrencies. They're volatile to a comical level and the ones that are reasonably stable have such high processing fees that they're utterly useless for actual payment. The solution proposed by enthusiasts seems to be centralization (Lightning network etc.) which ruins most of the theoretical benefits of cryptocurrencies. Nobody with the intention to buy groceries buys any cryptocurrencies, except for the one country where cryptocurrency companies have managed to convince the government that their system is a good solution (and even there the actual currency gets converted to US dollar in the end).

Inflation, artificial or otherwise, is simply something that can happen in a free economy. So is deflation, of course, but deflation tends to be bad for trade, so the world's current attempts to keep everyone rich revolve around artificial infinite inflation. Inflation, as a concept, isn't necessarily a problem; every currency on earth has suffered through it at some point. It's more of a consequence and a goal of economic policy than a disease to civilization. It's true, many collapses of civilizations have coincided with inflation events, but the economy is bound to collapse when a civilization collapses.

Turkey actually willingly let its currency deflate, with terrible results for the general population as prices for common items skyrocketed. Risking arbitrary spikes and dips in value isn't much better than the current system, in my opinion.

I thought the Lira lost its value, which is 'inflation'. If it was experiencing deflation then it would become more and more valuable, because it is becoming scarcer.

Inflation is caused by the oversupply of money, it is because the government in charge of that currency is printing it w/o limits. It is a way to pay back loans with cheap money.

Indeed, governments can ban things, but if there is a market for the banned item then there is going to be a supply. Governments don't seem to have the means to block drugs entering prisons, how will they stop ordinary citizens that feel the need to protect themselves from doing what they need to do?

In my opinion:

You either believe that non-fungible metadata pointing to a fungible destination that currently represents a five year old kid's drawing of a farting dinosaur is worth $100k USD or it is worth nothing.

There is a huge divide with some clearly seeing something splendid with the ability to generate massive wealth and liberate the masses from economic governmental control, while others clearly see something more like a pump and dump scam.

There are two major issues with Bitcoin for me.

First, crypto is always broken eventually. We have seen the deprecation of crypto algorithms time and again. Why should we assume Bitcoin is immune to this phenomenon? It's a high-value target and it could literally become valueless in an instant.

Second, the changing climate is one of the most pressing matters of our time. Bitcoin is absolutely not helping there.

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I would think that mechanisms exist that allows for the evolution of the technology to protect itself. The key for me is that we strive for a financial foundation that no-one can debase.

I view Bitcoin as an agreement and an understanding of a unit of value that we can all rely on.

The concern regarding the underlying crypto being broken unexpectedly is probably covered by the fact that if encryption of that level of adoption and trust was broken, Bitcoin breaking would be the least of the internet's issues.

For expected deprecations as technology progresses, it should be relatively easy to change algorithms and then fork the blockchain onto the new system, simultaneously phasing out the current one.

> it should be relatively easy to change algorithms and then fork the blockchain onto the new system

Like deprecating insecure and outdated TLS? Doesn’t seem like a good example.

It’s really not the same level of vulnerability. A crypto failure that allows for reading or altering of communications in-flight as it’s used in TLS now has a significantly different impact than if someone is able to alter the source of truth.

I assumed you were referring to the crypto within the blockchain's design itself becoming vulnerable. But if you're referring to more general vulnerabilities like with TLS, I'm not really sure how that's any different from the same being present on a traditional bank's site?

If you were able to defeat the crypto algorithms used by crypto currencies wouldn't that also mean you could defeat the cryptography used by banks, governments, online commerce, etc.? It would essentially be a doomsday scenario for all cryptography.

From what I remember, Hacker News enjoyed crypto discussions in its very early days (early 2010's) when it was just bitcoin and a small number of technologists discussing it.

I think I noticed a turning point when it became more mainstream and rebranded to "web3". The nonstop hyping of NFT's and "web3 is the future" and "web3 will make web2 obsolete" takes on Twitter has gotten a bit annoying. This is coming from someone who finds it interesting and has spent some time working in crypto.

I agree with this perspective. For me the turning point was when "influencers" started to make their own coinage.

> The sum of these [anti-crypto] articles appears to me as "propaganda". Does anyone else feel the same way?

Funny, I would consider all the unending pro-crypto stories to be the propaganda (someone coined a term: "pro-bitcoinism"[1])

What I've noticed is that the vitriol is almost always instigated by the crypto crowd (especially the bitcoiners), that will lash out at anyone or about anything that doesn't have total loyalty to their "movement". Not exactly an inviting crowd, and certainly doesn't reflect well on cryptocurrency as a whole.

> I for one, take this perceived negative bias as a confirmation that Bitcoin is a genuine threat to the existing financial system.

And the other side perceives that total loyalty/belief as some sort of cult. Turns out both sides are right...*and* wrong - just not for the reasons they think.

[1]https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pro-bitcoini...

Because so many folks here missed out on crypto and speaking badly about it makes them feel better for having to continue to work for the next 30-40 years because they didn't buy early.

That argument really has nothing to do with the fundamental soundness of crypto. Rather, you sound like a pump and dump scammer "get in now and become rich" basically all but confirming the viewpoint you seek to counter.

Quite the opposite - I don't think anyone should get into crypto at this point. I made my riches long before CNBC posted a bitcoin ticker. Now it's all about NFT scams and other get rich quick schemes. Bitcoin may double from here but the risk is far greater than the reward.

I appreciate that balanced perspective.

> why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard?

the community is extremely well paid in USD. there is every incentive to keep it valuable

in any case i doubt the cryptocoin world cares what hn thinks

Because crypto hasn't proven itself. I won't fight your battles for you. Call me when I can buy coffee at my local diner with crypto.

Get a Coinbase card and load it with 5 USDC. Go to your diner and buy your coffee with no conversion fee. What's the difference between this and the diner actually accepting crypto?

I don't know what any of that is. I always pay cash. When I say bitcoin, I mean literal coins.

usdc is a digital token backed by usd available on many blockchains.

you can buy a few usdc tokens and pay for coffee using them seamlessly.

My coffee shop doesn't accept coins at all be it usdc or whatever. When I wave over a POS terminal, are these USDC converted to USD on the spot like a bank transaction?

yes

> ²Coinbase will automatically convert all cryptocurrency to US Dollars for use in purchases and ATM withdrawals

https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-card-launches-in-the-us-8...

---

can also pay in btc assuming youre okay with the conversion fee

close to a decade ago I could buy curry at a local Thai restaurant in bitcoin

still can

> It would be interesting to know why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard?

This is a false dichotomy.

It is possible to both think that the existing financial system is fairly awful, while at the same time thinking that bitcoin/crypto is useless and worse.

If I can guess, I'm guessing you're operating backwards. You like crypto, you want it to "win", (you've probably put money in it, and who puts money on things they're not convinced in?), so when you see article and people against crypto, you see them as having hidden motives and are just spreading propaganda.

Meanwhile whether you're conscious of it or not, here you are, having put your money on crypto, trying to preach to people that "It's the future!". Why? Of course you're cheerleading it, because you want your investments to go up. And they way that can happen is when more people are converted and buy it. Maybe there are layers of justifications between "My motivation is A, therefore B", but I think at the end of it, that's it.

> It would be interesting to know why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard? Especially in light of the continual debasement of the dollar since it was decoupled from gold.

And here I think you've drunk the Kool-Aid. Where did you learn that this is bad? Probably from pro-crypto websites. Do you think they have a neutral view of it, or do you think they'd be selling you a version of why the past was bad, and a version of the way things should be, where the makers of these sites (people who are invested in crypto and want to profit) do profit? I'd wager what they're trying to peddle is bullshit, but I'm not an expert in this area. Yeah, the current financial system is also a bit of of a Ponzi scheme of "Trust me I'm good for it, you'll get your money in the future", but I don't think crypto will prevent that.

> I for one, take this perceived negative bias as a confirmation that Bitcoin is a genuine threat to the existing financial system. When Bill Gates (and other powerful people) bad mouth Bitcoin I smell a rat.

And when Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey tout crypto I smell bullshit. Perhaps you treat these two as sincere heroes wanting the best for mankind, that'd be the same way I see Bill Gates, he probably offered his opinion to the best of his knowledge.

> Does anyone else think this way? Am I just a dumb ass? :)

Well... it seems very easy to lead people astray, in a con, the mark does a lot of his fooling himself.

This is conspiracy theory level stuff, but... I believe it's a dump phase. Later, we'll see a pump phase, where cryptopositive news dominate the pages for a while. It could all be organic in nature, but I wouldn't be too surprised if at least part of it were manufactured.

The real question is: Where exactly do the real crypto discussions take place? Where everyone's been through CryptoZombies and are well versed in Solidity.

(Ok fine, Discord, but which ones/how to get an invite?)

No, you are not a dumb ass.

I wonder this all the time. I admit I've come to some pretty negative conclusions about "tech" and "tech workers" as a result. There are so many problems with access to traditional financial systems that are completely ignored by those who the system was built for...that if I were to try and list them all...everyone would just shrug and say "oh, well, that's just the way it is" which basically means "since I personally don't suffer from those issues, I don't give a damn that you do and it's easier for me to just blow you off than to waste my precious time fixing something that causes you pain and suffering." Which, of course, is exactly the problem. There is no incentive for those who suffer no damage to assist those who do.

The scariest people are those who constantly try and smash crypto for things that haven't been built yet. To me, it's no different than saying "Well the Wright Brothers haven't yet built/flown/proven that flight is possible so I'll just consider them frauds and idiots. Forever." Or Edison keeps insisting that this thing he's working on called a "light stick" will be better than that nasty oil that Rockefeller is pitching but since he can't make it work yet, it'll never exist. And he is a fraud too. Or Berners-Lee keeps talking about hooking all these systems together and Andreesen keeps talking about making easier to interact with it....you get my point.

VC Tomasz Tunguz of Redpoint Capital just wrote a blog post about the scarcity of engineers in the Web3 space: https://tomtunguz.com/programming-languages-web3/. I've included the link so you can read it for yourself. But to me the issue seems related to engineers not wanting to learn new languages or upset their heavily laden, golden apple-filled carts. If everything is going lovely right now and the company pays me top dollar (and does my laundry, provides chef cooked meals, bicycles, gyms etc etc) to basically sit and type all day, why would I want to learn a new language and possibly not hit the Unicorn in the side with my poisoned darts??? The new web will wait or if I talk it down enough it might just disappear all together.

But we-those of of who can't get mortgages because we chose a different neighborhood than the banks would like or who are a different color/gender/whatever than the bank (ie: the system) would like have seen the new horizon and have seen what's possible: a window to a different experience. One where we get to set the terms and offer them to a marketplace. Which, by the way, also hasn't been built yet and the marketplace gets to say "yea" or "nea" and where things can be negotiated to the benefit of both.*

So I'd say the rabbit isn't going back into hat-Thank Goodness. But I also think that all the best things that haven't been built yet won't be built by members of this community.

It's because your average HN reader/commenter/poster skews toward upper class entrepreneurs (and people trying to become them) and has a vested interest (whether one realizes it or not) in the continued survival of the legacy financial system - even as that system continues to fail those outside the developed world (and quite a few of those inside it).

Cryptocurrency ain't a silver bullet by any stretch, and there's a lot of problems with it and excessive hype around it, but it is a great opportunity for the developing world to circumvent a system increasingly rigged against them in favor of one that treats them as equals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com