It has been a lesson to me about humans and intelligence since that time.
Still love the place though, but I learned never to let comments be the source of the things I need to investigate.
It's a sobering moment when you realize that a lot of tech is actually net negative to you - not the least because it outsourced to you the work that previously was done, much more efficiently, by specialized labor.
What community that wouldn't have confirmation bias would understand crypto currency better? And what are their thoughts on it?
Some HNers just aren't that interested in the use cases, which is fine. But others tend to critique decades-old technology, and don't seem interested in learning about modern solutions, since their minds are made up.
At least for me, my main concerns are with the seemingly short sighted libertarian implementations that don't take into account the bad actors of this world. I think there are definitely some issues with our current financial system, but I think its like democracy in that it seems to be the least bad solution. I wouldn't want to live in a world without regulation of our financial markets. It is too easy for people to defraud the little guy and for criminal organizations to prosper. Do you think there are solutions in newer technologies for those concerns?
I feel like both sides should be able to agree that there are pros and cons to the different technologies and use cases, that there are some that are better for the pro camp and less negative for the against camp. Maybe pushing harder to make the cream rise to the top could make these conversations less tribal and divisive?
To be clear, that is absolutely not solved for Bitcoin, which still wastes energy at a disgusting rate. Some crypto things have shifted to non-proof-of-work approaches, usually proof of stake, but Bitcoin is still pumping out more CO2 than many countries.
Personally, I'm fully against promoting crypto as an end all be all solution to economic problems the way that many scammers do. I'm even against trying to onboard the masses.
However, I see in crypto and smart contracts a green field of opportunity to experiment with unique forms and formats of human interaction using the medium of programmable money.
For example, I like how NFTs (despite many shortcomings) play with the concept of digital ownership. I also like how defi brings us unique financial instruments like flash loans, etc.
I think draconian regulation in this space will effectively squeeze a lot of these experiments out from under legitimate actors. It's a technology that is worth playing with. I think it's better to punish bad actors rather than raise the barrier to entry for the tech.
Of course you are right that enthusiasts of the technology would have a confirmation bias, but the opposite is also true. The confirmation bias here is that this is de facto bad.
The "anti-crypto sentiment" that was the unwavering average sentiment on HN is, to me, a point of pride, and I'm thankful for it, because it inoculated me when I was most vulnerable - early on, where it wasn't obvious yet what type of people are promoting crypto and for what reasons.
It wasn't as bad as some forums, since some skeptical voices were present too, but there absolutely was a ton of breathless hype over the years.
Here's just one example, when stripe added bitcoin support [0]
I personally feel like HN sentiment finally "turned" on crypto only after some of the more egregious scams started going really mainstream - in the months leading up to and during the pandemic.
Personally, I think I can reason through a great number of things. But I still get depressed, angry, jealous, happy, enthused, etc. in ways that reason has to catch up to, before the instinctive emotion makes itself public - and sometimes reason does not or cannot catch up.
(Generally the positive ones I leave to run wild, but sometimes they need to be suppressed too).
Almost on the actual topic, I think cryptocurrency has proven it's use case in the global transfer of value without a centralised third party. And that, in itself, is pretty amazing. All the rest is the application of this technology having to work itself out.
The whole argument about criminal activity or porn or whatever is just proof of the use-case. The internet itself was accused of just being a conduit for porn not really that long ago.
Because it's related to "value (transfer)" means it should have been considered inevitable that it would attract, well, the kinds of people it has obviously and very publicly attracted. And that nicely ties off the loop of human nature...
I went back a decade and randomly clicked on a discussion and found most of the comments constructive and matter of fact. Perhaps I got lucky, but it lines up with my memory of the period.
HackerNews was weirdly credulous about this stuff for a weirdly long time, but it does seem to have shifted in the last few years.