[janoside]

The "market" is always active and always looking to select the best of everything, including money. Bitcoin isn't be-all/end-all magical money - but it is a massive, order-of-magnitude improvement on history's greatest "hard money" (gold). The markets of the world are slowly coming to understand the value of this "best reserve asset and best collateral asset ever seen" (Raoul Pal).

A new digital, internet-native asset with the greatest monetary properties in history is monetizing before your eyes; meanwhile you're relying on your understanding of an old world to convince yourself it doesn't matter and the people who see something deeply interesting are kooks.

[seibelj]

This is the history of all revolutionary technologies. At first it seems like a useless toy, then the establishment laughs at and denigrates it, then it's fought aggressively, then it takes over. I would say we are almost past the "fought aggressively" stage, at least for Bitcoin, and into the "taking over" stage as smart institutional money begins to get exposure.

It's very interesting that a large contingent of smart software people on HN heard about Bitcoin extremely early, said it was a useless failure, and then had to re-justify their position for a decade as Bitcoin marches on. It's impossible for anyone to claim Bitcoin has no value at this point, but on every blockchain post on HN there is a core of haters that will make the same tired arguments against it. Meanwhile, no one cares!

[gamblor956]

They said the same thing about Theranos, too...In fact, the only time I've ever heard that quote is in reference to failing technologies and companies.

You'll never hear that quote about actually revolutionary technologies, because their revolutionary nature is immediately apparent, even if the economic case for the technology is not (at the time).

Cryptocurrency isn't revolutionary. There isn't any use case for cryptocurrency that wouldn't be easier to address with normal cash or credit payment. Cryptocurrency solves none of the actual problems in the current financial or banking systems but introduces a host of new problems that weren't issues in the old system. It's a solution in search of a problem.

[seibelj]

You keep repeating the same tired arguments, then can't explain why Bitcoin went from 0 to $240 billion market cap in 10 years. There is clearly a lot of value here, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

[gamblor956]

Theranos had a high market cap to, right up until the WSJ reporting revealed it to be a fraud. And on that note, there's strong evidence that multiple parties have been manipulating the value of cryptocurrencies, including especially Bitcoin, through various fraudulent mechanisms (see, e.g., Tether).

I also used to be heavily involved in cryptocurrency, when it first started, and what I saw then is a large part of why I don't see any usefulness in cryptocurrency now and why I'm convinced that it will never replace any part of the financial system.

[seibelj]

You truly believe that some scandal will result that drives Bitcoin from $240 billion to 0? And you were "heavily involved when it first started"? A lot has changed in 10 years, I don't think you understand this industry whatsoever.

[gamblor956]

I don't think a scandal will drive Bitcoin from $240 billion to 0. There's enough interest that Bitcoin will retain at least some value even when it's clear that it will never be picked up for general use.

A lot has changed in 10 years. Crypto has gotten worse. Multiple exchanges were hacked, or turned out to be entirely fraudulent. Black markets came and went. ICOs for non-existent and useless products. The discovery that major participants in the system were manipulating coin values and were engaged in multiple types of financial fraud. The uptake of cryptocurrency as the primary means of paying ransoms to hackers who have encrypted your website, database, or computer. Facebook attempting to introduce its own cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin Craze where awareness of bitcoin hit the general public and the techies who got in first exploited the rubes for everything they were worth(and cryptocurrency industry's response to the criticism: they should have known better!?!? That tarnished all cryptocurrency in the eyes of the public and they learned to avoid all of it, not just Bitcoin. That on its own was a fatal blow to the uptake of cryptocurrency in general use, anywhere, and it was only a few months later that Bitcoin started getting removed from e-commerce sites).

All in all, I'm glad I got out when I did.

[janoside]

I appreciate your perspective. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills these days on HN concerning BTC. This idea (early rejection, re-justification) is a helpful heuristic for understanding some of it at least.

[raverbashing]

What you're saying applies to crypto-currencies in general, but not necessarily to Bitcoin, which has some thorny issues.

Yes, maybe the popularity of BTC will overcome the issues, but I doubt.

[janoside]

No, it doesn't. Money, perhaps more than anything else in human society, exhibits network effects that incline it toward winner-takes-all dynamics. Every money implicitly competes against every other money.

I recommend taking a look at something like https://bitcointreasuries.org/

And don't just glance at it - try asking some probing questions, like "What does this mean?" and "What might I be missing concerning the underlying dynamic at play?"

You can also try reading The Bitcoin Standard for a good analysis of the dynamics and history of competition between different forms of money - the central thesis being: History has shown that you can't protect yourself from someone else holding money that's harder (better) than yours. Bitcoin is better money than anything else we have or have ever had.

[gamblor956]

Money, perhaps more than anything else in human society, exhibits network effects that incline it toward winner-takes-all dynamics.

That's not how money works, if by money you mean a currency. Currencies are issued by sovereign governments, and don't exhibit network effects within that sovereign jurisdiction, because they don't need to. They're legal tender; you're required to accept them, and everyone needs them to pay taxes.

If you mean money as in wealth, that's an entirely different topic.