[mancerayder]

Not a bitcoin fanboy, but that's a bit strong a statement. What is "greed" versus motivation for innovation? Is innovation rewarded with (taxed, regulated) wealth greed, and if so, is that "bad"? And if it creates Teslas and rockets that land, and robots on Mars that last a year or more analyzing samples, is it a fatal flaw?

Some more questions... So let's say BTC is greed - the many financial instruments out there, derivatives, credit default swaps, funds of funds, the crazy options stuff going on ... and you drew the line at BTC?

"It's that old SF-trope that the cause of many of humanity's biggest problems is humans."

Fitting for a city known today for its vast outdoor tent cities of homelessness.

[c-linkage]

I feel that comments like this are a disservice to HN, for while the comment attempts to sound erudite and logical, it is simply moral relativism in disguise.

"Greed" is neither good nor bad, but instead it is a pathological optimization. Optimizing for profit, by definition, is an "unwillingness to acknowledge externalities", as stated by the GP. Optimizing for profit resulted in many bad situations for Americans (see the Love Canal and the Cuyahoga River) and it was the reason the United States created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), so that negative externalities could be converted into dollars.

To bring into the discussion "Teslas" and "rockets that land" changes the argument from the demonstrable "bitcoin is bad for the planet" to a morally relative argument of "yeah, but it got us rockets and Teslas", which does nothing other than prove GPs point: to say that that Teslas and landing rockets are worth the price of Bitcoin is to ignore or disregard the externalities!

And it's hard to imagine that the GP "drew the line" at Bitcoin; to take that as the position is making a straw-man argument. Instead, an interpretation that would lead to valuable discussion should be adopted, like the position that Bitcoin both demonstrates the flaws of greed and that it does so in a way that is simple to understand and demonstrate, especially when it comes to externalities. Financial instruments are complex and opaque on purpose, designed to confuse and obfuscate greed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a much simpler equation: money versus power consumed versus pollutants produced.

Finally, a suggestion to all: avoid acronyms, or at least spell them out on first use. It's highly likely that "SF" meant "Science Fiction" and not "San Fransisco". Knowing the correct definition of an acronym can help avoid embarrassing situations.

[mancerayder]

Your response and charges of moral relativism are longer than the comment you're replying to. It's as if you're liberally reading into motivations and even psychology, in order to make your point about externalities.

Don't tell people what their motivations are. The original comment talked about greed, my comment questions our definitions of greed.

Edit: Can't you just reply and make a point about externalities instead of being essentially passive-aggressive?

> Finally, a suggestion to all: avoid acronyms, or at least spell them out on first use. It's highly likely that "SF" meant "Science Fiction" and not "San Fransisco". Knowing the correct definition of an acronym can help avoid embarrassing situations.

Wowzers. How about you design the guidelines for conversations, and we can defer to you if there's ever any ambiguity.

[JakeTheAndroid]

Bitcoin innovated through a blockchain years ago and the world has already adopted that. But the current state of bitcoin makes it bad at its other 'innovation', digital currency.

Bitcoin is far too volatile to be a widespread, standard currency which seems to be the "reason" people say it's worth as much as it is. But it will never be a widespread currency until it has stability. So it's a chicken/egg situation, one of the two has to come first for the other, and both ideas rely on each other.

Most people that hold bitcoin today are doing so because they think it will increase in value, NOT because they care about the stability or viability of currency. That's pretty selfish insofar there are plenty of developing nations that would benefit greatly from a stable currency. Bitcoin might still be more stable than some countries, but that doesn't negate the issues.

So, because many people look at bitcoin as a wealth generator that produces tons of heat and waste, and it starts to look like a perfect marriage of shitty human behaviors.

[mancerayder]

How do you explain banks and hedge funds putting their money into it? Your explanation is that they want a digital currency, which you're saying is impossible. But it seems like the BTC advocates aren't arguing that, but instead that it's a store of value as a hedge against inflation?

[JakeTheAndroid]

No, I would argue hedge funds and banks are treating BTC like any other investment; They believe it will make money.

Banks and hedge funds don't inherently care about currencies. They care about the currency that governs their lives but beyond that everything is an investment. Banks don't provide mortgages because homes provide a stable economy or a stable currency. They do so because they will make money back on what they lend through interest. The fact that you store your dollars there is just one way for them to collect tons of assets for lending (among other things). This doesn't means banks care much about the volatility or exchange rate of the currency itself.

Hedge funds would only care about currencies insofar that it's an investment vehicle and investing in currencies can be a good investment. Bonds or other currency investments can increase over time without the volatility of BTC. A hedge fund is literally just an investment group, so it's pretty obvious they don't NEED to care about BTC stability or any stability at all.

Now, the question could be why would banks and hedge funds be willing to invest into such a volatile currency when they are usually risk adverse (banks more than hedge funds). And that would be a good question, except BTC has kept going up and now crypto as a whole is just another ETF market. So there are plenty of safe ways to hedge your bets on BTC or crypto generically without actually believing in the underlying philosophical justifications.

EDIT: Also, I don't think that it's impossible to have a crypto currency that is viable and stable. I think Ethereum has a fairly logical approach to their core issues that could solve the issues down the road. We'll see. I do think it'll be hard for BTC to become a viable currency because of how pumped up it is, and people treat it like an infinite money machine. Until the systemic issues of the BTC ethos are solved, I don't see a promising future for BTC as a widespread currency. But, it might have value in setting up the infra that the future crypto that IS viable will use.

[foobarian]

I wonder if more mainstream investors waited a while to make sure BTC is liquid. I don't know the details of this - I guess there must be reliable enough exchanges now to serve customers of that caliber.

[zepto]

> How do you explain banks and hedge funds putting their money into it?

Banks and hedge funds put money into cigarette companies and arms manufacturers and all manner of scam companies.

Their decisions are based on estimated risks and rewards over different time periods.

Taking a position in Bitcoin doesn’t imply anything about it’s nature or long term prospects.

Only that there is a perceived path to potential gains over a time period known to the investor, and not to us.

[Cookingboy]

>What is "greed" versus motivation for innovation?

I don't have exact data, but my gut feeling tells me that 99.99% of the people buying cryptocurrencies today are driven by greed instead of innovation.

> and you drew the line at BTC?

Not really, if you look at the perspective that we already have enough instruments for financial manipulation and greed, why introduce another one that consumes so much energy?

>Fitting for a city known today for its vast outdoor tent cities of homelessness.

I mean...you know that's a completely man-made problem right?

[klingon78]

> 99.99% of the people buying cryptocurrencies today are driven by greed instead of innovation.

Greed or fear. More fear than greed at this point.

[simonw]

SF here is Science Fiction, not San Francisco.

[mancerayder]

I stand corrected, but I like the accidental pun.

[dmingod666]

I don't have any but I get the feeling that a lot of people here are just salty that they were thinking of buying and didn't. Just venting that regret..

[zepto]

> many financial instruments out there, derivatives, credit default swaps, funds of funds, the crazy options stuff going on ... and you drew the line at BTC?

That seems like you are putting words into the GP’s mouth.

Nobody is saying these other instruments aren’t also ‘greed’, just that Bitcoin is no better.

That’s relevant because one part of the Bitcoin narrative is that it is actually better in some way, and not just another speculative instrument.

[rcrisan]

Do you think it's true that bitcoin is the solution to a couple of problems that don't exist?

[mancerayder]

Again, I'm not a BTC fanboy, I don't even own any. But obviously it solves SOME problems - like how to transfer some sort of store of value across borders without using a bank. That's one of them.

It's not tulips and 100% useless. A digital currency is interesting to explore. It's interesting enough that institutions are stuffing their cash into it because they are fearing inflation, and the old school explanations of why we won't get inflation are now being questioned.

Don't ask me to forcefully argue for or against, there are many other people on this thread to argue both positions. But you can't say it has NO utility.

[rcrisan]

Hi, thanks for the reply, makes sense what you said. I am not looking for strong stances or arguing; I just want to expand my understanding. I get from you that institutions pour real money into it and they rely on bitcoin's scarcity to overcome inflation. Makes sense. However, I want to understand why using banks or FinTech companies for money transfer is so bad? Nowadays there are low fees, way lower than what Bitcoin offers today. And that is just one aspect. It's just an opinion but I feel that money transfer problems caused by banks are exaggerated, especially in developed countries. Can you explain why I might be wrong about it? I also do not own Bitcoin, my employer is not a bank and I do not have any involvement or desire to promote the banking or payments industry.

[mancerayder]

> However, I want to understand why using banks or FinTech companies for money transfer is so bad?

I've never done it, but when I lived abroad and I had to transfer money, I got fleeced by banks and then (a few years ago) there weren't really any alternatives. I don't have any skin in the game with Bitcoin, but I guess that left a foul taste in my mouth.

There've been other comments about Bitcoin that are a bit more nuanced and interesting, in one case there was a gentleman from Argentina making an impassioned case for the use over and against the polices of his government.

I think there's an element of institutional mistrust that Bitcoin claims - maybe wrongly, given how centralized it is - to solve.

[rcrisan]

Certainly the most important value proposition from the companies behind the established cryptocurrencies is the decentralized network for value transfers. No more "brokerage" firms. Getting rid of these feels like an emotional fulfillment; and today this beats pragmatism. Thanks for writing.

[dmingod666]

Exactly correct. You can recognize its not useless even if you don't like the thing.