[dodobirdlord]

I think a lot of the negativity comes from the fact that this is largely a forum of technologists, and Bitcoin is objectively inferior technology. That's not necessarily a knock against Bitcoin, it was revolutionary when it was introduced, but it was the 1.0 cryptocurrency and it's already essentially fossilized and become legacy technology. Miners hold sway over the community and they're not really interested in changing anything significant about Bitcoin, so now people are talking about absurdities like Lightning layered over Bitcoin to try to mitigate some of the flaws. We can save the effort and fix the flaws of Bitcoin by just moving on from Bitcoin. It's as though we were stuck with SSL 3.0 forever or something.

The only reason the vast majority of people advocating for Bitcoin are advocating for Bitcoin specifically is because they have invested in Bitcoin specifically, and they want the price of Bitcoin specifically to go up. Seeing people advocate for us all to be stuck with inferior technology forever because they have a financial stake in the inferior technology is exactly the sort of thing you should expect negativity about on HN.

[keymone]

Inferior to what? It’s the first and arguably best technology that brought digital decentralized ownership to humanity. How is that not enough?

Personally it seems all the negativity comes from people who don’t get it or those who are salty because they missed the boat.

[Kbelicius]

> Inferior to what?

Not the GP but probably to crypto that followed it.

[keymone]

well would be good to clarify, because there's no project that followed that is better on fundamental level. lots of solutions that trade decentralization and independence for performance, lots of hype and marketing, lots of bells and whistles of questionable value, lots of money being made in scams and rug-pulls.

[Kbelicius]

> well would be good to clarify, because there's no project that followed that is better on fundamental level.

This is also a statement that need clarifying. What do you even mean when you say "on fundamental level"?

> lots of solutions that trade decentralization and independence for performance, lots of hype and marketing, lots of bells and whistles of questionable value, lots of money being made in scams and rug-pulls.

All of this can be said about btc too. Except the part about trading decentralization and independence for performance. Btc has really bad performance and decentralization and independence (from what?) can be questioned.

[keymone]

> What do you even mean when you say "on fundamental level"?

Fundamental properties of bitcoin are its decentralization and security achieved via and expressed in, very transparently and using very simple formula, in terms of energy expenditure, tying it unambiguously to the real world physics.

No other project has such properties or comes close to the level to which those properties are achieved in bitcoin.

> All of this can be said about btc too.

Nope.

> Btc has really bad performance and decentralization and independence (from what?) can be questioned.

Only if you don’t understand what performance of a cryptocurrency is, or what decentralization of cryptocurrency means. And independence is from marketing campaigns, politics and other shenanigans that crypto world is full of.

[Kbelicius]

> Fundamental properties of bitcoin are its decentralization and security achieved via and expressed in, very transparently and using very simple formula, in terms of energy expenditure, tying it unambiguously to the real world physics. >No other project has such properties or comes close to the level to which those properties are achieved in bitcoin.

There are other PoW coins. Some of those do calculation that are actually useful on their own. That means that there are coins with better, as you say, fundamentals.

> Nope.

Yes.

> Only if you don’t understand what performance of a cryptocurrency is, or what decentralization of cryptocurrency means.

Only if performance and decentralization mean something completely different in cryptocurrency than anywhere else. If so, can you explain or provide a source that explains it that I can check.

> And independence is from marketing campaigns, politics and other shenanigans that crypto world is full of.

BTC is full of marketing campaigns, politics and other shenanigans. To claim otherwise is to ignore, or be completely oblivious, to bitcoin history and present.

[Kiro]

> The only reason the vast majority of people advocating for Bitcoin are advocating for Bitcoin specifically is because they have invested in Bitcoin

And people only hate on it because they missed out. It doesn't matter how hard they try to justify the negativity with technological argument. Everyone still knows it's just jealousy speaking. I'm guilty of this and so are you.

[haskellandchill]

You are blinded by greed. Not everyone thinks that way. Some of us care for things in dimensions orthogonal to money.

[loceng]

To add to this the blockchain solution that's likely to be adopted will ultimately be multilateral agreements between democratically elected governments deciding to use a technology not designed to align with financial incentive/greed for its adoption, unnecessarily transferring wealth from later adopters weighted tiara towards the earliest adopters.