[luka-birsa]

I've had a lot of interesting debates in the comment section and I fully agree with the OP. He's calling it skeptical, but I'd say HN is an order of magnitude more skeptical about blockchain than any other topic. I'd pick a much harsher word.

As a blockchain / crypto enthusiast I'm actually unable to have a meaningful discussion on HN. It's gotten to the point where I can't even bother to share my views in the comments as it's not worth it. People are so dismissive and set that blockchain is a scam, that every debate becomes so heated with people reiterating the same position over and over.

So I fully agree with OP - a HN-like community, where people can discuss the non-price aspect of crypto and BC would be nice. I hate reddit and twitter as most of discussions seem price driven.

[subhro]

> People are so dismissive and set that blockchain is a scam

I have never heard/read anyone on HN saying blockchain is a scam. Blockchain is a mathematical construct. If anyone says blockchain is a scam, he/she/they may as well say addition is a scam, so is subtraction.

What IS scam, in my opinion, is the ability to exchange crypto currency for tangible and non abstract products that has a meaningful value in day to day life. Crypto is not backed by any real assets, hence my problem.

[oliwarner]

Blockchain is a scam.

This is one of those "guns don't kill people" arguments. Of course blockchain isn't a scam it's just a tool, but every instance of blockchain I've seen used has been inefficient and unnecessary and better performed by other existing technology. People trying to flog their banal products as something special because blockchain is the scam.

[tjs8rj]

I’m no crypto fanatic or crypto hater, but I always found this “backed by real assets” besides the point and often dogmatic. To what extent is fiat or stock “backed by a real world asset”? What about collectibles or startup options? What about a tech company with nothing but a website and employees?

I don’t think you actually care if something is “backed by real world assets”, you’re concerned with downside risk. What is the likelihood bitcoin goes to zero within a decade? What level could it go to? It’s “fundamentals” are at least its level of intrigue with the population (much like Instagrams only fundamentals are its attention of the population).

Stock is backed by a company, fiat is backed by the govt, Instagram is backed by the attention it receives, Bitcoin as well. This is more a spectrum than a binary, and Bitcoin doesn’t seem that far off from most tech companies who’s only “real asset” is attention.

[dabrot]

> Crypto is not backed by any real assets

As is fiat money.

[bawana]

Fiat money is backed by the fear of gratuitous violence from the military of its nation.

[cyberge99]

And legal system.

[thrill]

Laws are enforced by violence.