| There's probably more comments promoting and defending Bitcoin on HN than ones questioning it. The question I have is why do commenters feel the need to respond to any comment about Bitcoin that is not a (sometimes subtle) promotion or defense of it. A reasonable person might think it's because Bitcoin is only valuable if increasingly more and more people buy it. If it's not increasingly popular or if, God forbid, everyone holding Bitcoin were to try to sell, all at once, it's Game Over. (Some folks will lose money and all Hell will break loose.) If the first statement is false, and Bitcoin is valuable if it's unpopular, then there should be no logical reason why anyone would try to "defend" Bitcoin on HN. Why would anyone care. It's valuable even if no one is buying, right. If it lacks popularity, then this is of no consequence. Ignore it. Alas, there is no way to test if second statement is true, i.e., it is Game Over if everyone cashes out their Bitcoin, other than this actually happening. Even still, there is no logical reason anyone would need to "defend" Bitcoin on HN if someone else believes this to be true. Why would it matter if other people hold or sell their Bitcoin. And yet, there are consistently HN voters and commenters who seek to "defend" Bitcoin from anyone who has doubts or asks questions. That, in and of itself, may raise suspicions even more. "Bitcoin doesn't have to do something useful for everyone to survive. It doesn;t have to "replace fiat". It doesn't have to be a payment system. It doesn't have to "go to the moon". It doesn't even need an ETF." But somehow it needs to be constantly defended in every electronic discussion. It needs constant promotion. It needs hype. No one can simply state "I am not interested in Bitcoin" in a discussion without triggering some "response". Regardless of the merits of Bitcoin, or absence of them, that is fscked up. Red flag. In case anyone gets confused, I am not suggesting that any commenter literally states "I am not interested in Bitcoin" and nothing else. I am using a hypothetical example of a seemingly benign statement to illustrate the idea that _all_ comments about crypto which are not positive are quickly "countered" by Bitcoin true believers. Here is perhaps a better example. Someone states, in so many words, that Bitcoin requires large amounts of electricity. Is this untrue. It is explicitly negative. It seems quite benign yet this sort of comment will almost invariably trigger a "defense". To some, that is a red flag that there is something suspicous about these "arguments" that people feel compelled to make about Bitcoin. Check out the film "Bitconned" if you can. Slow start but hilarious in the end. What happens when some petty criminals accidentally come in contact with hordes of "true believers". online. If I am not mistaken this was the SEC's first successful prosecution re: crypto. |
If the topic is some positive news about a technology (Bitcoin or otherwise), and your only contribution is "I am not interested in this" then you'll probably trigger a response. Might also be time to revisit the commenting guidelines.