Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

All three A, C and D for sure.

Here's a thing: in both cases, when Bitcoin is a fraud and joke, and when Bitcoin is a future world-changing technology, price must grow up like crazy. So the price alone does not give us any clue about the nature of Bitcoin. Only analysis of fundamentals and analysis of the econo-political environment we are in can tell us something about value of Bitcoin.




well the thing is.... all economic analyses seem to conclude that it is ridiculous.

The only thing keeping it alive is that people are still willing to buy/trade it. As long as that is the case, it will exist. But I don't agree with this idea that it could be rapidly increasing in price because its "a future world-changing technology". This argument has never made sense to me because it's simply 1 implementation of cryptocurrency and has not even performed its function as such. I'm sure there are better possible versions. In fact, I highly suspect that a better alternative has ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED!

The only reason Bitcoin is the giant that can't be defeated is because of the lure as an investment, and this is all a sham. Early adopters probably are doing "option D" and even though it's somewhat unnoticeable to consumers it is likely sowing the seeds of destruction for the environment. Perhaps because they're abusing users trust by selling for high prices that are bound to crash. I'm not sure... but the point is, eventually people will stop buying when they realize they're paying $1000 for a coin and they don't even know wtf it is.

As you said, only analysis of the fundamentals achieves anything. And these analyses have been done. And can be seen in the market. It's obvious at this point -- Bitcoin is worth what people believe it's worth. Fundamentally, it's nothing. They are sold for cash & then that cash is gone. Spent. The currency doesn't retain anything on it's own. The burden of maintaining the ecosystem stability is passed on to those who now have the money.

Similarly to the way in MLM a salesman's sub-tree is responsible for making the product move, unless they can find another to pass the product along to.


Most of modern economics are bullshit promoting government meddling with money supply. No wonder "economic analysis" says Bitcoin is ridiculous.

When you dismiss Bitcoin by saying it's only there while "people are still willing to buy/trade" you are missing important point. Ask yourself: why people are willing to hold it. Why people are willing to have any money at all: USD, gold, seashells. Are they stupid? Or money gives some utility to them?

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/43378777734/on-circulation-of-...


The "bullshit" and "government meddling" you decry has almost completely eliminated long-lasting panics and depressions in the industrialized world. Even the most cursory examination of pre- and post-Great Depression economic trends in the West shows that recessions became shallower and less common once governments adopted countercyclical policies.


I'm not sure how useful traditional economic analysis is for Bitcoin, it's very different.

If you asked Viking long boat builders to evaluate modern day aircraft carriers I'm pretty sure they would tell you it won't float.


The aircraft carrier builder could probably give a concrete explanation for why the long boat builder's understanding of buoyancy is flawed, and also demonstrate why his model works better for both his boat and the long boat builder's boat.

Similarly, if you're going to assert that current economic theories don't apply to BTC because it's special, then you better be prepared to follow that up with an enumeration of what those special characteristics are and why they matter. And then you better be prepared to follow that up with a new theory of economics that does a better job of explaining the behavior of both BTC and other currencies as well.

Otherwise it's impossible for others to distinguish a credible objection from wishful thinking. Which is a kind of critical distinction to make, because history tells us that whenever the price of something starts going up rapidly and people start talking about how the economic orthodoxy doesn't apply anymore because this time it's different, nearly 100% of the time what happens next is a tragedy.


> This argument has never made sense to me because it's simply 1 implementation of cryptocurrency and has not even performed its function as such. I'm sure there are better possible versions. In fact, I highly suspect that a better alternative has ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED!

Quality of an implementation doesn't imply success. Success also depends on other factors.

History is full of examples (e.g. Betamax).

Plus, it's very naive to assume that a Bitcoin is nothing because the only things that gives it value is the belief of people. Belief of people has value. Plus, it's not clear how long the prices will rise, and if something's going to happen in the meanwhile (e.g. more shops accepting it).

If it's a bubble, it can't be said with certainty until the bubble bursted.


> Fundamentally, it's nothing. They are sold for cash & then that cash is gone. Spent. The currency doesn't retain anything on it's own. The burden of maintaining the ecosystem stability is passed on to those who now have the money.

This is why the real world currencies which arent "backed by anything" still make people wake up at 6 every morning, drag around for 9-10 hours of the day and then spend those on food and cover. The us/eur currencies have the value of the social contracts that are based and exchanged due to these currencies. The value comes from making people do things for it, and cash seems to be doing that quite well even if it isnt backed by anything.

What Im trying to get at, its the social contracts that exist in the millions - employer employee government - that make up and back up the value of any currency.

For BTC to succeed as a currency, people need to exchange their goods and services for it, especially their time, their work. It isnt enough to buy or sell ready-made goods, its the producers that need to be payed in bitcoin, only then a real revolution can happen.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how such a transformation could or would happen - for people to start getting payed in BTC. A company cant just do that, they have taxes and laws to follow.


yep agreed here. a lot of the responses i've been getting are intelligence-insulting "that's how all money works" "economics is flawed blah blah" but i think the fact is -- these things are taken into account.

Currency can exist purely through the means of social contract, I'm in total agreement with that. But Bitcoin's volatility is not exactly "good PR" unless people are actually delusional enough to believe that the value is massively increasing because it's "clever and people are beginning to understand it". It's soaring because it's clever and people don't get it at all.

Given all of the shady baggage and investment scheming associated with the ecosystem I don't think it will ever reach the level of widespread social contract.

it's not that I love the dollar or anything it's just that the dollar is an agreed upon currency and Bitcoin is still just a trading market. Since it's yet to be proven that it's performing its stated purpose (transactional currency), there's no reason why the market for it won't just disappear one day with a crash so bad that selling at a loss isn't even possible -- the faith is just gone.


Thinking more about this, I find a good measure of a success of a currency is to just look at how much of your monthly transactions are conducted with said currency.

Now I believe a persons wage is the biggest monthly transaction they perform - work and monthly wage pays out, in what currency?

When bitcoin reaches that point, if ever, where employers pay their employees and taxes in BTC. Then its a currency. Now its a speculative bubble - for which it may still be a good idea to get behind and compete with all the other gamblers.


yup, the first part of this article is about that

http://falkvinge.net/2013/09/13/bitcoins-vast-overvaluation-...

you may be able to make some money it's true but I think if you believe it to be a ponzi scheme it is immoral to get involved. that's my basic stance. I can live life just fine without it


I believe normal currencies are also a ponzi scheme. A really big one.

Bitcoin isnt a classical scheme like that Maddofs guy. Its already too big for that.


>all economic analyses seem to conclude that it is ridiculous.

Economics is obviously useful, but it is by no means a mature "science."




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: