Why do so many in tech dismiss Bitcoin?

New / Eng
peterschif

New Eng

peterschif
Dec 5, 2021 166 Comments

My guess is because of the insane cognitive dissonance induced from missing out early on. I would figure most engineers in tech have heard about Bitcoin way earlier than the average person and understood the tech behind it as well, but missed out on buying some.

525 PARTICIPANTS SELECT ONLY ONE ANSWER
VOTE VIEW RESULT

comments

Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
TOP 166 Comments
  • Google / Eng
    dogfoodie

    Go to company page Google Eng

    dogfoodie
    I am still of the opinion it's a solution looking for a problem. I also think there are fundamental flaws with BTC that leave it as an unviable candidate for a practical currency.
    Dec 5, 2021 10
    • Lot of people on this thread still make the same tired arguments. Shows how early we still are.

      Arguments:
      1. Slow network Pt1: Base layer prioritized security (decentralization) over speed (inevitable centralization). That's why the Block Wars took place. Lightning Network builds upon secure L1 and has already been implemented for daily purchases in El Salvador.

      2. Slow network Pt2: Need to remember that even "slow" ~10min block confirmation time is for *true final settlement*. While you can swipe your credit card instantly, final settlement with Visa or other payment processing companies is anything but instantaneous - taking a couple days to post finality.

      3. "Can't buy anything with it." This is short-sighted. You couldn't do much with the internet in 1995. Didn't mean internet wasn't life-altering - just meant the world (and infrastructure) needed to play catch up. I recently re-watched Jobs's first iPhone keynote: he spent half the time selling the benefits of the music player and the phone function itself vs. having the mobile internet in your hand. We of course know how that story turned out. When the world plays catch up with Bitcoin, merchants everywhere may start accepting it, and we'll see salaries in BTC (we already are to a very small degree already).

      4. "Too volatile to buy anything with." That's certainly true now - but it's been a 12-year ride only and the value in fiat went from no price to $69K and counting. We're in price discovery now, and most likely will be for decades to come until adoption arrives closer to global ubiquity, and we near 2140, when the last Bitcoin is mined. Think the former is impossible? 2 years ago you would have thought a company owning BTC on its balance sheet was impossible β€” not to mention a country adopting it as its actual legal currency. First, it goes gradually, then suddenly.

      Strongest money system ever created, and fits the digital age we're living, in where something tangible to represent exchangeable value is becoming more and more meaningless.
      Dec 6, 2021
    • New
      dPDl42

      New

      dPDl42
      @Facebook I think #2 and #3 (finality and custody) are the important problems already solved by BTC. I don't want the government or other powerful entities to be able to roll back or otherwise take assets that the network has confirmed are mine.

      Of course I agree that some people are interested in trading convenience for this risk and that is what centralized exchanges / other layer 2 solutions help with, but it would be a mistake to try and think that BTC network is broken for lacking these. It would be broken if these were added.
      Dec 7, 2021
  • Google
    gdspaceguy

    Go to company page Google

    gdspaceguy
    It has no inherent value. Despite what libertarians say about "fiat currency", dollars will always have value because you need them to pay your taxes. Scarcity doesn't make something valuable if there's no demand for that thing. There's demand for bitcoin because people are hoping someone else will buy from them for more. That could dry up any time... See beanie babies in the 90s or tulip bulbs in 1637.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
    Dec 5, 2021 26
    • Uber
      ublindd

      Go to company page Uber

      ublindd
      "Scarcity doesn't make something valuable if there's no demand for that thing"
      Diamonds: hold my beer
      Dec 11, 2021
    • Google
      gdspaceguy

      Go to company page Google

      gdspaceguy
      I'm assuming you mean diamonds have no intrinsic usefulness, not that there is no demand for diamonds. They have uses in making jewelry and industrial use (same is true for gold in both cases). But it's still true that it would not be as valuable if demand for them dropped.
      Dec 11, 2021
  • Snap
    CUTL81

    Go to company page Snap

    CUTL81
    Engineers tend to take less risk, I have noticed that people who go all in on bitcoin or doge or any of the volatile stuff are people who know nothing about the technology. Just my 2 πŸͺ™
    Dec 5, 2021 8
    • New / Eng
      yolosamba2

      New Eng

      PRE
      Facebook
      yolosamba2
      I know a ton of engineers that believe in and are highly knowledgeable about Bitcoin/Ethereum.

      The % of people that are knowledgeable is probably higher than that of the general public, simply because engineers are involved in new technology more often.

      That said the overall % of people clueless about the tech, both across the general public + engineers is very high.
      Dec 14, 2021
    • Twitter
      twootπŸ₯

      Go to company page Twitter

      twootπŸ₯
      @Better: Anchor Protocol (Terra:UST)

      Technically, UST is not *backed* by USD, just pegged -- but that doesn't really matter to me, because I don't need to do the UST -> LUNA -> exchange -> fiat dance.

      KuCoin supports Terra's network, so you can just move UST to KuCoin, sell it for USDT (or, if you want to move it to an exchange you trust for, do something with a low txn fee like XLM -> your exchange -> sell for Fiat (or swap to whatever stablecoin you want)
      Dec 14, 2021
  • New
    7_7

    New

    7_7
    I just don't get it. It feels cultish to be honest.

    That being said I do buy but only as an investment not for Blockchain or decentralization.

    I first started buying in school so 2012-13, lost em lol then forgot about it and restarted properly in 2018
    Dec 5, 2021 3
    • Google
      MelGibson

      Go to company page Google

      MelGibson
      Good tech doesn’t need to be β€œsold” - if it’s legit people will naturally start to use it. Blockchain doesn’t have value, in the same way sms doesn’t have value - the problem it solves has value, and blockchain is still looking for a large scale problem to solve. It has some bells and whistles, but the underlying foundation has some heavy limitations. Take Web3 for example. Rollout an update due to a python day 0 bug. Rename something. It’s not a cure all, and scaling it is proving extremely difficult.
      Dec 6, 2021
    • New
      TVSE42

      New

      TVSE42
      L2 Rollups like ZK STARKS and Zk SNARKS coupled with L1 sharded consensus layer will scale it massively over the coming years
      Dec 8, 2021
  • RoviSys
    MovingOn.

    Go to company page RoviSys

    MovingOn.
    It has no intrinsic value. Plus I don't understand how most people overlook that looking at crypto as a whole, there is no scarcity. I could create my own crypto if I wanted to, and more than most in tech probably get that. Maybe bitcoin itself is somehow special since it was #1, but do you really think if a gov or big bank adopted crypto they'd use one they couldn't control?

    It's a mania and it'll end badly for so many. People will look back and question what were they thinking.

    NFTs, Meme stocks, and crypto are all just signs of froth in the market and evidence that we are in a speculative mania. Likely near the end of it. Don't be left holding the bag.

    We need to return to sound money, but bitcoin and crypto is not sound (doesn't make a sound when you drop it, originally where that phrase came from)
    Dec 5, 2021 5
    • New / Eng
      TsSx34

      New Eng

      TsSx34
      Read 'The Bitcoin Standard' by Dr. Saifedean Ammous to understand the argument used for calling btc sound money that is factually superior to gold and fiat. It should not be called cryptocurreny but crypto-asset in my opinion.
      Dec 6, 2021
    • The "false scarcity" argument is reasonable at first thought - but ultimately doesn't hold. No other crypto that claims to do what BTC does but better has even approached the level of success of BTC. Any other crypto worth mentioning in the top 50 market cap is pretty much positioning themselves as adding something new to the crypto space β€” saying by omission that they aren't competing with BTC, because if that's all their value prop is, they will fail.

      Second reason the "unlimited crypto" argument doesn't work is network effects. The tech to build a clone of FB exists, but FB has built a moat around it, largely due to network effects. For a new product to kill FB, it would have to be a 10x-better product than what FB currently offers for people to move. Not 0.5, 2, or even 5x better. Other people, companies and even governments have had 12+ years to build a 10x better BTC money. They haven't done it, even as BTC code is transparent/open source. My bet is as even more people join the BTC network, it will become harder and harder to supplant.

      On your final comment, going back to gold is like going back to writing letters by hand. Society has advanced too far to go back to this.
      Dec 6, 2021