If just one person is contemplating betting their mortgage on bitcoin and they are made to think differently because of a bubble post then it's worth it to me!

Not that I think you're wrong, but every person who did that in 2014, 2015 or 2016 probably begs to differ.

In fact, if they sell today, they'd probably be set for life.

Guaranteed anyone foolish enough to bet their mortgage at those times, bought high and sold low in fear of losing it all. They are not the rational type.

Maybe. I don't necessarily think taking a huge risk with substantial upside is always an idiotic thing to do.

Yes it might be a gamble and speculation, but get it right in a bubble and you're (sort of) set for life. You can make a good calculated bet and see it pay off. Any engineer on $100k to 200k a year can probably afford to put $200k in crypto and recover if it evaporates.

If you compare to certain high risk shares trading on the stock market (i.e. some tech and biotech shares), even though crypto might have a 10x upside, I don't think investing in crypto is 10 times as risky. If you're aggressive, you're probably better off investing in crypto today than in the market.

Ok, so for majority of the rest of the population, without access to six figure incomes. Bitcoin is completely irrational. There is a guy in my shop right now, a shop full of guys making maybe $15 an hr at the high end, handing out his "bitcoin consultant" business card. These are the people making irrational bets on this, while those invested years ago are profiting on their foolish dreams. People with no money to be wasting, are wasting their money.

Yes, of course. And since they don't put in a significant amount of money, even if their investment were to go 50x, they probably wouldn't cash out and keep holding. That is a clear mistake, as it can be dangerous not to exit.

I was just pointing out that it can be profitable riding a bubble, as long as you're careful about it. I have an old money friend who put in a few million last year. That's exciting stuff.

One thing I wonder: since they own so little, do they even move the market?

Alone no, but the combined yes. There are a few big players that manipulate this market. The Winklevoss did it, and caused the first bubble in 2013. Then the market fell off the cliff, and sat a $200 for the next 3 years, until someone bought up tons at around $250-300 mark, and here we are again.

To counter the irrational crypto people.

Perhaps we don't need it in every borderline-relevant thread, though.

Perhaps we don't need a half dozen blockchain stories on the front page every day, it's borderline spam. These threads always rehash the same arguments on both sides.

Perhaps we do need to have a lick of sense and critical thought put into these discussions, every time.

Otherwise you risk just being in a positive-reinforcement echo chamber.

We're well beyond a "lick," and nobody benefits from reading for the millionth time that a random HN commenter thinks it's just like tulips.

You're commenting on an article in which a small soft drink company has just sextupled it's share price by changing its name to include the word "Blockchain", and you're not seeing a tulip angle?

> Respectfully, what drives people to post tulip and dot-com bubble comparisons on literally every cryptocurrency / blockchain post?

See the story above.

> And a few months ago. And in 2016, and 2014, and 2012.

Nothing changed other than paper gains increased.

> Nothing changed other than paper gains increased.

Is this implying that cryptocurrencies have not evolved over that time period? I think you know that this is false.

Let see:

1. they are slower

2. it is more difficult to cash them out

Looks like utility decreased.

In this case it's probably justified: one of the hallmarks of "modern" bubbles, or at least of modern speculative hype that doesn't work out, is that renaming a company based on the hype increases its stock price without any change in the fundamentals. This has a long history, including companies during the dotcom bubble increasing their stock price by giving themselves techy names.

I agree. Tulips are more like the beanie baby craze. At least crypto and dotcom can be somewhat relatable. Yes, dotcom went crazy and crashed, but the internet did end up changing the world. Crypto though is no where near the scale of the dotcom mania.

I never really agree with all the bubble talk, but this one I can relate to. Everyone is creating their own crypto, ICO, blockchain technology, etc. Even people who don't really understand it are suddenly experts.

But that doesn't mean that it will all be bubble. In the end, the potential of cryptocurrencies competing with central banks is still there. But if they will, and which one, and which one is now under- or over-valued, is anyone's (calculated) guess.

Saying it's meaningless is just being obtuse. History shows these economic bubbles don't happen every day, and there's something for people to learn here if they haven't experienced one or heard stories from friends or family that have.

> We saw it yesterday. We saw it last week. And a few months ago. And in 2016, and 2014, and 2012.

You do realize that economic bubbles rise and fall in the span of years, right? This isn't going to inflate and then pop next week.

They don't need to read about tulip / dot-com bubbles in every single thread. It's not as if this viewpoint is novel, or some kind of secret. We get it.

> You do realize that economic bubbles rise and fall in the span of years, right?

Yes. And everyone making these bubble / tulip comparisons should acknowledge how the view is unfalsifiable.

Yeah, people get it; which is why people are talking about it in the first place, how dense can you be?

We don't need it in every thread.

Cryptocurrencies and blockchains are significant technological innovations. There is more to discuss than making the same tired tulip comparisons.

> Cryptocurrencies and blockchains are significant technological innovations.

Hardly. The Blockchain uses the same kind of underpinnings as git. In fact, for many applications git might even be a better data store than The Blockchain--it doesn't require a bajillion miners consuming several hydroelectric dams worth of power to stay online.