Agree that it would be more insightful if specific reasons were given rather than generic fallacies. I think we need to be even more specific is in the type of cryptocurrencies discussed (i.e proof-of-work protocol brings to mind environmental concerns in a way that proof-of-stake does not). This is just speculation, but it's possible that the frame of mind they look at crypto is an asset made "out of thin air" that does not do anything inherently useful in the physical world. Yes, we use gold as currency, but at least it's a good conductor and doesn't oxidize. We can value a company by the amount of goods it can produce in a year. It's harder to make the same case for crypto, whose value is more ethereal (it's stored as bits and bytes rather than a coin in your wallet). It's possible this is what they're thinking.

Crypto will be valuable as long as we as a society think it's so and have the infrastructure to support it. If we enter a nuclear winter, out goes the crypto market, and we'll be left exchanging copper pieces.

> Nor do I like shoveling out a few extra billions and billions and billions of dollars to somebody who just invented a new financial product out of thin air.

Sounds like Munger doesn’t like that financial innovation is coming from outside the established club. — I mean this argument has nothing to do with the safety of children and everything to do with classism.

In the past they have called it useless digital gold. Why do you think they should have significant comments to make on Bitcoin? They are experts are evaluating corporate balance sheets, and by his own admission Warren Buffet does not understand technology (which is why he mostly stays away from tech companies).

It's very interesting, actually.

I interpreted as "Bitcoin is bad but the cult of Bitcoin is nuts so we have to be careful about what we say."

What's more interesting is how the Bitcoin investor club is managing to delude themselves even with inputs from real proven financiers.

As Upton Sinclair once said, it is difficult to get a man to understand something if the value of his crypto stash depends upon him not understanding it.

I would clarify that just a bit.

It's difficult to get a man to understand something if the value of his crypto stash depends on OTHER PEOPLE not understanding it.

This is what bitcoin is. It's not a mass delusion: it's a will TO delude masses. I suppose some manage to fool themselves but I consider it a lot more likely that the majority are fully aware of what they're doing.

But it depends on deluding another level of the pyramid, and there's no real way to tell how high it goes before it collapses, so people are all-in, to the point where even Warren Buffett is talking in code and messaging 'I'm not going to say what I think about this, but I am going to say outright that I'm not saying what I think'. Not terribly hard to work out the message there.

Of course they're right.

Yeah, that's makes it even more insidious.

It’s front page because most of HN hates Bitcoin and it makes them feel better

If, indeed, bitcoin is inimical to civilization, then HN is smart and prescient to hate it. That would be a plausible interpretation if you figure that the HN crowd are smarter and more capable of thinking through problems than the average bear.

Perhaps if you don't agree, you should be listening :)

I did listen.... when bitcoin was $1 and everyone here was saying it was a scam. I learned that just because the group is smart, they may not be prescient.

Look up any successful Y Combinator company's Show HN thread on here, and the top comment is usually something along the lines of "this will never work"

Scams are inimical to civilzation, and hated by Hacker News posters. I don't see the contradiction here.

So you're saying despite the fact that bitcoin has been the best performing asset in history (not just a short period either, we're talking the past decade), it's still a scam?