
Ask HN: Why Aren't Smart People Asking More Questions About Bitcoin? - unclebucknasty
Like many here, I have watched Bitcoin come on to the scene and evolve. I have also dabbled in it.<p>But, I can&#x27;t shake some fundamental questions, and I wonder why other thinking people don&#x27;t seem to be asking them.<p>The TL;DR is that Bitcoin is very mysterious and quickly evolving away from its initial billing, yet no one seems to be seriously questioning its true purpose or whose agenda it may really be serving.<p>I realize there&#x27;s been speculation about its mysterious &quot;founder&quot;. But, that&#x27;s only part of it. The other part is that it was once a Libertarian&#x27;s dream, which would explain some of the appeal, given its decentralized nature. But, what&#x27;s become increasingly clear is that there will not be anonymity or even psuedonymity as governments move to regulate it and companies backed by the usual VCs move in to build infrastructure and platforms around it.<p>So, the &quot;usual suspects&quot; are, effectively co-opting it, centralizing it in practice (even if the peer-to-peer network for crunching remains), positioning themselves to profit from it, and steering it directly to their governments.<p>So, here we have this mysterious founding of a potentially revolutionary tech that is solidly on a path towards not living up to its initial billing. Instead, it&#x27;s en route to becoming a global currency that is, for all intents and purpose, not  decentralized, while appearing to be so (in fact, one could argue that it represents global centralization). Further, it appears to be well on its way to benefitting the traditional players. Now, why isn&#x27;t that bringing up serious questions about its true origin and purpose?<p>Some may say this sounds like conspiracy theory, but on the contrary, I have no theory, just questions. And I am wondering why a lot of smart people who initially gravitated to Bitcoin aren&#x27;t asking similar questions as it evolves away from its initial promise.
======
27182818284
You may have missed the thread that PG started on the topic: It has a decent
amount of smart people asking questions about who it might serve.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547423](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547423)

~~~
unclebucknasty
I did miss that. Thanks.

The discussion meandered, but there are also interesting comments to be found
on the thread. Still, that was nearly 300 days ago, and it's full steam-ahead.
That is, people are still supporting it, even as its divergence from the
initial intent accelerates.

I haven't really seen engaged dialogue among Bitcoin adherents to the extent
that there's effort to resolve some of these questions as a condition of
continuing to lend their support.

As evidenced by that thread, when asked at all, people tend to treat these
questions as more of an interesting thought exercise; this, versus approaching
them with the serious consideration that such a "revolution" would seem to
merit.

In short, I would say that Bitcoin is anything but what it was initially
purported to be. Yet, people seem to ignore this fact and support it anyway.
When you think about it, it's really kind of strange.

~~~
27182818284
For what its worth, I do see cryptocurrencies as a revolution, just not
Bitcoin as the survivor. I think a lot of people have a hard time
distinguishing between bitcoin and the concept of a crypto-currency. The
potential is pretty clear to me and anyone I meet with a STEM background. The
biggest dissenters I meet in real life tend to be liberal arts backgrounds, no
matter how educated. So even if they have a masters in econ, art, or a JD, or
what have you, they tend to be down on Bitcoin, which I find fascinating!

Meanwhile the people I know with STEM backgrounds like mechanical engineering,
math, physics, etc think it is incredibly interesting, even when they don't
own any or know too much about it. Really what I just wrote is a poor version
of what PG wrote about bitcoin: "Hackers love it"

So no, I don't think bitcoin will survive, but I think crypto-currencies are
here to stay and we are seeing a small revolution. Just like the Internet, or
file sharing, or countless other tech things that have happened in my young
life.

------
wmf
Ultimately the "true" origin or purpose of Bitcoin will never be known unless
someone leaks it. There's nothing we can do to divine it and speculation is
pointless IMO. I think it's more productive to treat parties' motivations as
unknown and arbitrary and try to understand/build the Bitcoin ecosystem under
that constraint. (Granted, this is a bit of a worst-case assumption.)

Putting that aside, a trickle of these kind of discussions has been happening
at BitcoinTalk, /r/bitcoin, and various blogs. I've observed that some early
adopters hoped that mainstream people would "turn libertarian" after being
exposed to Bitcoin, but in reality the opposite is happening: people are
trying to apply their mainstream values to Bitcoin by building tools to do
anti-fraud, refunds, insurance, etc. It's easier for people to change their
payment system than to change their values. The original vision of Bitcoin
with irrevocable pseudonymous transactions will still exist, but it will make
up a smaller and smaller fraction of the blockchain over time.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _the "true" origin or purpose of Bitcoin will never be known unless someone
> leaks it_

Well, that's really my question. Why don't people seem to care?

> _speculation is pointless IMO_

And, that's the thinking that boggles my mind and prompted this post. Why is
it that people don't think it matters? There are actually two things here: 1.)
It appears to _not_ at all be what attracted people to it, which also means
that it is not conveying the presumed benefits to its adopters. and 2.) That
implies that it's something else and is conveying _some_ benefit to _someone
else_.

So, with respect to those points, 1.) why do people continue to support it
when their reasons have dissolved? and 2.) why don't they care that they have
possibly been misled, wonder who misled them, and why?

I mean, it would be one thing if they just said "screw it" and walked away.
But, they just seem to blindly continue supporting it.

> _people are trying to apply their mainstream values to Bitcoin_

Exactly. The mainstream swooped in quickly and swept all of those hopes away.
But, it seems to not have deterred those early adopters that their dreams have
been crushed. Perhaps with the gold rush, their support no longer matters as
much. But, you'd think they'd almost revolt against their hopes being crushed.
Yet, there's barely a grumble.

> _It 's easier for people to change their payment system than to change their
> values_

Well said.

~~~
wmf
To elaborate on my point, speculation about Bitcoin's origin seems to produce
many different hypotheses with no clear winner. It produces no actionable
information and thus it's no more productive than watching House of Cards (but
equally entertaining, at least to me). The whole point of Bitcoin is lack of
trust, so we shouldn't believe anything Satoshi said even if we knew who he
really was. Perhaps many Bitcoiners have already internalized this viewpoint;
if they are comfortable using Bitcoin even with the assumption that it is a
"black op"/"false flag"/"government trap" then the truth can hardly be worse.
There is some precedent with Tor which is widely used by anti-government
activists even though it is funded by the US military and developed by ex-NSA
people.

Getting back to the mainstream takeover, perhaps many Bitcoiners are letting
their greed overcome their principles and they won't complain as long as they
get rich. Some others may be irrational fanboys who can't let it go because
that would require admitting that their identity was built on a sham.

------
pcvarmint
Bob Wenzel has been questioning it thoroughly:

[https://encrypted.google.com/#q=bitcoin+site:economicpolicyj...](https://encrypted.google.com/#q=bitcoin+site:economicpolicyjournal.com)

