Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>But I think that bitcoin advocates would argue that the bitcoin has the same "non-infringing uses that benefit people"

I think it would be difficult to argue that it's useful primarily for buying your groceries.

I don't think Bitcoin advocates like following this train of thought any further than "USD is also used for crime".




My point is that the true believers do want to eventually buy groceries with cryptocurrency.

My point is that this conversation is unfair:

Person A: I've just invented a new currency! I think it has better intrinsic properties than USD.

Person B: Well, I can't buy groceries with it right now, so it sucks.

Similar vein:

Person A: I've invented a new thing called the lightbulb. I think it will revolutionize lighting.

Person B: It's more expensive than oil lamps and electrifying buildings would be a massive undertaking. Lightbulbs suck.


If lightbulbs were primarily used for buying opium and running scams on widows in the 19th century I could well understand there being some pushback on the whole idea.

As it was, they were primarily used for lighting rooms from the getgo.

I imagine some historian could probably dig up some sort of analog from 100+ years ago (possibly on tech that never did take off) but this isn't it.


I never owned any BTC. I wouldn't put all of my savings into BTC, but it would be useful for (semi-/sometimes-) anonymous transactions. That makes it better than credit cards, checks, or cash because it can't be CC skimmed or physically robbed.

I would like to buy groceries with it, but I don't want to hold much BTC for very long.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: