undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNursie8y ago0 comments

>> Early adopters took a big risk on a fledgling technology

I can't agree with that. Early adopters really didn't take a lot of risk, they ran a mining program for a while, or bought some BTC for a few cents to a few dollars.

0 comments

clarkmoody8y ago

In some countries, Bitcoin has been outlawed. Owning stuff the government doesn't like is certainly a risk.

They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)

Some invested time learning about new technology that could've gone nowhere.

NursieOP8y ago

>> In some countries, Bitcoin has been outlawed.

Very few. In more/most it's just taxable.

>> They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)

OK, sure, but again not a massive risk if your initial stake was tiny.

And it was a stake rather than an investment - it's not really an investment as you're not investing in a productive endeavour. More like buying and holding an asset.

qsucvatz8y ago

In the end, either one does or does not own the property. They choose when to buy and when to sell.

From your perspective, isn't it a massive risk not to sell at this all time high value?

If they hold or sell, do they deserve whatever outcome?

1 more reply

googletazer8y ago

They could have been doing something else with their time. Instead they were mining, promoting, and trading this technology. By definition there is an opportunity cost to being an early adopter instead of going with the flow - so indeed they took a risk.

pessimizer8y ago

The question was whether it was a "big" risk. Every action, including the decision not to take a particular action, is a non-zero risk.

UncleMeat8y ago

Does that opportunity cost justify owning a meaningful percentage of all of the coins that will ever exist?

googletazer8y ago

What does "justify" mean here? Are you somehow saying its not fair that early adopters have a lot of coins?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

clarkmoody8y ago

In some countries, Bitcoin has been outlawed. Owning stuff the government doesn't like is certainly a risk.

They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)

Some invested time learning about new technology that could've gone nowhere.

NursieOP8y ago

>> In some countries, Bitcoin has been outlawed.

Very few. In more/most it's just taxable.

>> They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)

OK, sure, but again not a massive risk if your initial stake was tiny.

And it was a stake rather than an investment - it's not really an investment as you're not investing in a productive endeavour. More like buying and holding an asset.

qsucvatz8y ago

In the end, either one does or does not own the property. They choose when to buy and when to sell.

From your perspective, isn't it a massive risk not to sell at this all time high value?

If they hold or sell, do they deserve whatever outcome?

1 more reply

googletazer8y ago

pessimizer8y ago

The question was whether it was a "big" risk. Every action, including the decision not to take a particular action, is a non-zero risk.

UncleMeat8y ago

Does that opportunity cost justify owning a meaningful percentage of all of the coins that will ever exist?

googletazer8y ago

What does "justify" mean here? Are you somehow saying its not fair that early adopters have a lot of coins?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse