Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | esskay's commentslogin

I hope its referred to as "this is the article idiots who know nothing about modern php reference in a futile attempt to make it appear they know what they are talking about" as every time someone mentions that article it seems to be when they want to show everyone how daft they are.

I just thought it was funny. But ok.

There's a lot of hype-chasing morons who diss old languages without knowing the first thing about them.

You'd be shocked at the number of developers that believe C has no types.


Yeah it's an instant red flag when someone links that outdated article.

Signals their ease to spit out incorrect information with confidence. That has no place in engineering.


I use a 20 year old web framework with an 18 year old build system and it was good the moment it came out. That's 66% of the lifespan of old PHP (its still around) and 181% of the lifespan of modern PHP.

You guys are in an awkward position where you are both the old grandpa and the new kid on the block simultaneously while there are competent middle aged workers around.


"You guys"? lol it's just a tool. I don't identify as "a PHP guy" for the same reason I don't identify as a "Rust guy". And labeling others like that is yet another red flag.

I use many languages. Some more than PHP. But that's besides the point.


so you fell for clickbait.

its ram for the types of systems ai needs in datacenters so...no?

I know you're joking but keeping bitcoin now really does feel like a poor investment given it's showing no signs of ever being revived.


The problem with bitcoin is that the only real evidence of it's success is it's price has gone up.

It's very reminiscent of stocks that rocket 500% in a year, while almost nothing in the underlying company changed.


Many of these quotes are technical or social critiques of Bitcoin, not claims that it is "dead". Here's one for example: https://bitcoindeaths.com/posts/2023-10-26-every-single-bitc.... It is dishonest to frame this as a disproven claim just because the price has gone up since the quote. The truth of this claim has nothing to do with the success or failure of Bitcoin.

A couple other examples: https://bitcoindeaths.com/posts/2019-02-07-bitcoin-inefficie..., https://bitcoindeaths.com/posts/2024-11-20-nobel-prize-winni.... This bothers me, you can't respond to a genuine critique with "but look how much money I've made!"


yeah I mean it just depends on time horizons, if you bought at 117k you are hurting now if you need the money ASAP.

Also, I gotta say I do not think Bitcoin is a bubble or whatever (IMO a real value there), but really this sort of site makes it seem like it is a bubble with the sort of "blind to history" boosterism.

Go read Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, or Market Wizards series, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, or any number of books about financial history and there are endless people saying 'it will never die and all the doubters are just wrong' before any big market crash.


> Also, I gotta say I do not think Bitcoin is a bubble or whatever (IMO a real value there)

It's worth saying something with real value can still have a bubble - both bicycles and the internet were huge market bubbles at one time, but they're also undeniably valuable.


To play Devil's advocate:

Let's assume bitcoin has a tiny but positive probability of running the world economy in, say, 50 years. Ie bitcoin is a lottery ticket.

The fair value for a lottery ticket is some positive number. In 99.99..% of cases, the ticket will expire worthless. (In 0.00..1% of cases it will be worth quadrillions.)

The fair value of a lottery ticket is not a bubble, even if most lottery tickets expire worthless.

---

Now, of course, it's still possible to overpay for lottery tickets. Eg if you buy an actual lottery ticket in retail, the whole transaction usually loses you at least 50 cents on the dollar for lottery taxes alone.

But that's a separate issue.


You argument is that it could have some long term value, which is different than a lottery ticket (which has a calculable minimum expected value at time of purchase).

Slightly more abstract: my argument is that assets with a very skewed probability distribution of future value will have a positive current value, even if in the vast majority of cases, they'll be worthless in the future.

Lottery tickets were only an example.


to be fair the majority of the statements that site mocks are not about bitcoin being dead but being a ponzi scheme, evil, hard to use by normal people, silly, a risky investment etc.

All are criticism that can be evaluated on their own but it's irrelevant how much bitcoin grew since they were made.


what is dead may never die

but rises again, harder and stronger

The log scale is awfully misleading, especially since money doesn't really work like that.

Anything but a log scale would be misleading. When showing long term growth of something that has grown so drastically, it is imperative to use a log scale so that 10% gains look consistent over time. Especially in finance.

you can press the "linear" button if you'd like.

but i think the primary point of the comment was to highlight the "Bitcoin has been declared dead 478 times" part


I hate this side.

The first quote i got was "Bitcoin is evil" and then the subtitle "bitcoin worth now 10000%"

Bitcoin is still evil and it has very much to do with the value of bitcoin.

This page is ignorant and shit :(


Bitcoin died *again*? hehe :P

oh i dont think its 'dead' in the way people often describe. More...done. Like, the period of obscene growth is over and its now seemingly settled into a fairly dull investment with mediocre returns.

Depends on the actor.

From western perspective, maybe, but there are many people in the world who don't trust neither their government, nor western ones: Iranians, Russians, some Chinese, etc.

BTC is a nice safe place for money, which can't be touched by neither of state adversaries. Underperforming some other asset classes is totally acceptable, when your expectation for the brokerage account is effectively zero after arrest/freeze/sanctions.


I would buy your argument, if bitcoin were the only cryptocurrency.

For most of the people you mention, a fiduciary cryptocurrency like these 'stable coins' is the better product.

(If you don't trust the value of the USD, and thus don't want a stable coin linked to that, you could use one that's linked to Swiss Franks or the Singapore dollar.)


> could use one that's linked to Swiss Franks or the Singapore dollar.

Well, if only we had something like that with a proper liquidity!

USDT/USDC are useful for the exchange to fiat, but have freeze function in their contract, thus posing a risk for big longterm savings, and they rot under the inflation (which btc generally beats).

There are indeed a couple of unfreezable stablecoins, but they don't have mainstream adoption and proper liquidity. USDT kind of captured the market by being first, and USDC is heavily pushed by the major institutional players, so here we are.

But that's true, it's more about crypto in general.


BTC can be touched by state actors easily.

Has been proofen often enough.

State actors can just hurt your famiily. State actors can setup a shadow bitcoin infrastructure and give you the feeling that your wallet is a save bitcoin wallet. They can Hijack the website you download the initial bitcoin wallet, the nodes you talk to.


> State actors can just hurt your famiily.

That actor has to know that you have something to be touched for in the first place. Which is not the case if you buy crypto without KYC unlike with the classical brokerage, for example.

> State actors can setup a shadow bitcoin infrastructure and give you the feeling that your wallet is a save bitcoin wallet. They can Hijack the website you download the initial bitcoin wallet, the nodes you talk to.

Is paranoid and not serious. Yes, they can do a lot in theory, but on practice even basic level opsec avoids it.

In reality if somebody from the state is already after you explicitly for real, you are going to die or be in prison. I can't really argue with that. Most people are not under active confrontation with the governments, but under passive snooping and pity everyday legal risks that make their lifes miserable.

In most cases they don't send hitmen neither for "foreign agents" labeled people from Russia, nor for sanctioned Russians outside from the US, for example. My point is about people who are not active fugitives, but, you know, want to keep their stuff with them without risking neither their country bank freeze, nor western-based financial infra freeze because they hold the wrong passport.


If russia or china has a real interest because relevant amount of people start using it, they would easyl be able to stop this.

Chinese firewall is real.

Putting fear into people with propaganda is real.

And yes i find my shadow bitcoin infrastructure not paranoid at all. It would be the first thing a state actor would do after closing everything through their state firewalls.


People found a new way to turn electricity into money at the expense of the atmosphere: AI.

Fossil fuels were always worth way more than people ever realized.

Like Joni says, "you don't know what you've got till it's gone."


Ethereum, for all its other faults, has shown that burning lots of electricity is not necessary for cryptocurrencies.

Well, that’s what people have said all the way to $70k+ price.

It's underperformed the S&P500 over the last 5 years, but you know what they say about past performance not predicting future returns. Maybe AI will unlock an untapped reservoir of ever-greater fools.

Isn't that a good thing? The main argument I've heard against using bitcoin as currency is that it's too volatile.

I moved some BTC from Coinbase today, which is a pricier option, and they took a house rake of 1.8%. Other moves cost way way less, especially if not in a hurry and the network isn't busy.

My situation compares to a remittances transfer like Western Union https://www.westernunion.com/content/dam/wu/EU/EN/210439812_... which charge about 4%+.

Cash-to-cash is free, but it loses value while it sits under your mattress.


It would be, except when the primary value proposition is capturing the upside of that volatility. In the case of BTC a sustained lack of volatility is going to create significant downward pricing pressure. At some point that will trigger a run and as stakeholders have condensed the rut will get deeper and deeper as the upside of the volatility swings continually lower.

> The main argument I've heard against using bitcoin as currency is that it's too volatile.

Also the transaction cost. Is it any better?


https://bitcoincalculator.tools/calculators/lightning

Its about 2 cents for a coffee(10k sats ~= 7.6 usd), or 0.2%.

Versus 1.5-3.5% that visa typically charges.


But the volatility hasn’t gone away. Compared to previous periods of broader interest in it (rife with the awful FOMO habits of people) sure it’s not as bad, but it still fluctuates wildly and without warning. In the past 12mo it has gone as high as 120k and as low as 60k, currently around 76k. You cannot reasonably use a currency like that. Your wealth can’t be doubling or halving over months with 10pt swings over a single day being a common occurrence. How much mental energy and planning would have to go into timing any and all purchases and earning?

Better odds than a casino, but still basically a casino.


Compare to stonks or precious metals and it's a similar, mostly unknowing situation.

Oh come now

Buy signal

*how much work Claude put in. The UI is a dead giveaway.

I imagine thats why they've gone so far with the dual stream setup that can use the 6ghz dongle + your wifi for ultra low latency to a dedicated machine.

Thats a lot harder to do now they use a lottery system which if I'm not mistaken also takes account history into account along with physical address.

True but it still happened with the controller at least. But it also backfired. I would have impulse bought day one but they only just in the last week offered me the opportunity to purchase and I passed on it.

Yeah the controller didnt have the lottery system, thats why they implemented it for the steam machine and frame having learnt their lesson.

> hard sell against a new or used Q3

That depends. Having had a Quest 2 and dealt...nay, put up with with Meta and their god awful ecosystem you couldn't pay me to touch another one of their headsets. I'll take an open linux based one over a Q3 any day. That alone makes the price difference worth it to me. Throw in the foveated streaming and the vastly superior quality and latency of streaming and it makes for a fairly decent offering.


Valve thought of that. Its got a 1 hour battery life and you have to wait 3-5 hours for it to charge back up!

It is 21.6 Wh capacity and charges at up to 45W, so it should take less than half an hour to fully charge from zero. Not sure where you got the 3-5 hours from?

Valves own testing + reviewers. Nobody anywhere has got anything close to the speed you're suggesting.

On the GamersNexus review Valve says charging should take 90 minutes. But it took GamersNexus and other reviewers 3 hours. So it probably broke in a software update and a fix is likely coming. But if this is important to you, make sure to wait for the update to land before making a decision...

For the Quest 3 for example, you can get a Bobovr halo strap that has replaceable magnetically connected battery packs. If you have at least two, you can just swap them when one runs out and by the time the second one is empty, the first one is charged.

IIRC Valve is going to release something similar in a couple months & I am sure there will be other accessory developers chiming in as well. :)


Gamers Nexus lists a ~120-min battery life in their video review of the Steam Frame.

Reviews say around 2-4 hours when streaming from PC, 1 hour is if you're gaming directly on the device with the graphics turned all the way up.

Also only possible if you've got a power outlet (Surprisingly even today many long haul flights do not) as its only got just over an hour of battery life.

It has a 21.6 Wh battery. You can easily get a power bank 3+ times this capacity, thus can last 4x longer. If anything, I would rather have that weight in my pocket or backpack than on my head, all things considered.

Can't use power banks on many flights now

Anecdotal, but on the last few flights that I've taken. I was told that you can use them, but you can't charge them on the flight. This was inside the US, American Airlines, and United. I can't speak to the other airlines.

I believe the restriction is on charging devices out of sight (in luggage, seatback pockets etc).

Depends on the airline and jurisdiction.

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

Search: