Hacker News (HN) is actively hostile to the idea of cryptocurrency. I doubt you'll get a measured opinion, one way or the other.

Stacker News (SN) is a place that is at least attempting to have these conversations, though they swing the other way and are actively pro-cryptocurrency, even if the main focus is on Bitcoin and Lightning [0].

---

Let me try to actually answer your question.

* Cryptocurrency is creating value

Cryptocurrency offers the possibility of digital money outside of government control. This allows for a variety of transactions that are difficult otherwise.

For countries that have locked out other currencies or whose banking system is crumbling, remittances through Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies offer the possibility of sending cash, even considering the high barrier to entry, the high friction etc. etc. (take it with a grain of salt, but here's an article [1]).

There was been at least one instance where a news organization drew the ire of a government, had their funds frozen and were able to function through the use of Bitcoin [2].

Sex workers now have an option to accept currency with less fear of backlash.

Substances criminalized by local governments are available for purchase with Bitcoin.

To all those that will respond "cryptocurrency is only good for illegal activity", my response is that's precisely why cryptocurrency is needed. For countries with a developed banking system, the need is not so pressing. For places where it's effectively criminal to be poor, then by definition, offering independent financial instruments is illegal.

* Cryptocurrency is being more widely adopted and legitimized

El Salvador has adopted Bitcoin as legal tender [3].

Other countries are expressing interest in adopting Bitcoin [4].

* Bitcoin is working out technical difficulties that will allow it to meet demand

This is the "Lightning Network" [5].

On-chain bitcoin transactions will only allow 3 transactions per second. For comparison, Visa provides around 1700.

The "Lightning Network" and associated protocol is "off-chain", settling back and forth transactions and only commiting a final transaction on-chain.

The analogy is like a bar tab. You go to the bar, give them your credit card and maybe the bar reserves $100 on your card. You buy some beer, you buy your friends some wine, you order some food, maybe your buddy orders you a beer. At the end, you settle up with the bar, with the only reported number being the sum total of all the smaller transactions.

---

So, to me, this answers your fundamental question. Bitcoin creates value by meeting a demand, is being adopted and legitimized in its adoption and is working out scaling details. If Bitcoin were a startup, this would be where "the market pulls product out of the startup" phase.

How many articles have you read where people incredulously dismiss Twitter for being frivolous and not making money? How about Facebook? If Bitcoin were a startup, I imagine the narrative would take a much different tenor.

---

There is a possibility that Bitcoin and/or other cryptocurrencies could fizzle and die or that what the naysayers are espousing is correct in that they're ponzi schemes/MLMs or some other scam [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

My opinion is very much no. I'm old enough to remember email, the beginning of the world wide web, the subsequent dot-com crash, Napster, cell phone adoption, etc. etc. Bitcoin provides a novel technology that solves a fundamental problem in multiple different ways.

Bitcoin has the possibility of providing banking to the unbanked. It also provides a way for a global financial system to bootstrap itself without centralized control. From a consumer level, Bitcoin and its associated Lightning network, open a real possibility of micro transactions that wasn't possible before.

I'm a little incredulous as the amount of vitriol directed at Bitcoin from this community and others in the technology sphere. The only conclusion I can come up with is that to people with a stable banking system, the value proposition of Bitcoin in its nascent form isn't really understood. A more cynical conclusion is that the sentiment is a result of an astroturf campaign from actors invested in Bitcoin's demise.

---

As a final remark, Bitcoin is growing at 10x about every 4 years (around 20% APR). This means that, if the growth remains at this level, we'll see a $1M per Bitcoin valuation by 2025-2026.

At $1M per Bitcoin, this would put the amount of Bitcoin at 10%+ of the worlds current wealth the world [11].

This provides a falsifiable test of whether Bitcoin has actual utility, with a concrete time bound.

If Bitcoin represents 10% of the worlds wealth and if a substantial portion of Bitcoin isn't being used in day-to-day transactions, this would point, to me, that Bitcoin is a bubble or being propped up in some way.

On the other hand, if Bitcoin represents 10% of the worlds wealth and is being used in everyday transactions, either being adopted by a few large countries or many small ones, then this would point to Bitcoin being used for its intended purpose, as a currency.

---

[0] https://stacker.news

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/09/crypto-remittances-are-a-l...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2019/04/26/how-bitco...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/world/americas/bitcoin-el...

[4] https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bitcoin/politicians-from-th...

[5] https://lightning.network/

[6] https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-pon...

[7] https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1395684302201966592

[8] https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1394938539989741573

[9] https://twitter.com/zachcoelius/status/1393646959517261826

[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/opinion/cryptocurrency-bi...

[11] https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/g...