Because a) it's a seriously fascinating system from a technical standpoint, b) it has immense potential to solve a lot of problems — especially for those in areas with underdeveloped financial systems, and c) a lot of people are heavily invested in its success.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's overhyped, it's a really really cool experiment in economics and cryptography.

Additionally, it's an open-source security-critical product that has a lot of eyes looking at, discussing, and actively attempting to subvert the technology.

For security "nerds", which hn is full of, it's a veritable holy grail of technological security.

Stands to reason that the majority of issues Bitcoin has appears to be human, not technological. Since the technology works so well, bad actors appear to be targeting human vectors of attack- create controversy where there is none, drive wedges between key players, sow dissent among community (a day doesn't go by that r/bitcoin doesn't complain about vote manipulation).

Bitcoin's biggest security threat lies in it's governance, especially if there are subversive elements in its community. BTC leadership has to get their house in order.

> it has immense potential to solve a lot of problems

Very debatable and yet to be proven in any real way. Lots of things have "potential" but bitcoin seems to consistently fail at actually doing anything. Doubtful it will ever solve any problems outside its current scope of use.

Potential, by definition, might go unrealized, yes. That's kind of a tautology.

I think it's clear we're talking about realized potential here, which is why I said it hasn't actually done anything yet. Beyond a few edge cases, it's gotten a lot of attention and hype but solved nothing so far.

In my case I have always liked and followed the Bitcoin scene because everybody in his right mind knew it would turn into a shitshow.

I mean you have the combination of an open source community, libertarians, and a shitload of money. The outcome is pretty obvious.

I like to imagine Krugman and co pacing around their offices wondering why Bitcoin hasn't completely crashed - with the occasional murmur of "deflationary" and "libertarians" and "no it can't be".

Why would Krugman wonder why it did not crash? Bitcoin is a pyramid with an expiration date far in the future and currently everything but deflationary.

Lots of people who spent a lot of cash on bitcoins and now need to bring more people in to raise its value so that they can cash out.

That explains why Steam now accepts bitcoins. Because nobody uses it to actually buy stuff... /s

In The Netherlands, you can order takeaway food at practically any restaurant with bitcoin. Overnight, this was the biggest expansion in the acceptance of Bitcoin to date.

Whatever your opinion is about bitcoin, it absolutely does not reflect the current reality, where Bitcoin is seen more and more as a serious alternative for payments.