KaleidoJack
Junior Member
- Nov 21, 2020
- 165
- 101
All the objections that I've seen directed at bitcoin are laughable. They can all be blown out of the water with a couple of minutes of examination. Munger says that buying bitcoin is giving money to people "who invented something out of thin air", as if every worthwhile invention hadn't started out "out of thin air", inside of someone's brain. He also says he doesn't welcome a technology that is useful to criminals. So how does he feel about knifes? You don't like knifes either, Mr Munger? Criminals use them, too, you know. That doesn't make knifes any less useful. Indeed, you can cut food, skin animals and help build an entire civilization with knifes. So much for Munger's objections to bitcoin's civilizational roles, then. (You can read my blog post to see my full reply.)
Then, the confused poser Nassim Taleb says "bitcoin is worth exactly zero" and that it "can't be used as a store of value", as if he was unable to imagine how bitcoin would behave under future favorable conditions. He doesn't seem to understand that bitcoin is still in development and hasn't reached maturity. Its widespread adoption by wealth managers is its final development phase, the phase in which bitcoin will reach maturity, and in which its price volatility will dramatically decrease. Taleb also called it a ponzi in the past, once more disregarding future favorable conditions in his analysis. He's just a very confused man, as you can easily confirm in his books. His entire theoretical endeavor is silly because the purpose of theory is to predict the future, while randomness is defined precisely as that which cannot be predicted. Sure, dude, of course we want to minimize the harmful effects of randomness=chance=accidents--it's called risk management--but until the non-predictable accident (see the pleonasm?) ACTUALLY HAPPENS nobody knows how "fragile" or "vulnerable" our process-activity-asset stands relative to said accident--otherwise the event wouldn't be by definition an accident and we'd have been able to factor it in in our theories and models! That's how we went in the automotive industry, for example, from no seat belts, to seat belts and then to airbags. By combining practice=action with theory=thought. But by all means keep lecturing us about how we should achieve "anti-fragile" processes that behave in "convex luck curves", as if the process of innovation wasn't fragile and volatile almost by definition--else the Wright brothers would have created F-16 fighter jets back in 1903, and NASA would have built reusable space rockets back in 1950. By all means keep telling us that to more effectively survive "black swan" (lol) disasters it is best to have "skin in the game". Such lofty hard-to-grasp truths uncovered by the formidable Nassim Taleb! In conclusion: Give me a break. No, no, you are NOT confused at all about how knowledge and innovation are created! Not at all! I guess that's where all the pompous italics and gratuitous name-dropping in your books come in. Gotta look more profound, mirite.
Meanwhile, a bunch of wealth managers say bitcoin "has no intrinsic value" literally because they have no idea how to calculate it, i.e. due to lack of competency.
There's also Dan Peña, who says that when people find out who Satoshi is bitcoin will crash to zero. As if it made any difference to all the people who've carefully studied the technology for years and invested billions in it already if Satoshi was the Devil.
It's laughable. The period of maximum risk is over. The real insanity occurred from 2008 to 2017. Those guys were the historic lunatics who went all in on something at the time very uncertain, not us now allocating 1% of our capital to it. With all the infrastructure and outright industry supporting bitcoin's value, the risk of utter failure is astronomically low compared to the time of the 2008-2017 lunatics. This should be extremely obvious, but whatever.
Then, the confused poser Nassim Taleb says "bitcoin is worth exactly zero" and that it "can't be used as a store of value", as if he was unable to imagine how bitcoin would behave under future favorable conditions. He doesn't seem to understand that bitcoin is still in development and hasn't reached maturity. Its widespread adoption by wealth managers is its final development phase, the phase in which bitcoin will reach maturity, and in which its price volatility will dramatically decrease. Taleb also called it a ponzi in the past, once more disregarding future favorable conditions in his analysis. He's just a very confused man, as you can easily confirm in his books. His entire theoretical endeavor is silly because the purpose of theory is to predict the future, while randomness is defined precisely as that which cannot be predicted. Sure, dude, of course we want to minimize the harmful effects of randomness=chance=accidents--it's called risk management--but until the non-predictable accident (see the pleonasm?) ACTUALLY HAPPENS nobody knows how "fragile" or "vulnerable" our process-activity-asset stands relative to said accident--otherwise the event wouldn't be by definition an accident and we'd have been able to factor it in in our theories and models! That's how we went in the automotive industry, for example, from no seat belts, to seat belts and then to airbags. By combining practice=action with theory=thought. But by all means keep lecturing us about how we should achieve "anti-fragile" processes that behave in "convex luck curves", as if the process of innovation wasn't fragile and volatile almost by definition--else the Wright brothers would have created F-16 fighter jets back in 1903, and NASA would have built reusable space rockets back in 1950. By all means keep telling us that to more effectively survive "black swan" (lol) disasters it is best to have "skin in the game". Such lofty hard-to-grasp truths uncovered by the formidable Nassim Taleb! In conclusion: Give me a break. No, no, you are NOT confused at all about how knowledge and innovation are created! Not at all! I guess that's where all the pompous italics and gratuitous name-dropping in your books come in. Gotta look more profound, mirite.
Meanwhile, a bunch of wealth managers say bitcoin "has no intrinsic value" literally because they have no idea how to calculate it, i.e. due to lack of competency.
There's also Dan Peña, who says that when people find out who Satoshi is bitcoin will crash to zero. As if it made any difference to all the people who've carefully studied the technology for years and invested billions in it already if Satoshi was the Devil.
It's laughable. The period of maximum risk is over. The real insanity occurred from 2008 to 2017. Those guys were the historic lunatics who went all in on something at the time very uncertain, not us now allocating 1% of our capital to it. With all the infrastructure and outright industry supporting bitcoin's value, the risk of utter failure is astronomically low compared to the time of the 2008-2017 lunatics. This should be extremely obvious, but whatever.
Last edited: