Your argument is flawed because comparing Bitcoin to niche technical fields like brain surgery or particle physics is a false analogy; Bitcoin is a socio-economic system with far broader implications, requiring expertise beyond just code, including economics, usability, and ethics. Dismissing non-technical input as "noise" is a form of gatekeeping that ignores valid concerns and the diverse perspectives crucial for Bitcoin's development, adoption, and governance, especially since its success hinges on wider public understanding and use, not just the approval of developers.
Discussion
The tricky part is that your description requires educating the masses first, and itās too late for that on this topic, which is the problem right now.
ā¦ā especially since its success hinges on wider public understanding and use, not just the approval of developers.ā
itās not that hard to learn about. Just ask chat gpt or another AI, can you tell me about Bitcoin? You get a succinct and organized response.
Iāve been teaching an intro to BTC class for a couple years now and itās just not that easy for normies to grok from my experience. Now I could definitely be a shitty teacher so thereās thatš
hm. When I first heard about it from someone in computer science, it was literally one sentence more or less. āthis can replace banksā. This was after being aware of the occupy wall st. and the 1% protests, the 2008 financial crisisā¦ also some general zeitgeist about how ācorporate sucksā (maybe partially from the popular band Something Corporate), and I was like, yeah! Go Bitcoin! š„³