Bitcoin is such a complex and multifaceted ecosystem that it's possible for intelligent folks to craft theories and narratives about it that are quite compelling. This is because everything they say is technically correct, but the flaws are due to what's left unsaid, unseen, and even unknown.
Discussion
Happens all the time in economics as well. Many theories sound great and reasonable by leaving out the shady bits.
Bastiat presented this idea beautifully: https://mises.org/library/which-seen-and-which-not-seen
There seems to be a direct relationship between years of schooling/title and the strength of the outright rejection of Bitcoin by some of these individuals!
The key properties of Bitcoin are rejected by some really intellectual souls.
I think the forest for the trees saying applies to these folks!
You just have to prove it with proof of work)
Ockham's broom.
Yo Lopp.
What do you think is the most desirable way to approach Bitcoin or characterise it?
Should we focus on it more as a phenomenon for problem solving fiat world views to contrast the difference or will that arguing always lead to incompatible flawed logic because they cant be compared in bc a meaningful way?
If there is so much nuance to be found down the rabbit hole, is it even worth pursuing to make any claims about it?
Prolly overthinking it. Grabbing a beer. 😅🍺
Everyone should approach Bitcoin from their own perspective. This diversity of viewpoints makes Bitcoin stronger as it increases the likelihood of folks seeing weaknesses that we can address.
Yeah, we should definitely strive for that. When I hear people like Saylor talking about Bitcoin: the energy protects the protocol, I wonder if he really understands network security or just assumes its antifragile nature.