Charlie Munger says something along the lines of: "You got to be able to make the other sides case better than you can make your own case, if you truly want to prove that you understand an asset enough to make a case against it."
Time stamped link to video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/4ITfZz9mTwo?start=1804
Start the video at 30:03 to skip to the part where he show’s his lack of understanding of the case for “Why Bitcoin”, if the time stamped link doesn't already start there when you click it.
Next time you come across an "expert" who hates Bitcoin, give them this challenge. Tell them that anyone who truly understands an asset enough to justify hating it should be able to make a better argument "for it" than their opponents, to show that they truly understand it better than those who believe in the asset they hate, therefor proving they understand it enough to hate it.
If their answers are nothing close to the actual strongest cases for Bitcoin, then they'll show their hand at how little they understand Bitcoin, and how little weight their opinions on it should be given.
If someone who hates Bitcoin can't argue the best cases for Bitcoin better than their opponents, then they don't understand it.
This leads to my favorite fact about today's time with peoples opinions on Bitcoin that strikingly resemble people's opinion on Email in the early days of the internet:
[link] [comments]
No comments:
Post a Comment