I appreciate the clarification and I do see your point about early Bitcoin being a unique innovation. But my core issue still stands: the broader lesson you draw from Bitcoin Pizza Day, that "deep understanding leads to outsized returns" seems retrospectively applied and not universally reliable.
I appreciate the clarification and I do see your point about early Bitcoin being a unique innovation. But my core issue still stands: the broader lesson you draw from Bitcoin Pizza Day, that "deep understanding leads to outsized returns" seems retrospectively applied and not universally reliable.
Look at Tulip Mania in 17th-century Holland. At its peak, someone holding rare tulip bulbs could have claimed they “understood” the horticultural demand, the novelty, even the cultural craze. A tulip farmer might’ve looked like a visionary...until the market collapsed.
So was the key insight there “understanding tulips”? Or was it riding the wave of speculative timing?
Or look at railroad stocks in the 1840s. There were genuine technological revolutions happening railroads were changing the world. But most early railroad stocks in Britain went bust during the Railway Mania because prices had far outpaced fundamentals. Many investors understood the tech, and still lost everything.
Even radio stocks in the 1920s follow the same arc: groundbreaking innovation, early excitement, wild speculation, and collapse. RCA was the Bitcoin of its day. For a while, everyone who "understood the future" looked like a genius until valuations disconnected from reality.
And what about more recent history? In the late ‘90s, there were tons of people who deeply understood the internet and the dot-com shift. Most of them bought pets.com or Webvan and got annihilated. A few held Amazon but not because they knew it would become Amazon. They just happened to hold the one that survived.
Understanding doesn’t guarantee returns. Hype doesn’t always mean stupidity. And being early doesn’t always mean being right.
Likewise, in 2010, Bitcoin wasn’t being adopted for its deep monetary philosophy. It was mined on hobby rigs, passed around in IRC chats, and traded for pizza. The people who made fortunes mostly weren’t Michael Saylors, they were lucky early users who happened to hold. That doesn’t invalidate Bitcoin’s long-term potential. But it does make me question whether the big lesson here is really about deep understanding or just being early and lucky enough to catch something that later found a narrative.
And again, what about the drones, 3D printing, CRISPR tech, or even Monster Beverage? All of these had legitimate innovation and real-world utility but didn’t explode in value just because someone “understood them.” If understanding alone were enough, more “geniuses” would be billionaires. Kodak is another example, invents the digital camera but they're dead now.
So yes, Bitcoin may have been different. But your argument seems to suggest that if someone had just thought harder, they’d be rich. History tells us the world doesn’t work that cleanly. Most of the time, the line between insight and luck is invisible until it's too late.
Bitcoin could collapse like the tulip mania did but currently speculation is still raising the tide. I see no utility in bitcoin and having a finite amount is a silly idea for money. It turns into the game monopoly.
Reasoning by conclusion and confirmation bias are frequently involved in the reconstruction of later happenings as obvious at an earlier time. But they are also completely useless to investors. Tell me what’s inevitable tomorrow and I’m interested. Yesterday? Not so much.
I appreciate the clarification and I do see your point about early Bitcoin being a unique innovation. But my core issue still stands: the broader lesson you draw from Bitcoin Pizza Day, that "deep understanding leads to outsized returns" seems retrospectively applied and not universally reliable.
Look at Tulip Mania in 17th-century Holland. At its peak, someone holding rare tulip bulbs could have claimed they “understood” the horticultural demand, the novelty, even the cultural craze. A tulip farmer might’ve looked like a visionary...until the market collapsed.
So was the key insight there “understanding tulips”? Or was it riding the wave of speculative timing?
Or look at railroad stocks in the 1840s. There were genuine technological revolutions happening railroads were changing the world. But most early railroad stocks in Britain went bust during the Railway Mania because prices had far outpaced fundamentals. Many investors understood the tech, and still lost everything.
Even radio stocks in the 1920s follow the same arc: groundbreaking innovation, early excitement, wild speculation, and collapse. RCA was the Bitcoin of its day. For a while, everyone who "understood the future" looked like a genius until valuations disconnected from reality.
And what about more recent history? In the late ‘90s, there were tons of people who deeply understood the internet and the dot-com shift. Most of them bought pets.com or Webvan and got annihilated. A few held Amazon but not because they knew it would become Amazon. They just happened to hold the one that survived.
Understanding doesn’t guarantee returns. Hype doesn’t always mean stupidity. And being early doesn’t always mean being right.
Likewise, in 2010, Bitcoin wasn’t being adopted for its deep monetary philosophy. It was mined on hobby rigs, passed around in IRC chats, and traded for pizza. The people who made fortunes mostly weren’t Michael Saylors, they were lucky early users who happened to hold. That doesn’t invalidate Bitcoin’s long-term potential. But it does make me question whether the big lesson here is really about deep understanding or just being early and lucky enough to catch something that later found a narrative.
And again, what about the drones, 3D printing, CRISPR tech, or even Monster Beverage? All of these had legitimate innovation and real-world utility but didn’t explode in value just because someone “understood them.” If understanding alone were enough, more “geniuses” would be billionaires. Kodak is another example, invents the digital camera but they're dead now.
So yes, Bitcoin may have been different. But your argument seems to suggest that if someone had just thought harder, they’d be rich. History tells us the world doesn’t work that cleanly. Most of the time, the line between insight and luck is invisible until it's too late.
Bitcoin could collapse like the tulip mania did but currently speculation is still raising the tide. I see no utility in bitcoin and having a finite amount is a silly idea for money. It turns into the game monopoly.
Reasoning by conclusion and confirmation bias are frequently involved in the reconstruction of later happenings as obvious at an earlier time. But they are also completely useless to investors. Tell me what’s inevitable tomorrow and I’m interested. Yesterday? Not so much.