“[H]e often asks them to explain some of the technical concepts at the core of the technology such as Merkel tree or Elliptic Curve Digital Signature algorithm, after which he is typically confronted with blank stares.”

Perhaps if he asked them whether their enthusiasm stems from a growing user base (or even “network effects”), or about the sophistication of the cryptography, generally, he would get that they *do* have a reason to be excited and bullish on BTC.

When I ask people whether they’re happy about a recent Supreme Court decision, for instance, I’ll usually refer to “the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that [X].” I don’t ask “What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s partial affirmance of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in [full name of party A] v. [full name of party B]. I don’t ask “What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision, given that the majority’s reasoning is sound only insofar as it persuasively distinguished precedent on the appropriateness of judicial resolution of the Chevron two-step at step one”? And I don’t ask these questions because (1) if I’m genuinely interested in what the person I’m talking to thinks or knows, it’s usually more productive to ask open-ended questions, and (2) I’m not a jerk who phrases questions in a way specifically designed to intimidate the person I’m talking to and “reveal" the supposed “superficiality” of their understanding. There are different levels of understanding, and one need not understand the technical nuances of cryptography to justifiably praise or invest in BTC, any more than one needs a technical understanding of the statutory provisions, judicial rulings, and administrative action on copyright’s compulsory licensing rules to justifiably praise or invest in a company that makes its money from music. In other words, the way you make your point is not only not convincing, it’s actively misleading and insulting, to boot.

On crypto, art, intellectual property, DAOs (especially SuperRare's), governance, economics, and more.