Just reading the first section of this article exposed how much I emotionally enjoy having just my one hypothesis. It never occurred to me until now that, even though my held hypothesis is almost always justified, the fact that I no longer hold alternatives in focus is suboptimal.
That lack of focus on the other hypotheses feels good though… when my models of the world are accurate, it makes me very happy, so I don’t like entertaining the possibility that it’s some sort of long tail random event.
Anyway, might as well start unwinding the problem now, so here it goes… (this is going to hurt).
Here are three alternative Bitcoin hypotheses I’m going to watch out for:
Governments have the power to crush Bitcoin whenever they want, but many actors in government own it, so they’re holding off. Once it becomes a real threat, those actors will sell, and then the bans will come.
I’m wrong about the way assets and store of value work, and Bitcoin will never truly compete with gold, real estate, stock indexes, or bonds as a long term store of value.
I’m wrong about the network effect of Bitcoin, the value of true decentralization, and the superiority of proof of work. Proof of stake coins will replace Bitcoin long term.
This shouldn’t have been painful to write, but it was. As a mid 20s American having their wealth constantly plundered by the state, Bitcoin gives real hope for the future.
Even though I truly believe these hypotheses are less likely than Bitcoin succeeding, the truth is, the reason I don’t consider them is because I really, really don’t want them to be true, not because their probability is so low that they aren’t worth the mental effort.
Your last point about flinching from hypotheses because they’re undesirable is key. That flinch is the enemy of equanimity, the acid that dissolves you to make room for Moloch.
Just reading the first section of this article exposed how much I emotionally enjoy having just my one hypothesis. It never occurred to me until now that, even though my held hypothesis is almost always justified, the fact that I no longer hold alternatives in focus is suboptimal.
That lack of focus on the other hypotheses feels good though… when my models of the world are accurate, it makes me very happy, so I don’t like entertaining the possibility that it’s some sort of long tail random event.
Anyway, might as well start unwinding the problem now, so here it goes… (this is going to hurt).
Here are three alternative Bitcoin hypotheses I’m going to watch out for:
Governments have the power to crush Bitcoin whenever they want, but many actors in government own it, so they’re holding off. Once it becomes a real threat, those actors will sell, and then the bans will come.
I’m wrong about the way assets and store of value work, and Bitcoin will never truly compete with gold, real estate, stock indexes, or bonds as a long term store of value.
I’m wrong about the network effect of Bitcoin, the value of true decentralization, and the superiority of proof of work. Proof of stake coins will replace Bitcoin long term.
This shouldn’t have been painful to write, but it was. As a mid 20s American having their wealth constantly plundered by the state, Bitcoin gives real hope for the future.
Even though I truly believe these hypotheses are less likely than Bitcoin succeeding, the truth is, the reason I don’t consider them is because I really, really don’t want them to be true, not because their probability is so low that they aren’t worth the mental effort.
Your last point about flinching from hypotheses because they’re undesirable is key. That flinch is the enemy of equanimity, the acid that dissolves you to make room for Moloch.