I'm having a hard time not seeing this take on BTC as being a version of the Galileo gambit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Galileo_gambit ht

I'm having a hard time not seeing this take on BTC as being a version of the Galileo gambit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Galileo_gambit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Galileo_ga... The problem with reasoning that way is survivor bias: we remember the things that did change the world, and tend to forget the things that didn't. Or, even when we do remember things, we tend to do so in a selective manner. Beanie Babies, for example, did change the world, after a fashion, but not exactly in the way anybody thought they would at the time. Beanie Babies themselves mostly died out and lost all their on-paper value, but not before kickstarting the rise the rise of eBay and PayPal. But that isn't quite what any of the "this time it's special" people had in mind. It turns out that, all too often, the dichotomy turns out to have been false all along, which leaves plenty of room for literally everyone to be wrong about how things are going to play out.