????根據(jù)這種邏輯，巴菲特對(duì)比特幣持懷疑態(tài)度合情合理。不管你是希望借加密貨幣的崛起之機(jī)投資比特幣獲利，還是像安德森支持的Coinbase這類公司借比特幣的強(qiáng)勢(shì)而獲利，但在加密貨幣將改變世界這一事實(shí)之外，你還需要懂得更多才能掙到錢。畢竟，假如你買了一大堆比特幣，但最后卻是比特幣的某一變種占據(jù)了虛擬貨幣的統(tǒng)治地位，到時(shí)候怎么辦呢？

????安德森在接受《福布斯》雜志的郵件采訪中表示，這種分析“單純而天真”。他寫道：

????“不了解技術(shù)的人總是用這種比喻來批判技術(shù)……‘是啊，當(dāng)然，這技術(shù)很棒，但并不像那些瘋狂的呆子所想的那么有用或有價(jià)值?！槍?duì)每種重要的新技術(shù)，都有這類論調(diào)，我這輩子已經(jīng)聽了太多。這不過是故作高深——看起來分析入微，實(shí)際上并非如此?！?/p>

????安德森的反駁存在一個(gè)問題：巴菲特并不想顯得高深或是分析入微。巴菲特的重要觀點(diǎn)在于：對(duì)技術(shù)有著深刻或細(xì)致的了解，并不是投資獲利的必要因素，這甚至反而可能是有害的。巴菲特的投資風(fēng)格要求他熟知金融知識(shí)而避免過分了解技術(shù)，以免對(duì)這項(xiàng)技術(shù)的前景的情感羈絆影響他對(duì)利潤的關(guān)注。

????實(shí)際上，這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論可以歸結(jié)為一個(gè)事實(shí)：安德森和巴菲特是兩種不同類型的投資者。安德森是個(gè)在許多高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的投資項(xiàng)目上下注掙錢的投資家，他只需要在短期內(nèi)正確就夠了。想知道應(yīng)該投資哪些高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)項(xiàng)目，你需要對(duì)投資的技術(shù)有著深刻的了解，從而幫助你預(yù)測(cè)它們將會(huì)如何改變世界。不過即便安德森自己也知道，他這種不斷投資的方式只能讓他做到短期內(nèi)正確。巴菲特的方式則正好相反，他或是投資那些比起競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手而言有著細(xì)微和難以察覺的優(yōu)勢(shì)的成熟公司，或是利用他的聲望及資金來保證其他任何人都無法參與下注【比如在金融危機(jī)最嚴(yán)重的時(shí)候，他買入了高盛投資公司（Goldman Sachs）的股票】。

????換句話說，兩個(gè)人都是對(duì)的。（這也是為什么他們擁有的財(cái)富比你多得多。）（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

????And by this logic, Buffett is right to be skeptical of Bitcoin. Whether you hope to profit from the rise of cryptocurrencies by investing in Bitcoin itself, or companies that would profit from Bitcoin'sascendence like the Andreessen-backed Coinbase, you're going to need to know more than just the fact that cryptocurrencies will change the world to make money. After all, what if you buy a bunch of bitcoins, but it turns out that a bitcoinvarient becomes the dominant form of virtual currency?

????Adresseen, in an email interview with Forbes, called this analysis "unsophisticated." Writes Andreessen:

????"This is a standard trope of technology criticism by people who don't understand technology ... 'Yes, sure, it's great technology, but it won't be useful or valuable in the way that those crazy nerds think it will be useful or valuable.' I've heard it my whole life applied to every new important technology. It's fake sophistication -- it sounds nuanced but it's not."

????The problem with this comeback is that Buffett isn't trying to sound sophisticated or nuanced. Buffett's very point is that a sophisticated or nuanced understanding of technology isn't necessary -- and is perhaps even detrimental -- to making money on investments. Buffett's style of investing requires very sophisticated knowledge of financials while avoiding understanding technology for fear that an emotional connection to the promise of that technology can take his eye off the ball of profits.

????Essentially this disagreement can all be boiled down to the fact that Andreessen and Buffett are two different types of investors. Andreessen is a venture capital guy who makes his money by putting bets on countless long shots, and only needing to be right a fraction of the time. To know what long-shot bets you should make requires a deep knowledge of the technologies you're investing in to aid you in your forecasting of how they will change the world. But even Andreessen knows he's only going to be right a fraction of the time on an investment-by-investment basis. Buffett takes the complete opposite approach -- by either investing in mature companies with very small and hard-to-perceive advantages over their competitors, or by leveraging his reputation and access to capital to make sure bets not available to anyone else (like the stake he took in Goldman Sachs at the height of the financial crisis).

????In other words, both men are right. (And that's why they have so much more money than you.)