I guess i wasn't clear. I didn't mean to suggest Pascal's Wager had much merit -- just the opposite. I brought it up to highlight the ridiculousness of the "always bet on the unlimited positive potential" argument.
I didn't think you believed in Pascal's Wager which is why I didn't quote you, but I guess that
I should have been clear in that it wasn't directed towards you, but rather towards other people who were using it (or at least the idea behind it) to make decisions about cryptocurrencies.
I really just wanted to get the point out that placing your bets on one cryptocurrency is irrational, because there's a greater chance of it failing than succeeding, no matter how great or well thought out it may seem.
Also, I didn't come up with the "There may be other gods" argument, so I'm sure that there's more to it. Unfortunately I forgot what the name of the idea is.