I think you guys are missing a very plausible alternative and that's that the OP (on Reddit) has a few thousand BTC, say 3,000.
So you have 2 cases to consider:
1. 300 BTC is gonna be worth less than 1x BRK.A/B share - OP (on Reddit) will lose 300 BTC (10% of his total) and that's it (BTC value shouldn't drop from losing to BRK as it's the king of the hill).
or
2. 300 BTC will surpass 1x BRK.A/B share in value and since OP (on Reddit) will also have a PR event alongside that, it's quite plausible that this will get the BTC value to skyrocket as it has just beaten BRK as an investment option.
Just doesn't make sense to me that he accepts BTC if he wages against it unless he has a lot to gain from him "losing" (BTC winning) the bet.
We're negotiating to most likely do 300 BTC vs 300 BTC.
Essentially a redditor is willing to bet 300BTC against 1 share of BRK-A (~$183k) that the one share will be worth more than 300BTC.
1k BTC bet so far against Berkshire being the better investment in a year's time
on BitBet, with discussion
here.
Very cool but this would only interest me if there was 1000BTC bet on the other side.