What was I trying to claim?
your words...
"once we attain enough knowledge, and wisdom about human psychology, we too will realize that CSW = Satoshi"
read like a claim, but perhaps I misunderstood. I'll try and explain a bit better.
I said that for people with less information (ie those outside the crypto space, as opposed to people like you or I) its inevitable that they will look to an authority for guidance. That's what people tend to do. I'm simplifying of course, its a complicated topic. Here's some
research on the subject .
None of this rules out the chance I am wrong about this type of behaviour, but if we assume its a fair characterisation then we start to reason things.
If people have low epestimic authority, then this predicts that they will benefit greatly from information they receive from someone they perceive to have high epestimic authority. That is to say, they will use this person as a proxy. What better proxy than "Satoshi Nakamoto" inventor of bitcoin!?
So, as I tried to explain before - regardless of whether he is or isn't, any firm resolution to that question is likely to have an outsize effect on the large majority of folk that are not in the space. It's probably mainstream media newsworthy. A "yes he is" would draw some pretty serious positive attention to BSV. A "no he isn't" would quite likely have a very different effect!
So, in reality, what you seemed to be saying was the opposite of what it most likely when it comes to all you guys that have been around a while (and seen a few pixels in your time). OG crypto guys are much more likely to benefit more from experimentally based information, because you are more likely to reject contrary information, as you have a high self-ascribed epestimic authority. (It's no coincidence that me having very close connections with a lot of key BSV folk, and understanding the work being done first hand, has had the influence it has - given your characterisation of me "glorifying my knowledge"
Yes, I too have seen a few pixels and as such have a high level of self-ascribed epestimic authority. I'm ok with that, knowing that about myself helps me be aware of the pitfalls it might create.
What it does help me to understand is that I'm unlikely to change your opinion directly, just by arguing about why he is, or why BSV is the real Bitcoin yada yada (though I might tell you thats what I think from time to time). I understand all too well the difficulty in having foundational understanding shaken and turned on its head. For people like yourselves, it seems likely that the only thing that could be of benefit to you is direct experience.
Beleive it or not, I'm not here to shill BSV and pump it so I can sell for gainz. I'm here because I think Bitcoin will change the world for the better, and I see that more clearly than ever now. I want you all to be part of it (I want everyone to be part of it!).
It seems that people are not happy with BSV, and I can understand that. You think BTC is Bitcoin, and BSV is some pretender. I felt exactly the same about segwit. I felt exactly the same about LN. Same story, different cast.
I was furious at Core for what they did. Outraged. Then as time went on, I started to realise there was nothing I could do, I just had to accept that was where it was going and hope for the best, I was in despair. I became morose. I feel the whole project was going to fail nothing could be done. (Check my activity, I all but gave up on the boards, from once being a regular).
The BCH fork was Both a curse and a blessing. On the one hand I could see that it was preserving the chain, but on the other hand - it was a minority fork, there were so many threats, so many people were against it. To go with BCH was to give up my long held belief in Bitcoin above all else. It was the most distressing and difficult decision I had to make.
So I know full well the dilemma that each and every BTC holder is facing. I know there is a full spectrum of opinion, im at one end whilst some are still convinced of the folly of anything other than BTC.
It was easier the second time round with BCH/BSV split - I knew more than ever about protocol, design implications, development roadmaps and by now I'd become accustomed to being "the underdog". It seemed clear to me that arguments people were making against BSV were emotional - they felt threatened - and often centred around a dislike of CSW. That didn't seem logical, and made me all the more curious to find out what was really going on.
One of the great things about being the underdog... you've already "lost" so you are not afraid of having anything take away. Today I'm more calm about the future of Bitcoin than I have ever been. Could I be proven wrong again? Absolutely, and if I am I hope I have the good grace, and mental fortitude to accept that and act accordingly.
I wish you all the best of luck. Bitcoin isn't about "making money" (in a trading sense) - it already *is* money - it's become clear to me now what its real purpose was all along. It's about making a better world. I encourage all of you to honestly look at what is going on with metanet, and what this means for the future of mankind. If you all *really* dont care who satoshi is, then you equally should care about Craig. Look at the tech.
I don't want you to sell your BTC and buy BSV. I don't care what you are holding. I just want you to know about what BSV is doing, because it feels like 2010 all over again and you guys that beleived in bitcoin back then, deserve the first chance to believe in it all over again.
