What Science Is.

This writing exists because of a false narrative that is being perpetuated by the media. It also exists because a lot of people are quoting bitcoin's whitepaper under the pretext that it is “scientific” to do so. It's not that citing a paper is not “scientific” but rather the way a certain faction is doing so, is not.

If you are familiar with bitcoin, but regardless of your political stance on the block size debate, you already know exactly what I am referring too.

Ignorant players are quoting the whitepaper's title and the abstract as scientifically based “evidence” that Satoshi's vision for bitcoin was that it should be a coffee money (cheap to use and ultra-fast etc.).

This is your first clue that you are talking to someone that doesn't have any idea what science is and what a whitepaper is meant to be, and not meant to be.

To make this point, we need to understand the REAL reason Satoshi remains anonymous.

Something few people seem to understand is that bitcoin is an experiment. The only difference is that for the experiment to be legit (ie useful) it needed to be carried out in the real world. To this, COULD be said the experiment cannot be duplicated (except another planet etc!). Alt-coins are not duplicate experiments of bitcoin; nor would a second bitcoin be.

The experiment is proposed anonymously because the proposers are clearly scientists.

They did everything right, because that is the way you do it.

Regardless of the false narratives perpetuated by players such as Ver and Andreas A., bitcoin's whitepaper is PURPOSEFULLY free from political spin.

That is not to say “Satoshi” didn't have a political bias, RATHER, it is saying something about the whitepaper...

It's PURPOSEFULLY free of political bias.

Those that quote it to win a political argument, simply don't understand what they are reading.

Those same people might not understand the point I just made in this article.