It is comfortable to position yourself in the digital asset sphere by purchasing a certain digital currency and never seriously reviewing your decision. However, there are people who dive deeper.\u00a0 Philosopher and author Steve Patterson is definitely one of them, and that is why we caught up with him to hear about his efforts in the digital asset sphere and his thoughts on Bitcoin. Hi, Steve! Kindly introduce yourself and share your \u201cBitcoin journey\u201d with us. I first heard about Bitcoin somewhere around 2010 at an Economics conference. I thought it was interesting but didn\u2019t pay too close attention. I remember being shocked when the price spiked from around $1 to around $10. I wanted to purchase some, but I thought, \u201cThere\u2019s no way I\u2019m spending 10x per Bitcoin compared to a short time ago!\u201d We see how well that turned out. I became more involved, and by 2014, I kept getting messages from people asking about Bitcoin. I couldn\u2019t point them to a simple introductory resource at the time, so that\u2019s why I decided to write my first book on the subject. I was extremely disappointed when Bitcoin Core hijacked the project. In my opinion, the small-block philosophy simply doesn\u2019t work. Bitcoin was designed to scale with blocksize increases, and the Bitcoin Core developers have never proposed a realistic alternative scaling mechanism. The Lightning Network is 95% hype, and when you dig into the details, it cannot scale Bitcoin by itself. So, I see BTC as a dead project with failed leadership, though the market hasn\u2019t realized it yet. We found a lot of \u201cproof of work\u201d in your life concerning Bitcoin. You wrote a book called \u201cWhat\u2019s the Big Deal About Bitcoin?\u201d and you are writing another one on Bitcoin right now. Kindly introduce us to your first Bitcoin book and tell us about your upcoming piece. \u201cWhat\u2019s the Big Deal About Bitcoin?\u201d is an introduction to Bitcoin that was written for your grandmother. I avoid technical jargon and focus on the basic concepts that anybody can understand. It\u2019s a short book that can be read in a few hours. I\u2019m pleased that it\u2019s been well-received over the years, and organizations like The Foundation for Economic Education have given it out to students at their conferences. However, the latest version was released in 2015, which means it\u2019s currently out-of-date. The core concepts are still sound, but the system I describe is actually big-block Bitcoin (meaning BCH or BSV), not BTC. I am currently co-writing a new book with a Bitcoin entrepreneur that explains the history and ideas behind the big-block philosophy. The overwhelming majority of early Bitcoiners were big-blockers\u2014especially among relevant businesses in the industry\u2014but after years of censorship, propaganda, attacks, and shoddy thinking, the small-block radicals successfully took over BTC.\u00a0 So, our side has a remarkable story to tell. You write this on your website: \u201cIn my own research, I have discovered a remarkably consistent truth: orthodox opinions are almost always wrong.\u201d\u00a0 Let us try to apply that to the Bitcoin sphere. What kind of orthodox opinions did you find \u201cin Bitcoin\u201d that should be challenged? In my first Bitcoin book, I cover a handful of \u201corthodox opinions\u201d that were wrong in 2015\u2014that Bitcoin doesn\u2019t have intrinsic value, that it\u2019s only used by criminals, etc. But since then, the orthodoxy has shifted to another set of bad ideas. For example, the notion that Bitcoin can be a reliable store of value without being a useful medium of exchange is naive. The idea that \u201cBitcoin can\u2019t scale\u201d has become popular, despite being completely incorrect. The idea that \u201csoftware developers should be the primary leaders in Bitcoin\u201d is also an orthodox opinion that\u2019s totally wrong\u2014and the history of BTC is a great example why. More than two years ago, you discussed the BTC\/BCH split in depth with Ryan X. Charles: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?vkvOd6lL2fio Since two years from uploading that discussion have passed, is there anything you would want to add to the topic from a nowadays perspective? Well since that interview, Bitcoin Cash split in two. Now we have two big-block Bitcoins: BCH and BSV. There\u2019s quite a lot that can be said about both projects and the differences between them. I\u2019ve been participating in a series of discussions about the topic on Isaac Morehouse\u2019s YouTube channel. For the past several months, we\u2019ve covered BCH vs BSV in detail, exploring some deeper concepts in economics and business.\u00a0 Our informal \u201cshow\u201d has been a hit\u2014affectionately known as \u201cThe Four Numpties\u201d\u2014but since we have many hours of conversation recorded, I wouldn\u2019t be able to cover all the relevant topics in this interview. So, if people are interested, check out our show. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?vhEYQD_IXMpc Watching people like you and Ryan X. Charles turning their backs on BTC, it seems safe to say BTC suffers from a severe \u201cbrain drain.\u201d Why do Bitcoin thinkers, entrepreneurs and users literally flee from BTC? Because it\u2019s a failed project. When you dig into the details, BTC simply isn\u2019t going to work, and their leadership is toxic. People who dive deep enough to realize this are not going to be building on BTC. So, naturally, the people that stay behind are less likely to be independent thinkers. They are more likely to have blind faith that the Core developers are highly competent\u2014despite what the most seasoned Bitcoin entrepreneurs will tell you. The censorship of online forums amplifies this closed-mindedness. They\u2019ve successfully created echo-chambers which can be hard for newcomers to escape from. The BTC community also suffers from a mindless focus on price speculation\u2014even when the underlying utility of their project has been destroyed\u2014which dissuades real builders from their project. Recently you had a discussion with investor Marc De Mesel about Bitcoin SV and BCH: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?vxdzMB8S8b5c From what I can tell, it was a very fair and highly valuable discussion to find out the truth about Bitcoin. You two came to a very interesting point at 01:25:45 in the video concerning the question whether Bitcoin has to scale first to serve enterprisal usage or has to have enterprisal usage demand before attempting to scale. I think this question is important, kindly share your thoughts. It\u2019s a chicken-or-egg problem. Should Bitcoin scale before it\u2019s in high demand or afterwards? I tend to think the scaling capacity needs to be established beforehand. I don\u2019t have any reason to believe that adoption will be linear, so we need to plan for exponential growth. Signaling that Bitcoin has the ability to scale, right now, is a far better way to get enterprise usage than promises of potential scaling in the future. If anything has been proven over the last decade, it\u2019s that scaling decisions should never be left to a central planning board of software developers. Given enough time, they are guaranteed to make the wrong decisions on the wrong timeline and optimize for the wrong things. Bitcoin needs to be an unbounded protocol whose limits are set by the relevant economic actors: the miners. What I was surprised about in your discussion with Marc De Mesel was the fact that there still seems to be a lack of information on the \u201cnon BSV side\u201d concerning BSV and its recent developments, especially concerning already functioning Bitcoin SV driven apps like Twetch. How comes there is such an information asymmetry in the digital asset sphere in general? The cryptocurrency world rivals the political world in terms of sheer amount of propaganda. It\u2019s incredibly hard to get high-quality information, so it\u2019s not surprising that there are large information asymmetries. I see a similar pattern with BSV that I saw with BCH a couple of years ago. After the BCH split, the BTC community relentlessly attacked and dismissed BCH as a \u201cscam\u201d or reckless project. So, the masses were dissuaded from deeper research. The same thing is happening with BSV. After the split in 2017, I see a ton of people from the BCH community attacking BSV as a \u201cscam\u201d or reckless project. So, lots of people are unaware of what\u2019s actually happening in BSV. Of course, there\u2019s a similar blindness that occurs when criticism comes from within a community. When I pointed out some problems with BTC back in 2015, I would get endless hatred from the BTC community. I\u2019ve been pointing out problems within BCH over the past year, and I\u2019ve gotten hatred from that community. I am currently pointing out some problems in BSV, and I also get hatred from this community. So, there are information asymmetries everywhere, and I don\u2019t expect they\u2019ll go away any time soon. You seem to be very open to Bitcoin aside from the old \u201cBTC vs. BCH vs. BSV\u201d discussion. What are you personally looking for in Bitcoin, and in what ways do you actually use Bitcoin in your daily life? I am unabashedly supportive of Bitcoin as a disruptive political phenomenon. I love the idea of the separation of money and state. I want to see a world where money emerges from the marketplace instead of by government fiat. I also want that money to be hard and inflation-proof. I\u2019ve been occasionally using Bitcoin for years whenever it\u2019s convenient. My latest professional contract was paid in BCH. In terms of daily usage, I\u2019ve lost count of the transactions I\u2019ve sent just by using Twetch. I think decentralized social media networks have a bright future, so I\u2019m eager to see where projects like Twetch end up. Since you are a philosopher\u2014which seems to be rare in the Bitcoin sphere\u2014what thoughts on Bitcoin do you have coming from philosophy that we could learn from? The philosophical method has lots of perks. For one, if you have a high-quality methodology for thinking, you can be ahead of the curve and invest in projects that are more likely to succeed. Similarly, you\u2019re less likely to be persuaded by propaganda and group-think, which can reduce your losses. I consider true information to be the most highly valuable good, both personally and professionally. The closer you get to truth, the better your life becomes, and the better your business becomes. So, the closer that Bitcoin entrepreneurs get to the truth\u2014about what people really value and how to produce it\u2014the more valuable their projects become. Thank you very much for your efforts and your time! My pleasure. Thanks for inviting me.