The biggest threat to bitcoin isn't quantum, but cheap room-temperature superconductors. And nobody is talking about them. Why? A large part of the #Bitcoin network's value proposition hinges on one fact:
Energy transfer and storage is inefficient.
Mining creates a sink for this stranded energy - if LTSC's revolutionize energy grids, the energy arbitrage miners profit off is significantly reduced.

Science Fiction does not predict, it does not speculate, it just tells stories about all that is inevitable.

#Ratification Teaser

Chapter 4 - The Sounds of Earth

In the formative years of the timechain, humanity found itself at a crossroads... 🧵⏬ This era preceded even the most basic advancements in artificial intelligence, and humankind was still confined to Earth. As with many transformative technologies, the timechain was met with widespread skepticism at first.

Fiat is a death cult.
People are groomed into it from birth, taught to accept its doctrine without question.
Most won't realize the endgame before it's too late.
Just like a cult, the trap only snaps shut at the end.
A break-down 🧵 Here's how the fiat collapse unfolds in 5 stages:
Real Inflation, Loss of Confidence, Capital Controls, CBDC Rollout, No Exit

All "Who is Satoshi?" Theories Are Wrong: Survivorship Bias and Dunbar's Number

The search for Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin's creator, has led to endless speculation. Every few months, a new candidate gets linked to Nakamoto, but those are usually someone already known for other contributions to technology or finance.
However, these theories, even if well researched which most not even are, are fundamentally flawed, primarily because they suffer from survivorship bias and an underestimation of human complexity driven by Dunbar's Number. Here’s why:

Survivorship Bias: The Narrow Pool of Suspects

Survivorship bias is the tendency to focus on the small, visible group of individuals who are already successful or well-known, ignoring the many anonymous or less famous people who could also fit the profile. Most theories about Satoshi hinge on already well-known figures like Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, or recently Peter Todd - names that are already associated with cryptography or technology.

The reality is, countless other individuals who are not famous or in the public eye possess the requisite skillset to create something as transformative as #Bitcoin. By only looking at well-known figures, we fall into the well-known fallacy where only "survivors" of public recognition are considered worthy suspects. In truth, the person or team behind Bitcoin could very well be among the much larger group of lesser-known talents.

Dunbar's Number: The Limits of Social Cognition

Dunbar’s Number, the cognitive limit on how many meaningful social relationships we can maintain, suggests that humans can only manage around 150 stable relationships. This limit constrains our ability to conceptualize just how vast the world is and how many unknowns exist. When combined with the natural human tendency to think in terms of the people we know or recognize, we grossly underestimate the number of people who could have created Bitcoin.

Think of it this way: many of us probably privately know someone in IT who could, hypothetically, have invented Bitcoin. This person might maintain no real online presence, or at most, have a couple of faceless pictures of themselves with their pet rats. The work a normal job as a programmer or researcher, and are not shitposting on X daily.

Yet they, or someone like them, could easily be Satoshi. There are thousands, probably millions, of individuals capable of such a feat, but we - the public eye - just don’t know about them.

When people speculate about Satoshi's identity, they're anchored by their limited social networks and assumptions. They believe that if they don’t know someone personally or haven’t heard of them, such a person probably doesn’t exist. This is a cognitive blind spot caused by Dunbar's Number.

Conclusion

The mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto remains largely because our search methods are flawed. Survivorship bias limits the pool of candidates to those already recognized as successful or influential, while Dunbar’s Number causes us to underestimate the sheer number of people who could potentially fill Nakamoto’s shoes.

But we should be happy about that. Revealing details about Satoshi Nakamoto's personal life would primarily benefit those with malicious intent. If his government-issued id were to be exposed, what would we gain from it? We would only satisfy our morbid curiosity, only to make a real person - who obviously chose to remain private - vulnerable to various threats, ranging from legal repercussions to physical harm

Thank you for reading part 3 of the series about how various logical fallacies lead us astray on the search for Satoshi. If you enjoyed it, please read part 1 and 2 - and repost and comment! Part #2 ->

https://x.com/ratoshi21/status/1810961118682063081