I found a thread on Reddit today title "The Scientific Call to Break Free from the Bitcoin Echo Chamber: Embrace Diverse Reddit Threads". I wasted my time creating this response in hopes that other may use the information found herein to help them form their arguments with crypto people and anti-Bitcoin people alike.

After the financial crisis of 2008, the socioeconomic political landscape was set for a major shift in how day to day business was done. In 2009, a new security mechanism allowing for a new type of money that did not require a central issuer was released by pseudonymous developer. Since then, many attempts to make something even better have been made, but never in the spirit required to change the paradigm into a new social construct. In this brief, we explore what makes Bitcoin what it is, the failures of the monies that came after it, and how business takes shape among a culture. We propose a shift in thinking of Bitcoin as technology at all. We will make the argument for thinking about Bitcoin the way we think of social constructs instead.

In the 14th century, a machine capable of printing the same text on a sheet of paper was invented. Its known as the printing press. Watermarks were first introduced in Fabriano, Italy, in 1282. The printing press and the watermark are technologies that have been used in the production of monies since the American revolution, but due to cost, did not see common practice until after the Civil War. In these times, monies were redemption certificates for gold. In the 19th century, these technologies could be found in a new money called "company scrip". It was a certificate which was backed by US dollars. They could only be spent at the company store and they exchanged for less US currency than their face value. Documentation on the human suffering this practice caused is available upon request.

These technologies inherently required a central issuer. The watermark on the currency, was only evidence of the issuer and a protection against counterfeit. Since it's just a technology, why can't anyone just print paper with their own watermark and call it money? The answer lies in human suffering and the natural formation of social constructs.

To quote from verywellmind.com in their article "What is a Social Construct": "Money also would not exist without human interaction. If we think about objective reality, we might think that the money does exist. After all, we can touch the paper or the coins. However, unless humans agree on what the paper or the coins represent and can be used for, paper money is just paper and the coins are just metal disks." And

"The first work to cover social constructionism was 'Mind, Self, and Society' by American sociologist George Herbert Mead (1934). He argued that as social beings, we construct our own realities through our interactions with each other."

So social constructs are conventions for understanding reality. They can change over time, but does that mean they're unimportant and can be ignored? The answer is no. In large part because of social pressures (hence "social construct"), but if we remember that social constructs help humans make sense of objective reality, we can remember that there are objective consequences for ignoring social constructs as well. The objective consequences for ignoring the social construct of nationality, is you might be imprisoned by border patrol. The objective consequence for ignoring the social construct of family, is you might end up with a court order to pay up child support or else go to jail, as well as a few people who hate your guts. You may also find no support for yourself when encountering hardship. The objective consequence for ignoring the social construct of money, is you may find it difficult to exchange with other people and live your daily life.

There are objective consequences for accepting certain social constructs as well. If you accept the social construct that company scrip is money, you might find yourself wholly and absolutely reliant on a company that does not care for your wellbeing. If you accept the social construct of family in a dysfunctional family, you might end up with more financial problems and emotional distress, than if you didn't (this is the social construct of estrangement).

An underappreciated reality of the group of people known colloquially as "Bitcoin Maximalists", is how many within that group started their journey in the crypto community. Indeed, in the very early days of Bitcoin, new monies meant to compete with Bitcoin that included some large sum of tokens at the start of the network given to the founder, were laughed out of discussion as an insult to the human capacity to reason. However, a massive wave of new adopters enabled a new social construct to form, known as crypto rather than Bitcoin. This social construct formed purely around the idea of technology and investments rather than the adoption of a new money. The objective consequences for embracing this new social construct, means massive purchasing power losses due to scams, rug pulls, and week by week hype cycles. It is a social construct built around always hoping ship to the next one.

The objective consequences of adopting the crypto social construct, has resulted in a massive wave of adopters who estrange that social construct, including this brief's author. It is critical thinking, not information disparity, that has resulted in the formation of Bitcoin maximalists.

As we have shown, the objective consequences of embracing the crypto social construct has resulted in the new group known now as "Bitcoin maximalists". So why not take it a step further and read information that is against Bitcoin? The first problem with anti-Bitcoin spaces, is that they are echo chambers unto themselves. Objective information has been presented to these communities in the past, and moderated out of that communities space. On the other hand, if Bitcoin maximalism had objective consequences, we would see a new cohort joining these communities and estranging the social construct just as the Bitcoin maximalists estrange the crypto social construct.

It is considered unnecessary by most of society to consider alternative information to social constructs such as family, nationality, money, and other things. It is only when these social constructs have objective consequences that they come into question. Unless an objective consequence of embracing the Bitcoin social construct can be presented, we reject that embracing diverse threads is a matter of scientific integrity and are rather a waste of time.