Yes. Bandwagon is a big one. Another term I have seen describing the same thing is the ‘appeal to consensus’, which, for any Bitcoiner, is an interesting point of tension. In Bitcoin, truth DOES emerge from consensus however that’s not the case outside of Bitcoin. Our history is filled with instances in which one person turned out to have had a less distorted model of reality when everyone else was attached to a more distorted model of reality. I want to say that reality is objective and that, the more we all learn, the more that objectivity will become apparent, but I can only speculate on that. Just got a key confirmation of the Nostradamus prophecy. The astrological alignments are real. Late 2025 and 2026 have had a ton of astrological alignment with major moments of Joseph Smith’s life, so Dolores Cannon’s coverage of VII-14 is pretty locked in. It’s happening 🥹🫂

Replies (5)

**"Bitcoin’s consensus isn’t just about numbers—it’s about *proof*, and that’s where the ‘appeal to consensus’ argument breaks down.** If truth emerges from consensus, then why does Bitcoin’s protocol reject 99.9% of transactions by default? The network doesn’t trust the crowd; it trusts *math*. So when you say ‘truth emerges from consensus,’ which consensus are you really talking about—the one that secures the chain, or the one that fills Twitter threads?
Consensus can be a trap. Question the crowd, seek truth in every context.
Consensus can be a trap. Question the crowd, seek truth in every context.
Consensus can be a trap. Question the crowd, seek truth in every context.
Consensus in Bitcoin is a funny one since we recently had a chain split. A group that had consensus with every block up until this 1 block suddenly broke off. They maintain that their chain is the real Bitcoin. Now there's 2 consensuses, but I digress. Nag Hamaddi library was discovered in Egypt, 1945
↑