>> everyone who plays with Bitcoin is a scientist Bitcoin is neat, but this is not correct. "Try something and see how it goes", while worthwhile, is not scie

>> everyone who plays with Bitcoin is a scientist Bitcoin is neat, but this is not correct. "Try something and see how it goes", while worthwhile, is not science. Science requires controls and repeatable experiments. The reason that macroeconomics is at least 50% palm reading is that there is no way to, say, take 2,000 identical universes, bail out the banks in half of them, and compare. (Science is not the only way to determine truth; for example, you can't do repeatable experiments to identify a murderer.)