Craig Wright, The Bitcoin Cash Divider


Gavin Andresen once said something interesting. You can’t fire people from open-source projects. You can say things, of course, but they can just keep doing what they do, or saying what they say, can keep trying to make themselves relevant.

And there is nothing more relevant than being called a fraud by none other than Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum’s founder. If that itself is not enough, add at the biggest crypto conference so far.

The matter would end there, you’d think, but what are words save for malleable, twistable, even fictitious things. Because while some hear “fraud,” others hear “truth” as some verification somehow.

“I have BTC, BCH, ETH and ZCash devs in my mentions, all roundly ridiculing Craig Wright’s technobabble. Cryptocurrencies have never been as united. Thank you, Craig, for the amazing job you’ve done,” Emin Gün Sirer‏ says.

But a day later, the Bitcoin Cash community appears to be somewhat divided. Not the developers, or anyone of “relevance,” but the public space itself.

R/btc current frontpage.

Here at Trustnodes we are far too busy with “real” news, so had never heard Craig Wright speak in public since his BBC interview back when he claimed he was Satoshi Nakamoto.

That’s until the Satoshi Vision conference where he makes a big entrance. Why he was invited to it we never had the time to go around and ask, but we did have the time to listen to the full presentation.

What one notices is a real life “laughing track.” That is, a group somewhere, few individuals somewhere probably at the back of the conference, laughing in what appears like a very fake manner.

Keen they were to clap very loud, or even make concert like noises. Yet, what to us appeared like fakeness could not well be hidden. For some times they laughed when really there was nothing to laugh about.

A stage, that to us looks r/btc’s frontpage. And there are some recognizable names for that’s how it works.

The millennial generation is at the front-line of a structural change in the tectonic plates of public media.

The public media now is us, ordinary men and women, discussing amidst bots, even among dogs or cats, paid fools or just fools, real bots or just human bots.

The playbook is now clear. First, you need bots. Upvoting bots or downvoting bots. Reddit is terrible at detecting them because Conde Nast would rather not spend a penny on it and probably prefers sending all those pennies to their shareholders instead.

With these bots in your pocket, and here we’re using bots very very generally to include potentially human “bots,” you have secured visibility, but that’s only half the battle.

What you now need is word malleability. To turn fraud into truth. That’s very easy. If Buterin says something, attack Buterin. If Sirer says something, attack Sirer. As for whatever they say, just call it false.

One is not enough. You need a 51% attack. That is, comments calling fraud truth need to be at a higher count than comments calling fraud, fraud.

If that doesn’t work once, no problem. Start again, new thread, new beginnings. Most will only read the title anyway, so the voting bots have won half the “battle.”

The golden star here is someone known or respected engaging in word malleability knowingly or unknowingly. It doesn’t matter if they are well known or just a little. If everyone knows they’re a “human” and they’re part of “us” then we have uncertainty.

To close this vacuum, repeat, repeat, repeat. If the task is too hard, then just getting to “maybe” or “well, perhaps,” could be enough.

Of course, if you can use censorship that’s an edge. Because sometime the “bots” can’t outnumber the “real” people. So you can do all of the above and still fail miserably.

That’s why reddit specifically gives you this most enlightened freedom of banning or censoring anyone you like for any reason whatever.

Now, especially if you have a brand domain such as r/bitcoin, you can make cash into gold, means of exchange into a store of value, peer to peer into hub to hub, or really whatever you like.

Without this censorship ability, flooding could work. The point might not even necessarily be to change opinion. Just to get the name there, or the idea, or whatever might be. Just to get as many to read truth=falsehood.

Repeat it over and over and at some point they will be asking, well, maybe it is. Just as they asked, well this Iraq war maybe is right, back in 2005 during the height of the mainstream media’s version of the above.

But this fails at one important aspect that history has proven true. If 50% are stupid and 50% are intelligent, then to get a stupid person to move to the “intelligent” side is easier than to get an intelligent person to move to the stupid side.

In effect, this is nature’s version of the 51% attack. It doesn’t work, and even if it works it can only work for a short time.

That is why only fools place ends above means, and only fools place lies above truth. They can get away with it for a time, and sometimes they can get away with it for far too long, but the human never fully bends.

There will always be a candle to shine upon earth as long as man remains man. You can fool others with the illusion of division, yet here is the truth: cryptos will never be divided for what is self evident, is self evidently true.



3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Must you start a new paragraph for every sentence?


To Author:

You just typed a full article that says nothing and comes to no conclusions.


—-English is not my first language so excuse me for grammatical errors.—- I really liked this article (the phrase “Most will only read the title anyway…” hits the mark about the lack of attention span of people on the internet) till the line that starts with “But this fails at one important aspect that history has proven true…” because there starts the wishful thinking. It’s not intelligence that counts but beliefs, and beliefs in situations full of passion are not shaped through critical thinking (A lot of intelligent people in cognitive psychology think this way, maybe they are fools?!). For… Read more »