[Quick edit: Please see topic here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0That was motivated by what I took to be gmaxwell’s suggestion of some better community organizing. I made some good talking points: A new angle that will resonate with people, written up in short, easy-English sentences
(not like this post). A simple logical argument, wrapped up in thick layers of emotional appeal delivered with visual impact (as I say in this post, below). That is my strength, but I know my weakness: I am not good at spreading the word far and wide. Please help spread the word, for Anastasia and for Satoshi!]
Not oft does an Internet forum post instantly persuade me on a very deep level that I was dangerously wrong on an issue about which I had a strong opinion. That happened here.
Since I found gmaxwell’s post, I have spent much of the past two days examining and rethinking this issue. WIP. At logically divergent points, this post will express my intentions for related future work in /* C-style comments */.
The following is primarily addressed to the people who have already posted in this thread. It is long, complicated, and also, not as well-organized as I would like /* WIP */. It is
not the style that I would use in arguing with BSV shills, for reasons that you will see presently.
On the other hand, a big part of the reason that he's caused so much disruption (and he truly has)-- is because so many bitcoiners took one look at him, saw how transparently fake he was, and decided it was best to ignore him.
BSV happened when I was gone. For the past few days, I have noticed the spew of Craig Wright/BSV threads; and I have been deliberately ignoring them. I think it may help others if I introspectively analyze why (though I will sharply limit the analysis at certain points, to avoid giving tips to BSV shills). A key point is an essential difference between BCH propaganda and BSV propaganda.
A few years ago, much of the most popularly repeated BCH propaganda was based on half-truths. We are taught as children that the most dangerous lie is a half-truth, for the
untrue half is the poison made plausible by the true half. This is peculiarly effective when the true part is an oversimplified fact ripped out of context, and the false part cannot be understood without significant technical knowledge. And much of the other BCH propaganda was based on twisting the semantics of technical jargon; when evaluating such propaganda or arguing against it, even an expert can be tripped up if he is not sufficiently careful, almost
obsessively careful with the precise meanings of words.
E.g.: “Anyone can spend” (true: name of an opcode; false: misrepresenting how validation actually works on the P2P network). “Removes signatures” (true: signatures are removed from the part of the transaction hashed for the txid; false: signatures are removed
entirely—actually, they are just moved to the witness data—and there is here another compound half-truth that I will omit for brevity). Characterizing Segwit as a type of extension block or block extension (blurring of concepts, and semantic confusion of unrelated concepts).
Such lies are subtle. They alarm intelligent people who fully understand them, because they look like the types of lies that could fool intelligent non-experts.
* By comparison, BSV/Faketoshi yelling looks stupid and clownish.
Yes, you are Satoshi—and I’m the Queen of England! For evidence-minded people, wildly implausible claims based on zero evidence are much easier to dismiss than plausible, subtly false claims. And Craig Wright’s claims are so implausible that when Gavin bought them on the basis of obviously fake “evidence” (or at least said he did, for whatever motive), the substantial result was not only to instantly destroy Gavin’s credibility, but to make of him a laughingstock.
(* Incidentally, I understand Segwit much better because the Btash propaganda inadvertently pushed me to study it. The Btashers confused me, and I thought that maybe they were right. I wanted to know the truth! So I did the logical thing, and studied what Segwit actually does. After many hours of examining both primary sources (BIP 141, source code) and secondary sources (long Internet arguments—including in /r/btc, not only Core-friendly venues), I concluded that Segwit is awesome, Pieter Wuille is a genius, and Bcashers are liars. Here’s to freedom of speech and independence of opinion!)Since that time, ignoring Craig Wright has become a habit. And that habit is reinforced when one notices that all he
seems to have in his favour is a knack for getting attention. Attention, surely, is the last thing that any sane person wants to give him. Indeed, I cursed under my breath when I saw intelligent, respectable people arguing in BSV threads:
Why are you feeding into that? It is beneath contempt! Naturally, my such reactions strictly deterred me from getting involved. I would not want anybody to question my motives for bumping BSV shill threads; and I would no more waste my time with “Craig Wright is Satoshi!!11” claims than argue in
the notorious Flat Earth megathread.
Observe that I am
not one to be shy of controversy. I did not avoid BSV threads from a desire to avoid “drama”. I simply saw it as
pointless, unimportant drama that could only gain importance if I deigned to notice it. That was an egregious error in judgment.
Whereas BSV propaganda is actually more effective than Bcash propaganda, because contra what you were told as a child, a half-truth isn’t the worst lie: A Big Lie is.
* For those not inclined to cool, objective examination of evidence, a wildly implausible claim is
more plausible,
because it is wildly implausible: If it’s wildly implausible, then nobody would dare to fabricate it, so it must be true—Q.E.D. As an implicit feeling and not an explicit process of ratiocination, that is just how human psychology works:
Extraordinary claims are their own evidence.(* Before anyone calls Godwin on me: Godwin is hereby inapplicable, because in fact, Hitler didn’t actually advocate using the Big Lie; he accused a Jewish conspiracy of using the Big Lie, which he condemned in no uncertain terms. My discussion of an age-old flaw in human nature is not relevant to irrelevant history. Anyway, I would not do the gross injustice of equating BSV shills to Hitler.)Worse, calling out a Big Lie for what it is can backfire: You thereby underscore the point that a statement would be so outrageous if untrue, nobody would dare to lie about it. And logical argumentation will not work, because the essential “argument” is emotional.
E.g., if you state your own standard: “I would believe a Satoshi claimant who met criteria, A, B, and C; Craig Wright meets none of those criteria,” it won’t help. It won’t help, because Satoshi says so! (Does that not make sense? None of this makes sense: Human nature is insensible.)
Moreover,
BSV manages emotional appeal in subtle ways that the typical nerd totally fails to comprehend. For example, look at
this post. The headline content, the primary content, the
only real content is photographic. No meticulously footnoted statements of verifiable facts: A visual. Craig Wright is presented looking movie-handsome (most people have low standards), strong, confident. He is wearing a suit (not very well, but
hoi polloi don’t know the difference). He is holding a purported “diploma”,
i.e. an appeal to authority. And he is surrounded by a retinue of suit-wearing men,
i.e. social proof. (
Hoi polloi are not sufficiently insightful to read the vulture-faces.)
I think that many readers are now sneering at me—no really, that is what is important! If you’re sneering at me over what I just said, it means that you do not understand how propaganda works in real life. And if you think this discussion is beneath your principles, then you are effectively renouncing the world to the Craig Wrights of the world so that you can live in an idealistic fantasy.
(It is at this juncture that I hope the Winklevi are real Bitcoiners in their hearts of hearts. They look a thousand times sharper than Craig Wright: To the 1% who can tell the difference, they wear their suits like rich men, not like dolled-up rubes running a scam.)Craig Wright looks like a
leader (to those whose idea of “leadership” is informed by the mass-media and modern-day democratic political systems). But that is not the biggest issue. Until gmaxwell’s post made me revisit the issue, I did not realize what Craig Wright had done.
He has assumed the name of Satoshi, and thus given Satoshi a face. A human face is important; consider why
Facebook now has 2×10^9 users.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Against that, Bitcoin has a mysterious, quasi-mystical ghost called Satoshi, some anonymous cypherpunks, facts, logic, coding skills, and a bunch of nerds who probably don’t wear sharp suits.
The human need for a human face is present even in most Bitcoiners who would never fall for Faketoshi.
Vide the continued use of Dorian Nakamoto’s image,
mostly by people who openly state that Dorian is not Satoshi. That was always a mistake (plus just being wrong). It does illustrate the power of the terrible vacuum left by a faceless founder.
In brief, the foregoing discussion suggests the following actions:
- Add emotional appeal. Don’t give up on logical, factual arguments (though you may sometimes need to simplify them, to avoid losing the audience). Add appeals to emotion in your arguments. If that feels dirty to you, then I am very sorry: In real life, you need to deal with human psychology.
- Non-anonymous Bitcoiners should refine their human image. If your photo is already available online, then you have nothing to lose by making yourself look good. Not what you think looks good, but good according to the social conventions of people who are impressed by Craig Wright’s suit. If you have naturally photogenic qualities (as judged by usefulness to a good cause, not by your ego), then get a professional haircuit (long or short—get it neatened), get a pro-quality photo of yourself wearing a good suit, and use that as your profile photo or avatar on Github, on Gravatar, and on this forum. If you lack those qualities, then don’t: Play to your own strengths, and avoid your own weaknesses. (And if your feelings are hurt by my suggestions, none of this post is for you.)
- /* XXX TODO: Create and link here a topic expanding on what Bitcoiners can do as a counterstroke against the emotionally-evocative, image-oriented aspects of BSV propaganda. */
In the future we're going to see more crap like him threatening any business that accepts Bitcoin with patent litigation, to which the common response will be "damn, this bitcoin stuff isn't worth the trouble" from most parties who's business isn't primarily about Bitcoin. How could you expect otherwise when your response to wright is "damn, this wright stuff isn't worth the trouble"?
This is extremely worrisome, and I was insufficiently aware of the issue due to ignoring Craig Wright. A typical business owner will avoid like plague anything whatsoever that has hanging over it the clouds of IP litigation that could destroy the business.
Compare: BSD Unix was treated as radioactive by businesses due IP litigation and threats thereof, at just the time when Linus first released Linux. By the time the lawsuit was over, it was too late: Linux took over the world. (The principal differences being that Linus had nothing to do with the lawsuit; it was just a coincidence.... and that was copyright; patent suits are even worse,
i.e. more catastrophically expensive.)
Counteracting that type of threat will require a well-financed, organized response by non-anonymous parties who have excellent lawyers. Here is one immediate idea for the forum: Document prior art that can be used by lawyers to attack the patents directly, wrecking the patent troll’s whole business model.
It worked for Cloudflare (and regardless of my general opinion of Cloudflare, it does not alter the point that they, non-cypherpunks with their non-cypherpunk lawyers, deployed an innovative strategy against a patent troll). If someone is already doing that, I duly apologize for having been sleeping on a mountaintop in a circle of fire for the past twenty months; please drop me a link. Any other practical ideas?
It isn't always a question of people believing him outright, often its falling for one of his lesser lies like the claim that he's an "og bitcoin investor" or that kleiman had something to do with Bitcoin's creation.
The ancient principle that “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” needs a signature ad (
q.v.).
If someone broke into your house and was stealing stuff-- you wouldn't just say 'that thief doesn't deserve our attention' and ignore them. We shouldn't hesitate to defend Bitcoin and the community surrounding it.
The analogy is inadmissible: You wouldn’t
debate the thief—especially not if he started by announcing that it is
his house and
his stuff, and you are the thief violating his “vision” of what he wants done with his stuff. You would not dignify that with a verbal reply! Instead, you would reply with violent force—either directly, or by proxy with recourse to the State (“call the cops”).
In theory, this is the proper use of IP laws. If you invent an innovative technology and you name it “Bitcoin”, then you patent any patentable methods used by your invention, enforce a trademark over the good name of Bitcoin®, and claim copyright over the source code. The State promises to enforce your monopolies on these things. Their ultimate means of enforcement is that they can and will kick doors down. Usually in IP lawsuits, it does not get that far, because people obey court orders to avoid getting their doors kicked down.
Perhaps the analogy is sound after all! The problem is that we are living in a house that has no defence against thieves, other than for us to say, “Please let us explain in logical terms why the thief is wrong.” And the thief can even steal the identity of the house’s founder.
(Action tip: Refer to “identity thief Craig Wright” and his identity theft, because that is exactly what it is by definition—and “identity theft” is a hot buzzword with emotional appeal.)Satoshi did it the cypherpunk way. IP laws are neither enforceable against strongly anonymous parties, nor enforceable
by strongly anonymous parties. “Cypherpunks write code”, then release it from behind Tor whilst ignoring the State. That is what Satoshi did; and as a result, Bitcoin never even had an identifiable owner to enforce a trademark protecting the good name of Bitcoin (never mind other types of IP).
That was by design; and that design has benefits that I should not need to explain to the readers in this thread. But the design has tradeoffs; there is also a cost. For comparison, there is a reason why,
e.g., Linus Torvalds has consistently claimed and been prepared to defend his trademark on the name Linux. If Craig Wright pulled the same shenanigans against Linux, then Linus could and would sue hell out of him.
At this juncture, I must raise another issue. Although it is NOT the legally applicable standard to Bitcoin (Satoshi used the MIT License), the spirit of the
CPL reflects the type of thinking that left Satoshi’s identity open to theft:
InterpretationThe user can redistribute the work or a derived or modified work
- under a different license of their choosing
- with or without source code as they choose
- without acknowledging the distributors or authors
- with false or innaccurate claims about authorship of the work
- advertise without acknowledging the authors
This is an issue that has long bothered me, and left me wondering if I am the only one in the world to notice it. By coincidence, I recently touched on this in another thread—without elaboration, but with an intent to explain further in an appropriate context:
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
/* XXX TODO: Publish and link here an essay concisely explaining the total difference in concepts between copyright and plagiarism, and how this confusion, promulgated by the copyright lobby, has been made worse by both GPL and the Creative Commons. Disclosure: I am opposed to all current copyright laws. (And the question of whether an ideal copyright law enforced by unicorns and faeries could be morally justified is mental masturbation, when all current copyright laws are corrupt beyond repair.) */
Overall, we need a better way: A way for anonymous parties to interface with the State via non-anonymous parties. /* XXX TODO: Create and link here a topic about this. */ Meanwhile, we are left with this:
Now-- if you want to argue that various threads aren't very effective and that the community could do better? I couldn't agree more.
/* XXX TODO: Discuss further within the scope of this thread; and create and link other topics expanding that scope, including:
- An essay on Lightning Network and radically rethinking the future of Bitcoin. I began working on this a few weeks ago; I intended to finish and publish it today (2020-01-05), but put it aside to examine the BSV issue. This can be pivoted and adapted in a positive way to integrate with a counterstoke against BSV. Don’t worry: When I say “radically rethinking”, I mean that I am an extremist for the principles more moderately espoused by the most well-known Core and LN developers.
- The already-intended sequel to the preceding item: An essay on rebranding Bitcoin in the Lightning era. Same relevance here. I list strengthening the positive message before I get to the negative, on the principle that you should always define yourself by what you are for before you say what you are against.
- More coherent analysis of Craig Wright, and how to tear down his sham. First, I need to catch up on what he’s been doing for the past two years.
*/
