Dispelling Fake Bitcoin News and the False Narrative Perpetuated By Kyle Torpey, Nathaniel Popper, and Aaron Van Wormer

When I first came to understand bitcoin I came from a wholly different perspective than all of you.

When I had this insight, of the relevance of John Nash’s Ideal money to bitcoin, I literally thought all I had to do was mention Nash’s name with the word bitcoin (and perhaps the phrase Ideal Money) and everyone would immediately figure out what I meant (four years later I feel very alone on the subject).

But my experience reveled something else.

I went to every media site I could that was discussing bitcoin, and there was not a single one that would give any time or credibility to Nash’s work.

Furthermore, and remember I have read Nash’s work, the narrative that was being perpetuated, was irrational.

So one had to ask, why are multiple media sites, blogs, and social network sites all perpetuating the same irrational perspective?

Here is an article by NY Times writer Nathaniel Popper about a Mike Hearn developer that left the bitcoin space because he didn’t agree with the direction it was going (somehow he simultaneously was trying to change bitcoin while realizing you cannot change bitcoin). Hearn’s departure is known as “a whiny rage-quit”, wholly irrational behavior, and a complete lack of understanding of bitcoin.

But how does a “whiny rage quit” get into the New York Times?

Here is a picture of Hearn, in the New York Times, sitting on a weird couch bed:

Nathaniel wrote a book called digital gold. Why won’t he consider the implications of bitcoin as a digital gold? How come he won’t write about the worlds greatest mathematician that spent 20 years giving an argument that Hearn is wrong, and that bitcoin should evolve as a digital gold not a coffee money?

Hearn is well known for his alignment with Gavin Andresen. And Gavin is well known for talking bitcoin to the CIA. For those that want to call me a conspiracy nut, you must be not familiar with bitcoin, because those that are familiar KNOW that he did this, and here is the post he made about it:

I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories: I’m going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community.

I accepted the invitation to speak because the fact that I was invited means Bitcoin is already on their radar, and I think it might be a good chance to talk about why I think Bitcoin will make the world a better place. I think the goals of this project are to create a better currency, create a more competitive and efficient international payment system, and give people more direct control over their finances. And I don’t think any of those goals are incompatible with the goals of government.

I’m only very slightly worried that talking about bitcoin at the CIA will increase the chances they’ll try to do something we don’t want them to do. I think accepting their invitation and being open about exactly what bitcoin is will make it less likely they’ll see it as a threat.

PS: Full disclosure: I’ll be paid a one-time fee of $3,000 to cover expenses and pay me for my time. I don’t want any “Gavin is on the CIA’s payroll” rumors to get started, either…

As always, comments and questions and discussion welcome. I’d really rather not hear any conspiracy theories about how they’ll secretly implant a mind-control chip in my head while I’m there, though….

You don’t want any “Gavin is on the CIA’s payroll” rumors, but you are admitting they are paying you.

For those that don’t know, Gavin claimed Craig Wright is Satoshi and proved it to him. But the proof, wasn’t a proof, and anyone with basic understanding of cryptography immediately started asking Gavin why he is pulling a fake stunt.

I can’t even link to an article, since there are so many. All of a sudden simultaneously major news outlets around the world started to tell Wrights story, and Wright started to say he was going to prove he was Satoshi by moving Satoshi coins.

But anyone with basic cryptography knowledge, knows that this is not a proof of Satoshi.

Why was the news, and Gavin, and a few other “elite” bitcoiners perpetuating the false narrative that Wright could prove he was Satoshi by moving Satoshi coins?

It’s fake news. And it was EVERYWHERE in mainstream media.

Its not a question of “Is Wright Satoshi?”, the question is “Why doesn’t Satoshi understand cryptography?”

Back to Popper, I cannot present evidence of this, but as I understand, there is a group that actually understands bitcoin, and is responsible for its success and growth, and they suspect Popper is not an unbiased journalist (is that politically correct enough?).

Now to Kyle Torpey, who is well respected by the community, seemingly, and including the core devs (those that are ACTUALLY responsible for bitcoin’s success). Here is a quote from his latest writing:

Some individuals in the Bitcoin community have been worried about the prospect of full blocks for quite some time now. In perhaps the most notable example of this fear of full blocks, former Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn quit working on the P2P digital cash system entirely after his preferred solution to the perceived issue of increased congestion on the Bitcoin network was not adopted.

In a blog post published in January of last year where Hearn concluded that Bitcoin experiment had failed, Hearn claimed, “The block chain is full.”

Why is Torpey writing about an irrational player? Why is Torpey perpetuating a false narrative?

Who pays Torpey and how much would it cost me to change this false narrative?

Here is an article from popular news site Zero Hedge, written about John Nash when he passed, and alluding to Ideal Money.

The article wholly omits the thesis and general summary/understanding of Nash’s work. The author never read Ideal Money, and although I was linked to, no one asked me, the person that has read the work.

Here is another piece, not written by me, not consulting me, talking about Nash’s work, never having read it, and wholly missing the content of the proposal Nash made.

The bitcoin news is rigged with a false narrative.

Also why did Nash feel he had to obfuscate his work until his death?

This caution he says, carried over to 2013, or in other words, it was continual. He didn’t want to be forced back into mental confinement(aka psychiatric institution).