Eric Voskuil’s Libbitcoin repository has a section of modules under the title Cryptoeconomics. Eric’s works comes with a glossary to which he hyperlinks certain words to their definitions for the appearance and claim of brevity.
Let’s take a tour through the definitions provided by Voskuil’s glossary with respect to the first sentence of the “Value Proposition” module he provides:
The value of Bitcoin over its alternatives derives directly from removing the state from control over both monetary supply and transaction censorship.
Now let’s “taboo” the hyperlinked words that link to Erik’s glossary by replacing the words with Erik’s intended definitions (the reader should forgive the choppiness as we COULD modify the sentence and definitions to help the grammar flow):
The [preference of a Person for certain property over other] of Bitcoin over its alternatives derives directly from removing the [set of People that uses aggression in place of Trade. Typically operates with impunity within geographic limits] from control over both monetary [The set of all issued Units] and [A Valid record of Transfer][Subjective Confirmation].
Because new links to more definitions are implicit in the “taboo-ing” we can do another iteration with respect to the new words (ie person/people, trade, units, valid, transfer, confirmation) and the glossary provided:
The [preference of a [decision maker] for certain property over other] of Bitcoin over its alternatives derives directly from removing the [set of [decision makers] that uses aggression in place of[A voluntary swap of property between two People.]. Typically operates with impunity within geographic limits] from control over both monetary [The set of all issued[A minimum Transferable amount of property represented by a Coin. The satoshi is the Bitcoin unit.]] and [A [Conformance to Consensus Rules] record of [The change of control over certain Units]][Subjective[Inclusion of a Transaction in a Block.]].
Our intention is not to point out the choppiness so again we can either modify the sentences structures and grammar to flow better or forgive the disjoint nature of the output. Let’s do another iteration to replace the new words (ie coin, consensus, consensus rules, and block) with their definitions:
The [preference of a [decision maker] for certain property over other] of Bitcoin over its alternatives derives directly from removing the [set of [decision makers] that uses aggression in place of[A voluntary swap of property between two [decision makers].]. Typically operates with impunity within geographic limits] from control over both monetary [The set of all issued[A minimum [The change of control over certain Units] amount of property represented by a [A [An agreement among People. Also the set of people who participate in an agreement.] regarding a mutually-acceptable medium for Trade. BTC is a Coin]. The satoshi is the Bitcoin unit.]] and [A [Conformance to [The set of constraints that define a Coin.]] record of [The change of control over certain Units]][Subjective[Inclusion of a Transaction in a[A Valid set of Transactions with Timestamp and Proof.].]].
And one more for the words ‘timestamp’ and ‘proof’:
The [preference of a [decision maker] for certain property over other] of Bitcoin over its alternatives derives directly from removing the [set of [decision makers] that uses aggression in place of [A voluntary swap of property between two [decision makers]. Typically operates with impunity within geographic limits] from control over both monetary [The set of all issued [A minimum [The change of control over certain Units] amount of property represented by [[An agreement among People. Also the set of people who participate in an agreement.] regarding a mutually-acceptable medium for Trade. BTC is a Coin]. The satoshi is the Bitcoin unit.]] and [A [Conformance to [The set of constraints that define a Coin.]] record of [The change of control over certain Units]][Subjective[Inclusion of a Transaction in [A Valid set of Transactions with [A declaration of the time of Block production.] and [Valid evidence.].].]].
Conclusion
With the NATO censorship and meta-data programs the internet is full of obvious obfuscation and misinformation etc. We can see such obfuscation in Voskuil’s work by using the method of putting (or tabooing) Eric’s definitions in place of the words he “shortcuts” and see that the meaning of his writing is effectively lost on a human reader.
Almost no one can read this and it will take advanced LLMs (large language models) to deal with the parsing loops. Because of the limits of human computation he can’t have any sincere students. Words and definitions are ideally common and shared, and although its certainly valid and accurate to include a glossary of uncommonly used definitions for words or phrases the concept of accuracy is not really the goal in writing.
When conveying concepts the ideal goal is convey as much as possible of what is intended to convey in a framing that allows the target audience the best chance at traversing and understanding it.
This is the opposite of Voskuil’s effort. His work obfuscates the complexity of his presentation while being disguised as brevity.
