Roger Ver is Clearly Correct: Bitcoin Cash is a Better Cash Than Bitcoin
Roger Ver has been going around trying to get into (political) debates about the difference between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. I want to highlight a couple of problems and not just with Ver. You can watch the video below to get an example but if you will only watch it once perhaps wait until I have explained my subsequent points.
On the Impartial Observer and the Ignorant Observer
I often explain and use the concept of the impartial observer in debate. The idea is that you can keep an opponent to a certain level of sincerity in their arguments if they at least believe that there is sincere impartial observers watching (obviously the more observers and the more significant they are the better).
Ver is playing on this, however, it is as much a ruse as it is a tool he is using. The real observer he is speaking to is the ignorant observer. People that don’t have enough information and experience on the subject to see that he is playing a game of politics.
He is using political rhetoric to speak to the ignorant observer and he is VERY good at it. The problem is that core devs and supporters are not good at it and their credibility and reputations preclude them from using this rhetoric back.
Credible people (generally) must use sharp and direct logic and hope that enough sincere impartial observers eventually understand the reason. If they use political rhetoric they start to lose their credibility for being “rational” and sincere.
On Requesting an Of Camera Debate
Roger’s opponent in the middle of the “interview” talks about how he is not good at speaking on camera and offers to spend more time off camera in sincere discussion. The problem is that this doesn’t speak to anyone but those that already understand his points.
It plays into Roger’s hands as he can simply show ignorant observers that “these people won’t even talk to me in public”. The only people such an offer lends credibility to are those that already know who is being sincere.
And demanding at the end to rescind permission for Roger to make the interview public was an incredibly erroneous game theoretical play.
Don’t play politics with Ver if you are going to be this bad at it.
On Bitcoin Versus Bitcoin Cash
Roger Ver’s general argument is an attempt to make two points 1) Bitcoin Cash is cheaper and faster than Bitcoin and 2) The Bitcoin Whitepaper describes Bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash.
Then the implied “therefore” is: THEREFORE Bitcoin Cash is the real vision of Satoshi (ie Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin).
On The Political Vector of Attack Ver Is Exploiting
Core devs and Core supporters (or more accurately Bitcoin supporters rather than Bitcoin Cash supporters) are generally not strong in economics. It is part of the design of Bitcoin that the devs and supporters don’t necessarily have to look beyond their own specialized expertise to lend strength to Bitcoin’s robust nature.
However, this leaves the implied politically based security leak open that Ver is exploiting.
As a politician (or rhetorician like Andreas A.) you don’t have to be knowledgeable on a subject to harness ignorance-to convince ignorant people-you just have to know how to play on common knowledge and only enter debate with opponents who are not much stronger than you on the subject (of economics).
The Resolution of the Blockchain War
What is needed is a concession. I called for it before but much of the clique of maximalists are happy to have drowned and muted my argument and to have kept it from the purview of sincere impartial observers.
The mistakes maximalists made was attending to Ver’s argument by countering it.
Sayings like “Bitcoin WILL be cash as the layer 2 lightning channel technology arises” has only strengthened his ability to imply and argue that fast confirmations and low fees are the meaningful aspects that Bitcoin needs.
The proper economic observation is that high value settlement is Bitcoin’s greatest use-case and that low fee and fast transactions is a petty use-case.
In understanding this the resolution (not re-solution) is to simply concede to Roger that Bitcoin Cash is a better cash by Roger’s Definition.
Bitcoin Cash Cannot Serve As A High Value Settlement Mechanism
We turn to John Nash’s Ideal Money in order to understand how Bitcoin Cash cannot serve what Bitcoin can:
We can see that times could change, especially if a “miracle energy source” were found, and thus if a good ICPI is constructed, it should not be expected to be valid as initially defined for all eternity. It would instead be appropriate for it to be regularly readjusted depending on how the patterns of international trade would actually evolve.
Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.
To introduce the concept of externally decided adjustment to the system and mechanisms that created Bitcoin and keep it going introduces the problem of political attack that John Nash outlines in regard to a conceptual ICPI.
The argument of Bitcoin Cashers has always been that the blocksize isn’t optimal (for petty transactions) and thus needs to be adjusted externally. Their greatest complaint is that Bitcoin’s governance structure has made it completely impossible to affect this metric.
This is why Bitcoin Cash exists-because of the frustration that Bitcoin can’t change and because (on it’s inception) Bitcoin Cash DID change the blocksize metric (mechanism etc.)
A Note On Core and Bitcoin Maximalists Politically Based Stance
The maximalist side the general opponents of Ver and Bitcoin Cash refuse to invoke the proper argument that would “give the baby his bottle” by conceding Bitcoin Cash is a better cash because they do not want to lose the narrative that hyperbitcoinization (a world in which Bitcoin is the sole or main currency individuals use) to Nashification (a world in which layers of different issuers money function on top of Bitcoin as a settlement/reserve currency).
This ignorance and unwillingness has created a perpetual political attack vector for Bitcoin and thus Bitcoin cannot reach its his highest potential and value as it cannot serve as the basis for Nash’s argument until this security leak is attended to.
On Why Roger Ver Will Never Engage In Debate With Me Publically
Ver will never address my arguments or debate me because he knows I understand economics FAR better than he does. He knows I can show the impartial AND sincere observers exactly how he twists words and truths in order to make misleading implications and statements.
I am also a far better political rhetorician than he is.
It is notable that he is constantly talking about how r/bitcoin on reddit is very censorship heavy and that r/btc is not. But what he won’t tell you is that I am banned from r/btc because it is well known I can convince sincere Bitcoin Cash supporters that Bitcoin Cash is a petty political movement meant only to usurp Bitcoin to give power over the development to the likes of Roger Ver.