V God's Pride and Prejudice

Author: Liu Jiaolian

Overnight, BTC (Bitcoin) rebounded slightly to around 67.7k on the 5-day line. The day before yesterday, on May 31, Jiaolian’s internal reference “US core inflation slows down, which is good for the implementation of the easing cycle” [link] mentioned that Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin (V God) has published a new long article, the theme of which is about his “some reflections on the Bitcoin block war” [1].

The topic he talked about is, of course, well-known, the community war on Bitcoin expansion that broke out in 2017-2018. That violent conflict led to the tearing of the community, and a small group of people who supported the so-called “big block” split and hard forked out BCH (Bitcoin Cash). People’s hearts were scattered, and the bull market peaked. Then, in the second half of 2018, the notorious fraudster who pretended to be Satoshi Nakamoto, "Australian Satoshi", hard forked BCH again and created the so-called BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision). The market collapsed and entered the "valley of death" at the end of 2018. Countless crypto investors were swept up by this historical torrent and confused by the "grand narrative" of BCH and even BSV. They cleared their BTC positions and all-in (invested all) in these forked coins to pay for their own cognition and "ideals". Now, six years have passed. Are the graves of many "traitors" already two feet high?

Wu Jihan, who carried the banner of BCH separatism, has lost his Bitmain. Australian Satoshi, who used BSV to cheat, was also judged as a fraud by the court and fined worldwide.

V God, who was rejected for expanding BTC programming capabilities and left in anger to work on Ethereum (ETH), is still nagging about the "failure" of Bitcoin.

Only the leeks who have heavily invested in them and underperformed BTC are left in a mess. Some of the messy leeks have suffered from Stockholm syndrome and have turned to talking for them and deceiving themselves.

Character determines destiny, and cognition determines wealth. The character of the elite has changed the fate of millions of lives, and the cognition of the elite has affected the wealth of tens of thousands of people.

V God's arrogance and prejudice will inevitably lead people around the world who believe in him to pay for it.

The payers have to support the "pre-miners" in the initial coin issuance financing, the "foundation" that keeps shipping at high prices, and the "big capital" that earns interest by staking in PoS...

ETH has never had a stable token economic model, let alone a "hundred-year plan" like BTC's strict, concise, and beautiful issuance formula.

Because Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation he leads actually monopolize the most important "weapon" of the entire Ethereum ecosystem - hard fork.

In the view of Jiaolian, the hard fork that dominates Ethereum is the most important power that Vitalik wants to defend in this post, under the name of so-called objective and neutral reflection and slightly inclined to support large blocks.

For this reason, he did not hesitate to strongly oppose the prudent principle of Bitcoin core developers at that time, and even opposed the technical value of "soft fork is better than hard fork".

The monopoly of the power of Ethereum hard fork, the high-sounding reason on the surface is to continuously improve the technology, and the secret move under the table is to control and arbitrarily change the issuance rules of ETH - you guessed it right, perhaps this is also the real reason why Vitalik and the foundation have never officially clarified the issuance model of ETH, and do not seem to intend to learn from BTC to adopt a fixed model in the future.

"As long as I can control the issuance of a country's currency, I don't care who makes the laws." - Mayer Rothschild

The erudite Vitalik talked about the prisoner's dilemma model of game theory in the article, but kept silent. In the textbook "Game Theory", it is clearly pointed out that the higher the certainty of the currency issuance policy, the better the economic efficiency.

All of Bitcoin's technology is to defend its currency model, which has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Ethereum has developed so many cool technologies, just to defend its monopoly and dictatorship over the dominance and control of hard forks and currency issuance?

In order to emphasize the high-sounding reason of "technical improvement", Vitalik even wrote a section in his article "Less conflict, more technology" to criticize Bitcoin for "not making progress".

He wrote: The ultimate dissolution of political differences depends not on compromise, but on new technology.

He questioned Bitcoin: A key question for Bitcoin's future is whether Bitcoin can become a technologically advanced ecosystem. (One key question for Bitcoin going forward is, will Bitcoin be able to become a tech-forward ecosystem.) He used technology supremacy to veto what he called "Sellerism" (a term that should be created to mock the Bitcoin maximalism of MicroStrategy founder Mike Saylor). He claimed that he hoped that the approval of ETH's US ETF would lead to the death of Saylorism and prompt people to realize that Bitcoin needs to improve its technology. Jiaolian couldn't help laughing when he read this. It is ridiculous that a group of people who have been pretending to advocate decentralization and anti-censorship for many years actually used the approval of the US regulatory agency SEC to endorse their orthodoxy, rationality, and weapons to attack the Bitcoin community. Although Jiaolian is also a technician, he never believes in so-called technology.

"This is the so-called "weaponism", a mechanical theory in the war problem, and a subjective and one-sided view of the problem. Our opinion is the opposite. We see not only weapons, but also manpower. Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive factor. The decisive factor is people, not things." - Mao Zedong, "On Protracted War", May 1938

After 6 years, Vitalik is going to reverse the verdict on large blocks. He criticized the segwit (segregated witness) technology, although the technology made soft fork expansion possible, thus calming the debate of the year, allowing people who were arguing to quickly turn to supporting the soft fork segregated witness expansion plan and abandon the hard fork expansion plan. But Vitalik's article is to argue that hard fork expansion of block size is simpler and better.

He even brought out the forum speech of Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto that year to support his hard fork expansion theory. It is a bit funny that a person who opposes Bitcoin uses the words of the founder of Bitcoin to endorse his own views. This is similar to the claim by Craig Wright that he is the authentic thought of Satoshi Nakamoto and that the core developers of Bitcoin are all revisionists.

However, in his article, he "pretended" to turn a blind eye to the current adoption rate of more than 95% of Segregated Witness.

Vitalik also sighed and lamented that the big block faction was "unsatisfactory" in terms of technical research and development capabilities. He also indirectly acknowledged a historical fact, that is, the group of people who engaged in separatism and hard fork big blocks at that time were not technically strong, kept messing up, and lost the hearts of the people.

But he just wanted to misinterpret this fact and conduct a wrong historical reflection. What he saw was not the objective impracticability of infinitely large blocks, but the inability of the people who created large blocks. This is idealism, not historical materialism. Vitalik even used his traditional art of "inventing slang" to turn the incompetence of the betrayers upside down and came up with a cool phrase called "one-sided competence trap". Good guy, even the five-star general of the United States, MacArthur, had to say "good guy" when he saw it! It turns out that the incompetence of the big block faction who engages in separatism is all due to the so-called Bitcoin core developers who support small blocks being too technically capable and too competent in Bitcoin development! So this becomes "one-sided competence" instead of competence on both sides. Vitalik has given a definition, which is very bad, it is a "trap"! "Trap", students!

He said that because of this one-sided difference in competence, Bitcoin has fallen into "authoritarianism". Is criticizing Bitcoin for falling into authoritarianism to whitewash Ethereum's dictatorship?

Isn't it because excellent talents with strong technical capabilities are more rational and objective, and have made the right "side" and historical "choice"? Does Vitalik know what it means to be in the hearts of the people? If the big block faction is not so lame, speculating and separatism are written on its face, why can't it attract better talents than the original Bitcoin maintainers?

Because it is unpopular and cannot attract talents, it is not competent. It must be said that because it is incompetent and cannot make good things, it loses the hearts of the people. Isn't this just confusing cause and effect, and reversing black and white?

In a deeper sense, people who believe that the masses create history are easy to recognize the former narrative logic (people's historical view). Those who believe that the elites create history will attribute everything to the latter narrative logic (elite historical view). Vitalik is eloquent in the narrative logic of the latter elitism.

The narrative of the elite historical view is the narrative of the capitalist ruling class. The people are a mob and must be used and fed by the elites. Without capitalists, who will pay the workers? Is it the workers who work overtime and earn excess profits to support the capitalists, or is it the capitalists who pay the workers and feed the workers?

Therefore, we can see very clearly that Vitalik is deeply trapped in the mainstream ideology of this era, while Satoshi Nakamoto is beyond the present era.

Ethereum and Bitcoin, created by their completely different ideas, are not products of the same era and level at all.

Vitalik, who is calling for the expansion of the hard fork, will only rush to firmly deny and oppose an objective fact when talking about whether "miners" should lead the hard fork: hard forks can be implemented if miners reach a sufficiently broad consensus.

Why? Because Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation use various means, including the difficulty bomb, including the promotion of the so-called "orthodoxy", to kidnap the miner group technically and ideologically, and firmly grasp the dominance of the hard fork in the hands of the foundation.

On the one hand, you have to advocate that hard forks are good, and on the other hand, you have to be vigilant against other forces usurping power. This is the distorted mentality of the feudal "imperial power". In order to monopolize the dominance of hard forks and then control the issuance of currency, it can be said that everything is done, just like the feudal emperor, who holds the power of life and death, but can never sleep.

Vitalik may be a good comrade with pure thoughts and no desire for power. However, when Ethereum started to pre-mine tokens to issue coins for financing, and when Ethereum PoS deposited coins to earn interest, he and the leaders of Ethereum had already introduced the ghost of capitalism into Ethereum. Once this ghost enters, it will parasitize everyone's brain, blood and bone marrow, and it will never be removed.

And all Vitalik's remarks, on the surface, are what he wants to say, but in fact he is just speaking for this ghost; on the surface, he talks about technology, but in fact he defends the fundamental interests of this ghost; on the surface, he is calling for the souls of the Bitcoin big block faction, but in fact he is just clarifying, defending and whitewashing the ultimate ruling power of the Ethereum ghost by leading the hard fork and then monopolizing the control of currency.

However, we should still believe that the eyes of the people are sharp. History will eventually give its fair judgment.