V God's Pride and Prejudice

Overnight, BTC (Bitcoin) rebounded slightly to around 67.7k on the 5-day moving average. The day before yesterday, on May 31, the internal reference of the Education Chain, “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 over Bitcoin expansion that broke out in 2017-2018. That violent conflict led to the tearing of the community. A small group of people who supported the so-called "big blocks" 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 "Australian Satoshi" who pretended to be Satoshi Nakamoto hard forked again on the basis of BCH 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 in this historical tide, confused by the "grand narrative" of BCH and even BSV, and liquidated their BTC positions, all-in (invested) their entire fortunes in these forked coins, paying for their own cognition and "ideals". Now, six years have passed, and the grass on the graves of many "traitors" has grown two feet high?

Wu Jihan, who carried the banner of BCH separatism, has lost his Bitmain. Craig Wright, who used BSV to cheat people, was also convicted as a liar by the court and fined worldwide.

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

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

Character determines destiny, and cognition determines wealth. The character of the elite changes the destiny of millions of lives, and the cognition of the elite affects the wealth of tens of thousands of people.

Vitalik’s arrogance and prejudice will inevitably cause people all over the world who believe in him to pay the price.

Those who pay the bills need to support the “pre-miners” during the initial coin issuance financing, the “foundations” that continuously sell at high prices, and the “big capital” that stakes in PoS to earn interest and profit, etc.

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

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

In Jiaolian’s view, the hard fork that dominates Ethereum is the most important power that Vitalik wants to defend in this post under the guise of so-called objective and neutral reflection and a slight tendency to support large blocks.

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

The reason for monopolizing the power of Ethereum hard fork is to continuously improve the technology, but the secret move behind the scenes is to control and arbitrarily change the issuance rules of ETH - you guessed it right, perhaps this is 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 currency of a country, I don’t care who makes the laws.” - Mayer Rothschild

The knowledgeable Vitalik talked a lot about the prisoner's dilemma model in game theory in the article, but he did not mention that in the textbook "Game Theory", it is clearly pointed out that the higher the certainty of the monetary issuance policy, the better the economic efficiency.

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

In order to emphasize the high-sounding reason of "technological improvement", Vitalik even wrote a section in his article titled "Less conflict, more technology" to criticize Bitcoin for its "lack of ambition".

He wrote: The ultimate diffuser of political tension is not compromise, but rather new technology.

He questioned Bitcoin: One key question for Bitcoin going forward is, will Bitcoin be able to become a tech-forward ecosystem.

He used technological supremacism 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 but laugh 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 legitimacy and rationality, as well as a weapon to attack the Bitcoin community.

Although Jiaolian is also a technician, he never believes in so-called technocracy.

"This is the so-called 'weapons-only theory', a mechanistic view of the question of war, a subjective and one-sided view of the question. Our view 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 overturn the verdict on large blocks again. He criticized the segwit (segregated witness) technology, although the technology made soft fork expansion possible, thus calming the debate of the year, and making people who were arguing quickly turn to supporting the soft fork segregated witness expansion plan and abandon the hard fork expansion plan. But Vitalik believes in the article that hard fork expansion of block size is simpler and better.

He even brought out a forum speech by the founder of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, to support his hard fork expansion theory. It is a bit funny for a person who opposes Bitcoin to use 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 fact that the current adoption rate of Segregated Witness is over 95%.

Vitalik also sighed, lamenting 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 did not have strong technology, kept messing up, and lost the support of the people.

But he just wants to misinterpret this fact and conduct a wrong historical reflection. He does not see the objective impracticability of infinitely large blocks, but attributes its failure to the technical incompetence of those who build large blocks. This is talking about idealism instead of historical materialism.

Vitalik even resorted to his traditional skill of inventing jargon to distort the incompetence of the betrayer, and came up with a cool phrase called the "one-sided competence trap."

Good guy, even US five-star general MacArthur would have called out "good guy" when he saw it! It turns out that the incompetence of the big block faction that engages in separatism is all due to the so-called Bitcoin core developers who support small blocks being too technically capable and too competent for Bitcoin development! So this becomes "one-sided competence" instead of both sides being competent. Vitalik has given a definition, which is very bad, it is a "trap"! "Trap", students!

He said that this one-sided difference in competence has led Bitcoin to fall into "authoritarianism." Is criticizing Bitcoin for falling into authoritarianism an attempt to whitewash Ethereum's authoritarianism?

Isn’t it because the excellent talents with strong technical ability are more rational and objective, and have made the right “side” and historical “choice”? Does Vitalik know what it means to follow the will of the people? If the big block faction is not so lame, with speculation and separatism written on its face, why can’t it attract more outstanding talents than the original Bitcoin maintainers?

Because they are unpopular and cannot attract talent, they are not competent. They insist on saying that they lose the hearts of the people because they are incompetent and cannot produce good things. Isn't this confusing cause and effect and confusing right and wrong?

On a deeper level, people who believe that the masses create history are likely to agree with the former narrative logic (people's view of history). People who believe that the elites create history will attribute everything to the latter narrative logic (elite view of history). Vitalik's eloquence is precisely the latter elitist narrative logic.

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 elite. 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 them?

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

Ethereum and Bitcoin, which were created based on their completely different ideas, are not products of the same era or the same level at all.

Vitalik, who is calling for the hard fork expansion, only hurriedly and firmly denies and opposes an objective fact when talking about whether "miners" should lead the hard fork: a hard fork can be implemented if a sufficiently broad consensus is reached among miners.

Why? Because Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation have used various means, including the difficulty bomb and the promotion of so-called "orthodoxy", to technically and ideologically hijack the miners and firmly control the dominance of the hard fork in the hands of the foundation.

On the one hand, they want to promote the idea that hard forks are good, but on the other hand, they must always 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, they will do anything to achieve their goal, just like the feudal emperor, who holds the power of life and death but cannot sleep peacefully.

Vitalik may be a good comrade with pure thoughts and no desire for power. However, when Ethereum started to pre-mine tokens for financing, and when Ethereum PoS earned interest on deposits, 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 can no longer be removed.

All of 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 is talking about technology, but in fact, he is defending the fundamental interests of this ghost; on the surface, he is calling back the spirits 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 monopolizing the control of currency by leading the hard fork.

However, we should still believe that the people have sharp eyes and history will eventually give its fair judgment.