V God fully responds to the currency security BSV: 4 characters long text, 4 major points (full text)
"The removal will not make people unable to trade BSV, but it does cause the society to strongly condemn the BSV, which is useful and necessary."
"Fullly agree and support the removal of the BSV."
On April 15, the company announced that the removal of the BSV caused hot discussions in the industry. On the occasion of many exchanges and industry celebrities have expressed their views, the founder of Ethereum V God also clarified the point of view.
In addition, V God also responded to the criticism of the outside world against the BSV. He pointed out that freedom of speech is a topic that plagues many people. Consider writing an article to talk about this topic.
On the same day, V God posted a long text titled "On Freedom of Speech" through a personal blog, which fully presented his views on the cryptographic community's remarks, the positive conflict with Oban, and the advantages and disadvantages of the BSV. The full text contains 4 major points:
4. V God believes that opposing centralization only makes people aware that centralization is harmful and abused, and does not make people object to everything that is done by centralization.
The following is the full text of the V God blog, compiled exclusively by Mars Finance:
"A sentence can be both real and dangerous. This is the case in the previous sentence." – David Friedman
Freedom of speech is an issue that many Internet communities have been trying to defend over the past 20 years. The cryptocurrency and blockchain communities, which are primarily concerned with resistance to review, pay particular attention to freedom of speech. In the past few years, the encryption community has experienced rapid growth, and the high financial and social risks have repeatedly verified the application and limitations of this concept. In this article, I hope to unravel some of the contradictions and at the same time give an example of what the real "freedom of speech" standard is.
Freedom of Speech Act vs. Freedom of Speech
A common, but frustrating, view to me is that the Freedom of Speech Act specifically refers to legal restrictions that governments can take on actions against private entities without any explanation. The private entities it covers include companies, private platforms, Internet forums and industry conferences. In the encryption community, the typical case of “private review” is the “Theymos” resolution – Theymos, the moderator of the Reddit community/r/bitcoin sub-section, decided to strictly review the section, prohibiting members from discussing bitcoin hard forks to increase transaction capacity.
△ Translation: You can promote BIP 101 as an idea, but you can't (in the /r/bitcoin Bitcoin forum) do the promotion in actual use. Bitcoin is not a democracy, nor a miner, nor a node. Switching to XT is not a vote for BIP 101. It becomes a separate network/currency after abandoning bitcoin. It is good that you have the freedom to do it. One of the particularly good qualities of Bitcoin is its lack of democracy. Even if 99% of people use Bitcoin, you still have the freedom to implement BIP 101 on a separate currency, without being exploited by other Bitcoin users to use the real bitcoin network/currency. But I am not obligated to open a forum branch of Bitcoin on reddit's Bitcoin forum, and I am not prepared to do so.
John Blocke organizes the review schedule for the Reddit community/r/bitcoin subsection
Here are the posts posted by Reddit moderator Theymos to defend their regulatory decisions.
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/), this post contains the notorious resolution – "If 90% of users in the /r/bitcoin subsection think this The agreement is unacceptable, then I will let 90% of the users leave."
The common practice for those who support the Theymos review decision is to offer the argument that strict management is no problem, because the /r/bitcoin sub-section is a "private forum" for Theymos, and he has the right to do whatever he wants here. People who don't like can go to other forums.
△ Translation: Party: I hope that the Bitcoin core team can recover the losses caused by Theymos, Bitcoin can rely on decentralization. What can the community rely on?
Neo: Theymos created a private forum that has nothing to do with the Bitcoin core developer team. The community relies on bitcoin, so let's stay decentralized.
△ Translation: BCH is not subject to censorship. It has its own Reddit sub-section (and its own network), which you can discuss above. To equate the review of the Bitcoin Reddit Forum with the usual review mechanism seems to prove that most of the above is political. Everyone is not censored in a particular private community. If BCH relies on itself (and we hope so), then we don't need to review it. Those who think they need it don't make BCH a success, they want to control bitcoin. Therefore, it is meaningful to prohibit people with such motives.
Layer2 is a scalable solution. I don't think the future will become like this?
Well, Theymos moderator manages his forum in this way, and does not destroy any laws. But for most people, there is still something in this management that could undermine freedom of speech. This shows what? First of all, recognizing that freedom of speech is not just a country's law, it is also a social principle. This is very important. The fundamental goal of social principles is the same as the basic goal of law, which is to create a discussion environment. In this kind of discussion environment, good ideas can win the public's ideas, not the ideas that high-powered people admire. Government power is not the only power that people want to protect, but it also includes the company's ability to dismiss a staff member, Internet forum moderators the right to delete posts, and various other forms of hard and soft power.
So what are the basic social principles? Quote the description of Eliezer Yudkowsky:
"In the rational art of human beings, there are very few bans. There are no (computer language) if, and, but or disclaimers. This is one of them. Bad views will be rebutted, but they will not be shot. Kill. Forever, forever, forever, no."
According to the Slatestarcodex website:
"What exactly does the "bullet" mentioned in the previous quotation mean? Does the package exclude other projectiles? Arrows, melee weapons such as boulders thrown from the slingers, swords or mace?? About "Inappropriate Response to Arguments" Where should we demarcate the boundaries? When a debate occurs, a good response is a point of view that clarifies its ideas; a bad argument makes it completely silent. If you try to clarify an idea, success depends on this. How good is the idea; on the other hand, if you want to keep silent, success depends on your strength. "shooting and shooting" can really silence a person without solving the dispute. Similarly, from the stone Throwing a boulder, killing someone with a sword, and summoning a mob who wields a pitchfork can effectively extinguish an idea. Because someone holds a different idea and tries to fire him, it is actually extinguished if the problem cannot be solved. One of the ways of thinking."
This means that in some cases, the basic premise of the “safe space” is that – for whatever reason, people who do not want to face a particular point of view can get together. (As a representative case of "safe space"), the most harmless person may be a community like ethresear.ch. Its posts will only be banned when it is "off the subject" to ensure that the discussion will not collapse. However, the "safe space" also has its dark side, as written by Ken White:
"(You) may be surprised, I am a supporter of "safe space." The reason why I support safe space is because I advocate the idea of "free link." If you only design according to the established way, "safe space" may be just An application of the "free link" idea…but not everyone thinks that "safe space" should grow like this. Some people think of it as a sword, thinking that if used properly, "safe space" will become a public space. Effective supplementation requires people in the space to comply with their private norms. (It is important to be clear that this is not freedom of association."
Haha. Therefore, creating your own "safe space" in a small corner is fine, but you also need to consider "public space." Any attempt to turn "public space" into a "safe space" for special interests is wrong. So, what is "public space"? It is clear that public space is not just a space owned or operated by the government, it also includes private public spaces. Private public space is also a complete public space. Private public space Because of its informality, some words and deeds can be treated relatively more tolerant. This phenomenon also conforms to the common moral intuition. For example, when someone publishes a racial or gender-discriminatory statement in a private setting, its impact is not so bad compared to the public. As far as the case of the Reddit community/r/bitcoin sub-section is concerned, no matter who is the big moderator on the program, there is no way to deny the fact that this sub-section is a public space. The following evidence can prove this:
▶ It occupies the “primary real estate”, especially the theme of “bitcoin”. This makes people think that this is the default place to discuss bitcoin;
▶The value of this sub-section is not only created by the Theymos moderator, but also by thousands of users who discuss Bitcoin here. This shows that here and now, it has become a public space to discuss Bitcoin;
▶ For many people, the management protocol changes of Theymos moderators are unexpected, and this obviously cannot be foreseen in advance.
Conversely, if they create a sub-section called /r/bitcoinsmallblockers and explicitly indicate that it is the exclusive space for a few node proponents and does not welcome the discussion of hard-forked disputes, it is estimated that few people will feel wrong now. It is just that no one has pointed out that even people with opposite ideologies should have room for internal discussion. In reality, however, they attempted to “take public space as their own and also require others in the space to abide by their private norms”. For these reasons, we have seen that the Bitcoin community has split due to differences in block size, and there has been a sharp technical fork, which has finally formed a cold peace between BTC and BCH.
Go to platform
About a year ago, at the Deconomy Summit, I made a public call to Ao Ben Cong, a liar who claimed to be Nakamoto, questioning the organizer "why allowed this liar to speak at the summit" and explained "why I think Oban’s speech is meaningless.”
Of course, Okamoto’s advocates also responded to me with an article called “Reviewed Allegations”:
△ Translation: Why is Craig White (Obene Cong) allowed to speak at such a conference? V God suggests that the university degree of Dr. White (Ao Ben Cong) is not true.
The issue itself is shocking enough, but even more shocking is the initiative of Zhai Yongquan to agree to the review mechanism in public. Reviewing others' views is exactly why Blockstream and the Bitcoin core development team have been sued by many people, including directly in the debate on Bitcoin Jesus Roger Ver. Now it is the turn of the eternal power. Before the public, he advocated ban on the speech of others.
I am trying to make Ao Ben Cong "shut up"? of course not. Some people may refute me and say, "Oh, the Deconomy summit is not a public space." But I want to say that the industry summit is completely different from the Internet forum. Internet forums can be a completely neutral medium, no matter what happens. But the industry summit is essentially a list of planned speeches, limited presentation time is carefully assigned, and those who are fortunate enough to speak have received a lot of attention. The Industry Summit is an “editing” activity organized by the organizers to convey the organizer’s intent – “There are ideas and ideas that we think are worth knowing and listening to”. Each industry summit “reviews” the views of all speakers because there is not enough opportunity for everyone to speak. This is a fixed pattern of industry summits. Therefore, it is absolutely legal to object to the candidates of the meeting (I am at the Deconomy Summit).
This extends to other types of selective platforms. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been independently selected with the recommendation algorithm, which determines which content is more likely to be recommended to users. These platforms are usually operated for their own benefit, with the goal of maximizing user involvement. In general, these practices will bring some unexpected negative effects, such as conspiracy theories that make the "Earth is flat" popular. Therefore, considering that these platforms have initiated (automatic) personalized recommendations, the recommendations are directed to the government's more recognized pro-social goals, and it is therefore excusable for the outside world to blame them. Of course, the “Censorship System” does not seriously hinder people from understanding the story of Oban, and you can still visit their website (https://coingeek.com/). In short, if someone has already run a platform that outputs edited content, it seems reasonable to have them output more prosocial-standard content to the same extent.
The latest case in line with this principle is Twitter's “Under BSV” campaign. Some cryptocurrency exchanges have announced the removal of BSV transactions (Austra has dominated bitcoin forks), the most famous of which is the Onan Exchange. Many people (including some rationalists) therefore condemned the underlying BSV as a censorship system, even taking it and credit card companies to prevent WikiLeaks from being compared:
△ Translation: This phenomenon indicates that the cryptocurrency community is committed to confronting censorship, getting rid of agency and discrimination, and perhaps deciding to have the power to make rule review.
Transfer of power, not power.
I personally have been a critics of the hegemony of centralized exchanges. So this time, will I oppose the "Under BSV" campaign based on the principle of freedom of speech? No, I support it.
Many participants in the "BSV" campaign like the Kraken Exchange are not the kind of platform for "doing everything." They have made a lot of decisions about which tokens to accept and which tokens to reject. Kraken only accepts a few tokens, and they passively "review" almost all projects. The Shapeshift exchange supports more currencies, but it does not support SPAK or even KNC. Therefore, in the two cases of Kraken and Shapeshift, the BSV is more like redistributing scarce resources (attention/legality) than reviewing projects. The currency is somewhat different. It follows the concept of everything, and it does accept a larger amount of cryptocurrency. As a market leader with a lot of liquidity, it also has its unique position.
Therefore, some people raised doubts about the currency against two points. First, when they threatened critics such as Peter McCormack with legal letters, censorship is retaliating against the real malicious censorship of core members of the BSV community. In the "anarchic" environment, people's understanding of the norm is very different. The physical revenge of "returning teeth" is a better social norm because it ensures that people will only face punishment in a certain sense. Punishment in turn proves that what they believe is legitimate. In addition, the removal will not make it difficult for people to trade BSV, and the encrypted exchange Coinex has indicated that it will not be removed from the BSV (in fact, I also oppose the exchange "freely" off the token). But the removal of the frame does trigger a strong condemnation of the BSV by the society, which is useful and necessary. So far, there is reason to support all exchanges under the BSV. Despite some thoughts, (I found the opponents) out of the "freedom of speech" and advocated that the currency will give up the BSV. There is indeed some truth.
In short, opposition to centralization is usually reasonable. But centralization is always there, so please use the power of concentration for what you think is pro-social (see Brian Kaplan's discussion on coordinating support for open borders and supporting anti-Ebola restrictions) . Opposition to centralization only makes people believe that these centralizations are harmful and abused, and that people are not opposed to everything that these centralizations do.
If someone manages to create a decentralized exchange that does not require any permissions and supports cross-chain transactions, facilitating transactions between all assets, then the exchange “on the currency” does not need to use social networks to release promotional information, because everyone can "On the currency." I support such an exchange even if it allows users to trade BSVs. What I support is that the BSV has been removed from the exclusive position, which is given a higher legitimacy than the simple one.
So the conclusion is that even in unofficial public places, it is not good to review it; in a real private space (especially the non-"default" space of the community), it can be reviewed; it is rejected because it refuses access to a project. This is very bad; it is no problem because the project lacks legitimacy and rejects it.
This article is intended to provide more market information and does not constitute any investment advice.
Author: Vitalik Buterin (V God)
Translator: Du Huitang , Xing Juan, Liang Yushan, Mars Finance
Article source: https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/04/16/free_speech.html