Prologue: A brief analysis of Core Ideology

I do not recommend engaging a Bitcoin Core Ideologue. Nonetheless, you will invariably find yourself locking horns at some point and so it is important to be prepared for battle.

The only reason to “debate” a Core ideolgue is to try and convince anyone who is listening that:

Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. The ideologue in question is dogmatic, unreasonable, and not to be trusted.

Technocrats are not interested in your opinion and they are not open to new ideas or the possibility of having their minds changed in light of evidence.

What they are interested in is framing you as a fool, or as a victim of 'propaganda'—that is all.

Their views are based on the latest transmissions from the Central Core Command Party (CCCP) . Their method is almost exclusively based on personally attacking enemies of the Core/Lightning/Blockstream cult. These dogmatic beliefs are not based on any rational or consistent foundation such as like economics, history, or product design—much less the Bitcoin Whitepaper.

Once you display an ability to parry their basic, inflammatory claims or to target their hypocrisy they will shift from the topic-at-hand and begin to assault your character or motivations. This is because they feel threatened—exposed—and thus respond accordingly, from fear.

Remember, the only reason to talk to this type of person is if someone else, who might be open to reason, is listening.

N.B.The following tips are to be used only when you are playing for keeps. Do not use these tips with friends or coworkers because they will probably not like you very much afterward and might even resent you for pointing out their errors of judgement.

1. Walk toward the fight

The Core high priests know this is war. They also know that informed Bitcoin Cash users are the enemy.

You will be flamed, censored, and defamed. You will get punched. Be ready. This is because Core Ideology doesn’t win through sound argumentation. It doesn't win by citing history or learning from mistakes. It wins by using classic authoritarian tools of agitprop, censorship, intimidation, astroturfing, and name-calling to create:

An army of dogmatic zealots (most of whom are astroturf). A gallery of boogeymen whose words and deeds must never be considered and who the "real bitcoiners" aka the zealots must unequivocally oppose, always.

2. Throw down immediately

Don’t take the first punch. Dodge and counter with a first punch of your own. Hit where it counts. Point out their blatant hypocrisy. When a Corey starts blabbing about “bcash” and how "it a scam' or "fraud" ask them why referring to Bitcoin Cash as "bcash", a word that doesn't correspond to any coin listed on any exchange, product, service, or wallet, is not fraud or a scam. They will double-down on the name-calling. They will probably say terrible things. Again, this will reveal the scared, insecure, and tribal nature that dwells within them which is a turn-off to any neutral, rational third-party observer.

Oftentimes, you have only one shot to put someone down for the count from the beginning of these kinds of “debates”. If done properly, you can finish them within the first 30 seconds after which your opponent will rage-quit or “go to do something better with their time”.

N.B: I do not actually mean to use physical violence against anyone, ideologue or otherwise. This is a metaphor.

3. Disarm your opponent

Their entire playbook consists of a single play: negatively characterizing your character and avoiding economic or theoretical discussion. All they have is virtue-signalling to other ideologies. This does not play well with neutral third-parties who are interested in hearing ideas, not tribal tropes and inside defamation jokes.

Favorite targets: Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Craig Wright, "The Chinese", BCH accepting merchants, or even yourself—obviously just a pawn or "shill" for the aforementioned "known scammers". This "boogeyman" tactic is incredibly effective on weak minds, hence the proliferation of /r/bitcoin as nothing more than a Two-minute Hate ritual to continually unite the faithful against these "boogeymen".

The only way to get beyond character arguments is to disarm your opponent—remove their weapons. Make it difficult for your opponent to slur you or Bitcoin (cash) by brushing off the hateful rhetoric and always returning to asking them questions. Then, you can move the 'debate' to more substantive discussion. There is no way to convince someone that you, in fact, “don’t work for the Chinese” once they set you up as a “shill”. Do not get bogged down trying to rebuke their straw men and false characterizations. Focus on convincing the audience that the ideologue’s position is fraught with contradiction, resentment, ad hominem, dogma, or flat-out lies.

Reminder: Core’s favorite three lines of attack:

Your opinion doesn't matter because you are not a Blockstream developer.

You’re a Chinese miner or Roger (or shill thereof) looking to take control of Bitcoin.

You’re a con-artist/scammer/Bitcoin-traitor.

Through the lens of this ideology a typical ideologue, maybe named Corey, might hold the following opinions:

The average $BCH user is supposedly "stupid".

Non-mining view-only nodes contribute to "decentralizing" and "securing" the network.

Jihan Wu is supposedly leading an army of miners and trying to take over Bitcoin and enshrine 'miner-centralization'.

Roger Ver is supposedly a scamming con-artist.

Take away these lines of attack by asking questions that lead to contradictions then wait and watch as the discomfort sets in and the name-calling begins.

4. Control the debate by defining the terms used

Do not begin by tacitly accepting fallacies based on words the definitions of which you both do not agree. Ask people to "define Bitcoin", "define consensus", "define centralization", "what is the difference between a successful businessman, early adopter, and a "scammer", etc. It’s impossible to argue against unsettled terms. This is because they will change the term's meaning at each turn. This is why it’s important that you snuff-out any use of buzzwords quickly by establishing what he/she means when he/she says "X" and holding them to their word throughout the entire discussion.It is a losing proposition to argue against a pool of quicksand that spits out nonsensical terms, red-herrings, and lines of thought that can be turned/used against you. Don’t accept the premises of their straw man, ad hominem, or appeal-to-authority arguments.

5. Be ready to call-out inconsistencies

Their positions are packed with inconsistencies and contradictions inherent to the narrow worldview of a small-blocker.This is because very few loyalists will reveal or admit to their actual agenda, which is often quite extreme. Ideologues prefer to argue from red-herrings and talking points in which they don’t truly believe but are expedient to their goals.There are potentially endless inconsistencies in Core’s stated positions that contradict their actual fundamental principles. Plan to expose these inconsistencies, and plan to make these double-thinkers admit once and for all what they actually believe and what they actually want.Some classic examples:

Miners don’t matter... until they choose to mine another chain, at which point they are attacking Bitcoin by leaving it alone.

Everyone needs to be able to run a full node on $5 consumer hardware, but $100 transaction fees are a good thing.

Everyone needs to validate their own transactions! But bitcoin will scale through “off-chain” solutions where users rely on trusted third parties.

Bitcoin Core nodes demonstrate consensus! But all other nodes are clearly “fake sybil attacks” being sprung by the Chinese miners.

Bitcoin Cash can't compare with the transaction volume of BTC...but BTC transactions are all spam (of the Chinese).

6. Force ideologues to answer questions

Ideologues are only comfortable in the driver seat, when they get to ask the questions, or when they can feign concern by sea-lion ing their interlocutor into submission. Force them to answer questions. Watch as they to scratch their heads and get frustrated. Soon after they will pick up their toys and go home, but not before dropping some insults or calling you a name, or telling you they need to "get back to building things” or "shipping code". This is what pathological resentment does to an otherwise healthy mind, it's called projection . The sensible, objective part of their mind wants to agree with reason, but their selfish ego and tribalism prevents this.

7. Do not go down the rabbit hole

Do not try to make sense of, or even refute, their dogmatic incantations. Dodge this roadblock by seeing it well ahead of time. You may notice that when speaking with someone plagued by Core cancer that every time you begin to make a point, the Ideologue begins hysterically ranting about, " muh miner centralization! " or some other lark: Bitcoiner: “But why did Core refuse to develop on-chain scaling? Seems Bitcoin Cash thrived based on Blockstream’s smug disrespect for being questioned teamed with a lack of vision.” Corey: “Because there was no consensus! Roger and his bcash scam Jihan-minercoin are an attack on the network! Only Lightning Network and Segwit can save Bitcoin from scammer zillionaires! Gmax said so. Just wait 18 months™ you shill!” Don’t be tricked. There is no need to follow this rabbit-clown down into his rabbit hole. Arguing with these people is like attempting to nail jello to the wall. It’s slippery and messy and a waste of time. They are entrenched. Always return to forcing them to answer your or others' honest questions.

8. You are not required to defend all big-blockers

Bitcoin (cash) supporters get trapped in this gambit often, likely because they figure that the enemy of their enemy is always their friend. BCH supporters think that if someone attacks someone on "their side", then that person must be worth defending, in all instances. This is an error. Don’t be a sycophant. Don’t follow people. Follow principle—Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin!

9. If you don’t know something, admit It

Don’t get caught in the trap of believing you have to know everything about Bitcoin in order to stick it to someone who is mouthing-off about how Lightning Network is only 18 months™ away and will destroy Bitcoin Cash once and for all.Your opponent will undoubtedly know something you don’t. It’s fair to simply state, “Oh, I didn’t know that, but I’ll be happy to research and get back to you”.Side-note: don’t bring up a topic with which you aren’t at least passingly familiar.

10. Let them have their meaningless victories

Ideologues prize their moral superiority and technocratic adherence to the party line above all else; by granting them a meaningless point or two here and there, you can nip their ad hominems in the bud and move the talks away from whether or not you are, in fact, “a radical Chinese mining-centralist BCH shill duped by propaganda” or not. Say something like, "Both subreddits can exhibit qualities echo chambers but I want what's best for Bitcoin, don't you?" or "Is high-fee coin what you signed up for?"If someone engages you on how to best scale Bitcoin, your answer should be that you are for scaling Bitcoin and see it as a way to improve Bitcoin. Find this common ground. The crucial part, then, is asking how do they define ‘Bitcoin scaling’ and what do they want to do about it? That’s the key question. Because you’ve already granted the premise that you like the idea of scaling Bitcoin, as they do, and that you also want to improve Bitcoin, as they do, you don’t look like a naysayer when you tell them Segwit is not a tenable solution and that Lightning Network will, in fact, increase fees and not the opposite. Again, force them to define their terms. Otherwise, you will be stifled by the platitude/buzzword-stuffed Core quicksand.

Conclusion