Iron sharpens iron
- Proverbs 27:17

Note: Below, the project’s name is given as “UNMP” (unnamed project).

1. An Altcoin? You are leaving Bitcoin?!

I would prefer not to. Ideally, Bitcoin would succeed (and UNMP would fail).

But it’s not up to me.

Other people are ruining the Bitcoin project. Core developers have become self-interested, lazy, and corrupt. Miners have abdicated their duty, to maximize both [1] the utility of the network, and [2] their own txn fee revenue. Bitcoin culture has many entrenched errors, and is probably unfix-able at this point.

2. Errors? Isn’t Bitcoin already unstoppable?

Well, if Bitcoin is unstoppable, then you certainly won’t hear me complaining! That would be great!

And hey – if Bitcoin is unstoppable, then UNMP is nothing to worry about. Just stop reading now.

Alternatively, though – if I am correct [that Bitcoin is not perfect], then it would be wise to prepare. What’s our backup plan? It is UNMP.

Even if Bitcoin were perfect, today, will it always remain so? Any group is bound to make mistakes, eventually.

My opinion is: the “Bitcoin is perfect” belief, will itself be what kills Bitcoin. Success often leads to complacency, and failure. The Fall of Rome, Star Wars Episode I – etc. The book “Innovator’s Dilemma” details the history of bankruptcies in business – often it is easier to just start over.

3. I don’t like what you are doing, becau–

Let me stop you right there. You are getting free UNMP… so: sell it! Use it to get more BTC. Do that, instead of complain.

4. You really think you can defeat Bitcoin?

I estimate a 5% chance of victory.

Even at such a “low” chance of success, UNMP is still worth trying. The Bitcoin project is too important, to let these idiots screw it up.

5. How is UNMP different?

First, two superficial changes:

  1. The name – (from “Bitcoin” to “UNMP”).
  2. The “network magic” bytes – (so [Bitcoin and UNMP] don’t interfere with each other).

Second, we trigger a permanent hard fork, at a specified block height, as follows:

  1. A one-time downward “difficulty adjustment”, to the minimum difficulty.
  2. Reassignment of half, of Satoshi’s “patoshi” coins (about 550k of 1.1 M) – given to our earliest supporters.

Third:

  1. Henceforth, our txns are allowed an optional “extra byte” – this intentionally mangles the TxID, allowing users to opt in/out of “transaction replay”.

Fourth, we adopt two soft forks:

  1. Reduce blocksize by 10x – ie, from 4 MB to 400 kb.
  2. Activate Bips 300/301, by CUSF-softfork.

(Both via CUSF – ie, without changing any lines of code.)

Other than that, our code is identical to Bitcoin Core.

And we intend to keep it that way. While BTC has a higher marketcap, we will just merge their changes into our node. (In that way, we will automatically gain access to CVE fixes, and new Core features.)

6. Aha! You are taking Satoshi’s coins! That is why you are doing this! Thief!!

Well, again:

  1. We’d prefer not to do this, at all.
  2. If BTC activates BIPs 300/301, we will abandon this project (unless the UNMP marketcap is higher, at that time).

And furthermore:

  1. We are “stealing” zero of Satoshi’s BTC. (We do not have the power to take any BTC.)
  2. In fact, we are giving Satoshi free UNMP.
  3. Admittedly, were UNMP to replace BTC, then Satoshi would have fewer coins – but, in that world, the UNMP marketcap almost certainly exceeds today’s BTC marketcap, by more than 2x. So, the value of Satoshi’s holdings, will have gone up, due to our actions.
  4. In fact, we will have actually rescued Satoshi’s net worth, from $0.
  5. Our project contains a zk-snark privacy L2 – this might be, in practice, the only way for Satoshi to safely gain access to any his coins, at all.

On top of that:

  1. Innovators are certainly entitled, to make some return on their risk (and at the expense of the haters).
  2. It is immoral for drivechain-supporters and drivechain-haters to be treated equally, in this case.

And:

  1. We intentionally want to split the community, and drive away the overly-conservative faction. (Those are the people who are killing BTC.)
  2. Instead, we want open-minded, entrepreneurial, risk-taking, contrarian people on our side. We want to shake things up, and prioritize the new over the old.

Finally:

  1. Lack of competition is killing the BTC project. It is an existential risk, that warrants emergency action.
  2. Overall, our economy is growing too slowly, and technology is advancing too slowly – we need new ideas.
  3. If you don’t like it – then sell. (See answer #3.)

7. Doesn’t the failure of Bitcoin Cash (BCH), prove that hard forks always fail?

Bitcoin Cash suffered from a long list of fundamental problems.

We will not make the same mistakes – so we can easily improve on their performance (in those ways).

Today, BCH trades under 1% of BTC. However, back during its first year, BCH “flippened” Ethereum for one day, to (temporarily) become the #1 Altcoin. This speaks to the inherent strength of the hard fork concept. Despite BCH’s many flaws, it reached an enormous height.

Even today, BCH is worth about ten billion dollars. That’s a lot of money! (Not bad, for a “failure”!)

8. What is your plan for surpassing BTC?

Here are the general principles:

  1. Allow BTC to trailblaze.
    • Let them do the “leg work”, of normalizing crypto for the masses.
    • Quietly copy the useful features – proof-of-work, fixed supply, 21M, etc.
    • Use BTC as an “on-ramp”. Swap BTC for UNMP, cryptographically – so any BTC liquidity also becomes UNMP liquidity.
  2. Focus on what BTC can’t do:
    • Tech innovation / tech competition – (roadblocked by Core / prestige economy).
    • Privacy – (roadblocked by Saylor / corporate interests).
    • Mining Revenue – (roadblocked by non-mined L2s; superstitions about mining).
    • Fun – (roadblocked by Bitcoin twitter).
    • Specific use-cases (BitNames, BitAssets, Coin-Swaps, Prediction Markets).
  3. Focus on users.
    • Users are: people who pay transaction fees.
    • In contrast, non-users are: developers, miners, investors, and media personalities.
    • In the long run, users win. Non-users are parasites who must be kept at bay (when necessary).
  4. [“If you can’t beat em, join em”] – Sabotage BTC, by promoting “degrowth” policies such as…
    • Ossification. Complacency. “Bitcoin has already won”. “Don’t break bitcoin”.
    • Failed L2 concepts, such as Lightning.
    • Distractions, such as Covenants.
    • Anti-node, anti-sovereignty concepts, such as: “federated” sidechains, Fedi, Liquid, etc.
    • Wishful thinking, and other “braindead” advocacy. S2F. “Carnivore-style” maximalism, and other “lifestyle” cult-like nonsense.
    • Toxicity, and pointless recreational sadism. “We never wanted these users, anyway.” “You’ll come crawling back to Bitcoin, you’ll see!”
  5. Form a new community.
    • We can only succeed, if we “recruit” people.
    • We need these people to [1] understand the mission, [2] buy the coin, and then [3] contribute their unique skill.
    • So, we need our own “Andreas Antonopoulos”, Roger Ver, Hal Finney, etc. (We also need our own BitPay, Blockstream, Microstrategy, etc.)
    • We also need new disputes. For example, a new “Mike Hearn vs Greg Maxwell”. But – this time around – they will settle their dispute NOT with a new Altcoin, but with a new L2, on the existing UNMP network.
    • Our new community must prioritize growth. It must elevate those who promote user-adoption, and it must shame those who hold adoption back.

9. Once UNMP begins to succeed, won’t BTC copy it? So, you are doomed either way: either [1] you fail immediately; or [2] you achieve some initial success, BTC copies you, and then you can no longer compete with BTC’s network effects, and you fail at that point. So, why would anyone invest in a doomed project? Lose if you lose, lose if you win.

This is a very real risk.

If the project fundamentally can’t win (no matter how good it is), then our investors have no property rights. In which case: why would anyone invest, in the first place? So, we must address it preemptively.

Therefore, here are some reasons to doubt that BTC will be able to copy UNMP in time:

  1. BTC is more rotten than people realize – and much of this rot is cultural (which is not easy to change).
    • In particular, there is a whole “ossification” coalition of Bitcoin; and an “anti-drivechain” coalition. Both are moderately influential. Both will have their reputations destroyed, if they have to walk back their anti-drivechain comments. So they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep drivechain away from BTC.
    • Bitcoin has sort of ossified already. Where is the next soft fork?
  2. Different people, learn at different rates. So, when people learn [that UNMP > BTC], they will be faced with a choice: [1] jump ship immediately, and be the first into a new, winning trade; or [2] wait patiently and try to convince others. On any single day, only a tiny minority of people will be in the [2] category.
    • And – they have to contend not only with [1] the difficulty of persuading others, but also [2] the risk that those others will themselves jump ship (instead of persuade).
    • Everyone who jumps ship, will have an incentive to delay drivechain’s adoption on BTC – or even to spread misinformation about drivechain.
  3. BTC and UNMP share a mining algorithm (Sha256d). Thus, in the short run, an sudden increase in the price of one coin, will starve its rival of hashrate.
    • So, while the UNMP marketcap is small, “most people” will be skeptical that UNMP is better. The risk of copying will be low.
    • But afterwards, (as the UNMP marketcap rises), mining the BTC blockchain might no longer be possible. So, it will be too late.
  4. We have patented the Bip300 enforcer, and will sue Bitcoin Core developers if they [1] first refuse it, but then [2] try to change their mind and add it later. They either have to use it now, or never. This avoids fence-sitting – giving investors the necessary closure they need to make a decision.

10. In the past you have mentioned “coiling the spring”. Can you elaborate on what this means?

It refers to a strategy of competing, in areas with strong network effects.

It consists of two phases…

  1. “Coiling the spring” – In this phase, we gather evidence, and “stress test” our ideas by trying to falsify them. We purposefully de-emphasize marketing, hype, and politics – to the point of self-sabotage. We are pure truth-seeking; zero teamwork. Pure scout; zero solider. Pure mistake-theorizing; zero conflict-mentality. We avoid politics – and, in fact, we allow the sociopaths and parasites breathing room, so as to trick them into coming “out in the open” – so that we may identify them, before they become suspicious of us.
  2. “Unleashing the spring” – In this phase, we restore politics [and hype and marketing] to their rightful places. Since our idea has been improving objectively throughout phase 1, it has by now become significantly better. Thus it creates an opportunity, for new influencers, promoters, and politician-types to make their careers. They have two advantages: [1] they can emulate their BTC-predecessors; and [2] they have a better fundamental idea to work with.

…with the goal of paving the way for FAST “viral” growth. That is the only way a new coin can defeat Bitcoin. Early on, it must attract supporters who expect future fast growth; later, the fast growth must be fast enough to topple the #1 project before it can react.

11. What about the other Altcoins?

Most Altcoins are pure junk.

Many have huge premines. Some actually have 100% premines: Ripple, Stellar, NXT, Tron, and SHIB. Others, used their genesis block to “distribute to ICO investors” – which is [basically] equivalent to a “100% premine, that is all sold instantly”. These include: ADA, EOS, Aptos, and AVAX. Solana had a 50% pre-mine.

A high pre-mine is bad, because it caps growth – and is therefore ultimately fatal to the project. It caps growth in three ways: [1] it leaves too many people out of the initial coalition, [2] it gives too many coins (as a % of total coins) to the people in the coalition (and thus cannot be taken seriously, as a proposal to the rest of us), and [3] it incites all users to instead release their own new coins, with high premines (favoring themselves, this time). All of this, motivates newcomers to join a coin (or create one), instead of join with the existing coin.

A premine is also terrible, because none of the Altcoins are quite finished (nor is Bitcoin). This introduces chaos to the project, as the original founders quit, retire, or are forced out – or various “committees” and foundations appear, to “guide development”. The project drags on, due to the realities of software development – until morale collapses and the project is abandoned.

In contrast, Bitcoin took a more reasonable path: 0% premine at genesis, 87.5% of the coins released continuously over 12 years. This punishes latecomers appropriately, but not so much that they leave the coalition. The Bitcoin UTXO set (unlike its Altcoin counterparts) has “moral glue” holding it together – those who bought Bitcoin, partly embrace a shared vision [of an alternative to banking]. It is a team effort.

Since I instead favor a UTXO-fork of Bitcoin, then what of the other UTXO-forks? Are they any good? Well, BCH I have already discussed (in question 7). BSV: is a fork of BCH (not BTC), and its litigious lying sociopath founder has already driven away all reasonable people. The others (“BitcoinGold”, “BitcoinDiamond”, etc), are frivolities. People wanted free money; and it was easy to recompile the software with a new name – and some people wanted to de-legitimize BCH, and muddy the waters. Therefore, only BCH presented a serious vision. The others are knockoff cash-grabs.

We now turn to Ethereum – the #2 coin. It has differentiated itself [from Bitcoin]. Proof of stake; frequent hard forks (ie “mandatory upgrades”); account model (vs UTXO); aggressive culture (vs conservative); fast block times; uncle blocks rewarded; higher node costs (and less discipline in capping node costs); Turing-complete EVM scripting. All of those changes… are bad. Ethereum exists because developers want to create stuff and have fun (which is good) – but drivechain is better for that. Drivechain has no gas fees. And your project does not have to share a chain (or a fee-rate) with any other chain/contract.

So – there has been a depressing lack of seriousness among the Altcoins. A handful – Ethereum, Monero, Namecoin – have an actual vision for the world. The rest are just get-rich-quick schemes, or hobbyist projects.

It would be nice if there were quality Altcoins out there. The dogshit quality of today’s Altcoins has, lamentably, contributed to Bitcoin’s complacency – and its demise. As Gary says, in Pokemon Red/Blue: “My rival should be strong to keep me sharp!” – but there are no strong Altcoins, and so Bitcoin has lost its edge.

12. What can we do, to convince you not to go through with this?

Well, 51% BTC hashrate, could activate Bip300 (on BTC).

That would render UNMP useless.

Bip300 is an opt-in, reversible, soft fork. With the CUSF client, miners can start/stop it at any time. Plus, this (hopefully) gets them more money – much more money.

But – without a community of genuinely interested users, the mere activation of Bip300 will do very little.

That is part of why I think we must start over.