The Two Narratives
The Two Narratives
Every successful project has a narrative – a story about why it’s good.
However, in our case:
- There are two opposite narratives.
- Paradoxically, they rise and fall together. Each narrative is more plausible, if its opposite is more plausible (to some extent).
- People will probably lie about which narrative they truly believe, for political and social reasons.
Thus, it resembes a “pincer movement” in warfare – or a “pincer grasp” in hands.
Without further ado, here they are:
| The Narrative | “This is a real-money test; and a publicity stunt.” | “Bitcoin is dying. This is the next Bitcoin. Bitcoin 2.0” |
|---|---|---|
| Metaphorically, the hardfork is: | A defibrillator. Let’s shock Bitcoin back to health. | A lifeboat. Get on, quick! …before the Titanic sinks! |
| The new network, is: | A test network. After all – it would be irresponsible to deploy anything on BTC without testing it first! | An Altcoin. A new investment, a new coin, and a new rival to BTC. |
| The pitch, is: | “We are selflessly risking our reputations (and ridicule), in order to save Bitcoin. This is the medicine that Bitcoin needs, to heal its many derangements. Help us save Bitcoin!” | “Bitcoin is damaged beyond repair. We have a crazy opportunity to repeat the 100,000x investment ROI of Bitcoin, a 2nd time. So - make the switch!” |
| The Lost Cause, is… | The new shitcoin – it’ll never work. | Bitcoin Culture – it cannot be saved. |
| …because: | Bitcoin is king! It won’t be replaced! The shitcoin will always be seen as a scam, thus discrediting the whole project. | There are too many entrenched errors. |
| …therefore: | Forget about the shitcoin part – it can’t work | Forget about activating Bip300 on BTC – it will never happen. |
| …instead: | Tell everyone to ignore the coin part. Use this project to demonstrate Bip300. | Start over with a new community, and try to take it to 8 billion users. |
| The CUSF client helps, because: | We want to make Bip300-activation easy for miners. CUSF allows 51% hashrate to activate Bip300, without any code changes to Bitcoin Core. It has many other key benefits. | We need to be able to say that “we made every effort to activate”. That way, when those efforts fail, it shines a spotlight on how dysfunctional BTC-activation is. |
| Critics face a paradox: | Critics might complain: “it is unnecessary to grab people’s attention like this!” – but that would imply that BIP-300 is getting lots of attention (and will activate soon). Or, critics might complain: “but… people might buy your new coin!” – but that would imply that people believe that BIP-300 will not activate on BTC anytime soon (and thus, it would justify our project). | Critics might complain: “Drivechain is a bad idea” – but, if so, then this new coin cannot succeed, and will not be a threat. So, why complain? Why not just quietly sell your hardfork-coins? Or, critics might complain: “just wait for it to activate on BTC, don’t buy the new coin” – but this implies that Drivechain is a good idea. |
| The Pincer Movement | As the hardfork-coin increases in price, it draws attention to the merits of BIP-300 (and justifies its activation on BTC). | As the harkfork-demo increases in popularity, it draws attention to the fact that BTC has not activated it (thus justifying the new altcoin). |
| Pincer Movement, Pt 2 | In order for the publicity stunt to merit people’s attention (at all), it must have “teeth”. It must pose an actual threat to BTC. So, the “stunt” must involve real money and a real Altcoin. | In order for a hard fork to succeed, a critical mass of Bitcoiners must understand [1] what the new idea is, [2] why it is better, and [3] why BTC is unable to adopt it. The easiest way to do this? First: launch a new coin, to demonstrate the features. Second: try earnestly to activate BIP-300 on BTC (leaving no stone unturned). This will serve as evidence that activation will never happen. |
The two narratives are linked. And therefore, I do not think that one is “true” and the other false (nor that one is “truer” than the other). They have a paradoxical relationship.
Notably, the conclusion of both narratives is the same: it is a good idea, to launch a hardfork.