The debate manuscript is divided into two parts, one part is the text of Jimmy's speech, and the other part is Jimmy's rebuttal to Roger's 7 disasters. Although these contents have the color of BTC political propaganda, it is still worth reading deeply, because it helps us understand the factions and ideologies of BCH and BTC. ——Although everyone pays attention to the hard fork, if it is not for these ideas and interests, why is the fork bloody?

The following is the full text of the translation, including 2,900 words for the text, 4,100 words for the rebuttal, and 7,000 words for the full text, which is shared with readers.

This is the text I prepared for the debate with Roger Ver, and it is posted here for reference.

My purpose today is to have a civilized debate about Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash. We're going to have a Lincoln-Douglas debate, with each side taking turns speaking. I speak first and my opponent speaks second. The time limit for the first round is 10 minutes per person, and each subsequent round is 5 minutes. The goal is to make the debate a little less Jerry Springer style (carbon chain value note: the famous American talk show host, whose programs often have scenes of fierce quarrels, verbal abuse and even fights), a little more of the highest court style.

First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this cruise and all the guests who attended the meeting. Thanks also to Roger Ver, especially for his early advocacy of Bitcoin. We may be in a debate today, but we also have a lot in common in terms of philosophy, and I admire your contributions to the Freedom Trail.

My opening argument: BCH is a fiat currency.

Do you think I am instigating and exaggerating now? I don't. I just stated the facts.

To prove my point, let's take a look at what "statutory" means. The English fiat of "statutory" in "Webster's Dictionary" is explained as follows:

A command or act of will to create something without, or as if without, further effort; an authoritative decision; an authoritative or arbitrary order.

A fiat currency is therefore a currency created by the following actions:

A command or act of will to create something without, or as if without, further effort; an authoritative decision; an authoritative or arbitrary order.

My argument today is: BCH is, to a large extent, a currency that fits these characteristics.

As I said earlier, I admire Roger for his efforts to liberate us from government totalitarianism. We all agree that we need to be free from government control. However, there are two ways to fight totalitarianism:

The basic philosophy of Bitcoin and BCH is different. Bitcoin belongs to classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism, Austrian school; the root of Bitcoin is cypherpunk, it is a safe and reliable money. What about BCH? It is interventionism, paternalism, and Keynesianism; the root of BCH is corporate behavior and is a legal currency.

Bitcoin is a decentralized hard currency

The economic philosophy of Bitcoin belongs to the Austrian school, which advocates that no central authority can interfere with the market. In Bitcoin, the market finds its own solution to any perceived problem, and there is no central authority telling everyone "we know what's best for you". Everyone can have the right to choose based on stable and immutable rules.

secondary title

BCH is legal tender

BCH is derived from Bitmain and is a centralized existence; there is an elite group that decides the roadmap for it. These elites decide which plans to implement and which plans not to implement through totalitarian hard forks. These are mandatory upgrades under the leadership of the central authority, and everyone must abide by them as long as they want to own BCH. At the very least, these hard forks mean that the incentives of the economy have changed.

The economic philosophy of BCH is Keynesian, which is to let the central authority intervene in order to "stimulate innovation" or "solve problems". The "payment method use case" has always been subsidized by a central authority via large blocks, despite all market signals to the contrary. My opponents keep saying "transactions should be free", as if transactions are a right to be granted. The "smart contract use case" has also been subsidized by a central authority, even though this thing has little real use value and no demand. BCH is typical paternalism.

And that leads to the kind of power struggles we're seeing now. Bitmain and Craig Wright are fighting to the death, vying for control and mastering the future direction of BCH. The result of the struggle is likely to be BCH split into at least two virtual coins. BCH is not a network where users are sovereign.

The central bank of BCH is Bitmain. Bitmain has been trying to use its own reserve currency (BTC) to maintain an anchor (peg) for BCH, but it has not been successful. Bitmain has been unable to maintain the anchor at 0.15 bitcoins, nor can it maintain 0.12 bitcoins, and has just recently dropped to the level of 0.1 bitcoins. This is a central bank that sells its own reserve currency in exchange for a peg to another currency. What's even more frightening is that Bitmain, like the central bank, is running out of reserves; BCH will eventually circulate freely in the market, and will no longer have the artificially inflated value it has now.

BCH has no reason to exist

text

The functions of BCH have already been realized by many altcoins. These altcoins are all centralized just like BCH, and many of them are better than BCH in terms of payment methods.

In the last debate, my opponent argued that altcoins do not have a history like BCH, because BCH has a history of Bitcoin in its ledger. This is also a lie. The ledger is the same, this situation just means that Bitcoin holders have a mandatory airdrop, and there is no other meaning.

Moreover, there are currently 74 different hard forks in Bitcoin, including:

Bitcoin Gold has a different proof of work, management mechanism, and roadmap.

Bitcoin Interest, with Proof of Stake.

Private Bitcoin (Bitcoin Private) has privacy and fungibility.

Lightning Bitcoin, which allows users to settle transactions extremely quickly.

Clean Bitcoin (Bitcoin Clean), claims not to damage the environment.

There are many major hard forks, such as Bitcoin Diamond, Super Bitcoin, BitcoinX, Bitcore, Bitcoin2x, Bitcoin File, Bitcoin Atom, Bitcoin Vote, Bitcoin World, Bitcoin Pay, Bitcoin Faith. My personal favorite is Bitcoin God ( Bitcoin God), this fork makes it clear that they have a central authority. These forks all have roadmaps, have non-negligible value, and have various interesting characteristics; at the same time, they preserve the transaction history of Bitcoin.

Like BCH, these forks require users to give up their self-sovereignty. These forked "lords" don't let users verify the currency, but instead let users trust them.

This is the main value proposition behind all hard forks and altcoins, which is betting on the manipulators. That's why so many virtual currencies (including BCH) don't hesitate to hype and spend so much money on fooling people. They want us to believe them without making us do an iota of verification.

BCH is centralized, with a small group of people making decisions for everyone else. BCH is paternalistic, doing its own thing to execute certain specific use cases regardless of what the market says. BCH is Keynesianism, which pursues interventionism and does not allow normal market forces to compete freely.

BCH is a fiat currency!

secondary title

Here is my prepared rebuttal:

1. Blockstream has not manipulated the Core development team

I'm the one who actually contributed, and I can tell you that the Core development process is not what he says it is. It is not difficult at all to make up all kinds of weird conspiracy theories, saying that Blockstream manipulates this and that. A well-written story can attract people! During the Iraq war in 2003, Iraqi Information Minister Sahaf ran the train with his mouth full of words about how the Iraqi army defeated the US army, which caused the Americans to nickname him contemptuously "Baghdad Bob" (Baghdad Bob). Conspiracy theorists these days are just as utterly failed as this Baghdad Bob, so they make up these lies to appease fragile little hearts.

Check out the people who actually contributed! Among the core developers, there are only two people from Blockstream. There are also many developers from many other companies, such as Chaincode Labs, and the MIT Digital Currency Initiative (the MIT Digital Currency Initiative), and even companies that my opponents invest in, such as Blockchain.info. The core development process is meritocratic, where people are appointed on their merits and decisions are made through mutual agreement. Frankly speaking, my opponents are not code farmers, but those who seriously misinterpreted the Core development mechanism.

My opponent called a meritocracy open mechanism an evil mechanism because he didn't get it - he lost the argument. And because the market's preferences were so clear he couldn't be more clear, he had to spin up all sorts of conspiracy theories to justify his failure.

The opponent brought his idea to BCH, and BCH was more receptive to new ideas. I am very happy about this. That's what a free market is all about. But he can't complain like this: "Core's failure to accept my idea proves that the process is centralized or untenable." Completely ignorant of the process, and failing to succeed, he invents a theory to discredit his opponent and defend his position.

There are often athletes who complain about equipment, referees and even luck when they lose a game. Anyway, there are problems with everything, but his level is fine. In the same way, conspiracy theorists just lose badly and dare not face reality. There is no conspiracy, the market doesn't like your idea, that's all!

2. Gavin, Mike, and Jeff Garzik can't shake Core

Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and Jeff Garzik all contributed to the Core project, and I am very grateful to them. All three still have something to contribute. No, I suspect because the influence they used to have is now gone, but the "stop working" thing, the fault is entirely theirs, not the Core community.

What my opponent is really objecting to is the reality that the influence these people once had has been lost. I used to have a good reputation in the Core community, but it doesn't mean that I will have such a good reputation for a lifetime. If you are in a certain bureaucracy, you may still slide by inertia and not do business without being fired; Bitcoin Core is not such a bureaucracy.

Bitcoin is meritocracy, meaning you not only have to consistently do a good job, but you also have to progress as the code and developer quality improves. While other contributors had set clear standards of progress, these three contributors did not meet them, which is the main reason for their decline in reputation.

There are other factors as well. Mike and Gavin want Mike to be a lifelong benign dictator and want to achieve centralization around Mike. Other members of the community did not allow it, and Mike withdrew from the group in a rage. Gavin's technical skills are too poor to even check signatures, so crooks like Craig Wright are allowed to sneak in. Jeff works with ICOs and altcoins.

Regardless of the reason, the influence of these three people is gone, and they no longer make contributions, although it is their freedom to make contributions or not. The Bitcoin community does not allow any tenure, which is different from the centralized system.

What my opponent is against is the meritocracy of Bitcoin Core. You can only have influence if your contributions come in handy. In a meritocracy, influence is hard to gain and easy to lose. My opponent resented that the trio had lost influence because the trio was more tolerant of his ideas, and it was precisely this that hurt the trio's influence. Opponents believe that this is one of the reasons for his failure. He believes that almost everything is the reason for his failure, but never admits that his idea is too bad, the market does not want it. He doesn't seem to be able to face the consequences of his mistakes.

3. Free transactions are not free

My opponents often like to talk about "free" trades. He does not understand economics at all if he thinks that transactions in the past should be free and therefore transactions should always be free. BCH is subsidizing transactions with large blocks. Yes, it is great that users can trade for free. I think anyone would be happy to get something of value for free, but economics is about "invisible consequences".

Free transactions are not actually free. The United States has a kind of assistance for low-income families - the food stamp program (the food stamp program), and the transaction is also like this, someone always pays the bill, but it is not the user. Take a look at the current BCH incentives, every node on the network pays for free transactions by having to propagate, verify, and store those transactions. In other words, free transactions are a tax that all other nodes pay. This is an "inhibitory measure" that is opposite to incentive measures, which is not conducive to running "full nodes", so users give up more control rights, resulting in more "single points of failure", making the BCH system more fragile. The so-called "free transaction" is a BCH government subsidy, through taxes and control, to force others to pay.

And, by ensuring "free" transactions, it also changes the incentives for mining. The only rewards miners get are mining rewards and fees. Ten years later, in 2028, there will be three halvings. At that time, the estimated fee was still 0, and the return was 1.56 BCH. Based on the current BCH price, it was about $750 per block. This significantly reduces the security of the network. If there are no transaction fees, only 4,500 USD can achieve a 6-block double-spend attack (double-spend). You may be able to safely sell a cup of coffee for $3 on BCH, but if you want to sell a laptop for $1,000, you have to take a huge risk.

This situation is exacerbated further as block rewards dwindle. By 2040, the block reward will be $93, all transactions over $100 will be at risk, and users will have to wait for at least 11 confirmations to realize a $1,000 payment. By 2060, even a $3 coffee transaction would be risky as the block reward would drop to $2.90. A payment of $1000 requires at least 350 confirmations!

BCH now faces two choices. First, give up free transactions; second, let the currency inflate. Fiat currencies usually put themselves in such a predicament as well, allowing people to choose between rights and taxes (don't forget that inflation is also a tax). Obviously, neither of these options will be welcomed by the public.

Government budgets risk leaving future generations in debt. By the same token, free transactions will also create an untenable situation in the future. BCH is like welfare and social security, giving people something free now in exchange for much bigger trouble in the future. The so-called "free" transactions are actually government subsidies. One group gains, everyone else suffers. Don't be fooled, "free" transactions are equivalent to BCH's government food stamps!

4. Having a voice in a private community is not your birthright

There are a lot of people who are disappointed with the r/Bitcoin website, so the popularity of the website has dropped a lot compared to before. This is how the free market works.

It's certainly uncomfortable to make people silence you. However, gags are not illegal unless it is the government that ordered the gag. My opponent seemed to think he had the right to do whatever he wanted in the private community. Does he want a "central authority" that says he must have the right to speak? Was he trying to violate collective freedom by forcing an unwilling audience to listen to him?

Now it's the same thing again: he loses like hell and then complains that he's been beaten. How can my idea be bad? impossible! Someone must be playing tricks! Must be Blockstream! Bildeberg! Jewish banker! (Carbon chain value note: The author here uses a mocking tone to say that some people in the society have a stereotype of Jewish bankers.)

Forum administrators are private individuals, they just decided to exercise collective freedom. Sorry, we didn't make you feel welcome, but that just means your idea was rejected, not some weird conspiracy theory.

A cunning salesman complains when he is banned from a place, because it reduces sales. This "censorship" is the sour grapes in Aesop's fable, because he cannot reach a folk audience. The fire of hell is no match for the wrath of the hapless loser! (Carbon chain value note: the English proverb hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, that is, "the fire of hell cannot match the anger of a fooled woman". It is used here.)

5. Centralization leads to inflation

BCH has had many totalitarian hard forks, or complete resets of the software (here I suspect that there is one more hard forks in the original text), and the initiator has always been an elite group, making decisions for everyone. Users do not have property rights to their own currency because this elite group controls everything.

In the field of BCH, it is enough to lobby the centralized power group. BCH does not allow users to have sovereignty over their own currency. This is a fiat currency management, a management under centralized command. This is interventionism, not market-driven innovation. As I said before, BCH is a fiat currency.

Every fiat currency in history has eventually collapsed due to monetary debasement. This is because of the moral hazard that exists with fiat currencies: a central authority can print more money. How presumptuous to think that the fate of all other fiat currencies will not repeat itself for you! BCH inflation is not a question of "will it happen", but a question of "when will it happen". All fiat currencies are subject to inflation.

My opponent's argument is: "Trust us, we won't inflate." All governments that issue fiat money have said that over and over again, and all of them, without exception, have inflated their currencies. Are you going to believe history, or some naked salesman?

6. BCH is a centralized system

The BCH development team is very unprofessional, but still makes decisions for the entire BCH community. BCH’s “Emergency Difficulty Adjustment” (EDA) was a total disaster. Their hard fork earlier this year had a consensus bug, the scariest bug possible!

The management process of BCH is a centralized system. There is an elite group that decides where users must upgrade. They pretend to "listen" to the voice of users, but in the end it is themselves who make the decision. This is obvious because the management process is completely opaque and the "roadmap" is determined by the elite. These people decide all the hard forks of BCH, and force other members to upgrade and accept these hard forks. They are responsible for picking the winners and losers in the market. They prioritize payment means and smart contract use cases and subsidize both.

This leads to problems in many places. Governments can control these problems because they have multiple "single points of failure". New groups can also come in, take over responsibilities, and set new policies. Craig Wright now appears to be trying to do just that, manipulating one of BCH's forks: Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision!

Let me ask, how could an obvious liar like Craig Wright come to this community if he felt that there was no money to be made? Wherever liars go, they want to lie to people.

As I said, there are a lot of altcoins that are centralized. If you want to join a centralized virtual currency, there are many faster and more private options. BCH has no innovation at all.

7. Satoshi Nakamoto is not God

My opponents often quote Satoshi Nakamoto, as if Satoshi Nakamoto's words represent God. The core of Bitcoin is that users have the self-sovereignty and property rights of currency, rather than taking someone as a god. Good luck to him if he wants to create a "Satoshi Coin". But this plea to Satoshi is not logical, it's just emotional manipulation.

Many people don't understand that Satoshi Nakamoto made some mistakes in the Bitcoin protocol. OP_CHECKMULTISIG has an off-by-one bug. In addition, the calculation of every 2016 blocks will also cause difficulties in adjustment. Satoshi is confusing endian everywhere. Satoshi Nakamoto should also add more nonce space to the block header and set the timestamp field to 8 bits.

By the way, a technically complete hard fork can completely solve all the above problems, but BCH has not.