A sovereign social network
powered by Bitcoin

Phil recently tweeted griping CSW didn't understand the system .

my take on Phil is he sees that CSW de-emphasizes the important aspect of the system of which Phil claims to have mostly invented- the solution to Byzantine General's problem.

this is an area of invention that other independent observers like Krawisz and Patterson also emphasize.

Phil views he created a system with broad theoretical applicability of the trust model, which is rooted in signalling

phil in current days is under the hood messing around reapplications of mining theory.

csw looks outside-in. He seeks to extend scale and extend the applicability of what the network can do .

More 1+1 = whole

just opinions

you know who is capable of efficient reduction, able to write well in a minimal specification form? and might write a white paper in that same minimal efficient form ?

a guy who spent a perhaps a decade writing assembly language game graphics

you know would think ( at the time in history) to pursue adding economic gamification ?

a guy who spent a decade working in games

you know who would be the first to want to extend a basic transaction purpose-built opcode set by adding a general purpose forth opcode set ?

an assembly coder , knowing he needs to go up one level to get platform independence

anybody capable of acting like the Great Ape (signalling) and can sustain that, will go a long way to helping you become, and be, the Great Ape.

Amazon did this. It's right in their name.

Tesla did this.

Facebook did this.

Google did this with a little bit of finesse since they were afraid of the government early on

Apple and Microsoft didn't really need to.

You could say BTC people did this and got years of benefit just from the act. The act has now worn off, as much as guys like Michael Saylor try to perpetuate it.

If you are capable of doing the act, there is no good reason not to do it. It creates massive advantages with Overvaluation a huge wealth effect halo that enables success.

The conclusion with BSV is there is some impedient to its leadership figures doing the Great Ape act. so it's is instead reduced to the triviality of words and lawr.

so everybody in bsv is left to theorize for themsleves why it is, and how much you wish to embrace a person who simply refuses to address that.

Amazon , Tesla, Facebook never reduced their businesses to the triviality of lawr. Anybody holding a tech position that aspires and has means of storming through humanity would never reduce themselves to that .

So here in BSV , the tech is good, but the means, No. It's not there, by the parties active over the last 3 years. Things could change via another party

Numpties often note CSWs communication compared to Satoshi

CSW writes and speaks in a common linguistic style. some Satoshi stuff sounds like him but some other material doesn't

Phil's mind is visual. He speaks in stream of associations. To some it can sound round-about so people say it's inarticulate and conclude he is not highly intelligent.

my brain is more like this so I understand it. When he talks , ask him a question about an idea and his mind walks into a room and he starts describing the room and then tries to connect these for the listener, which to the listener don't always connect.

when he writes he see this difficulty in connecting points. So what he does is write/read edit iterations until he is satisfied with it . Each time he iterates he reduces it and he ends up with quite economical communication, depending on how important it was to him while he wrote it

anybody ever read his recent tech blogging (1 year old) .

to me it's got an efficient consistency that you also find in some writing of years past 😀