, 15 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
Last few words on @VladZamfir's poor piece of “work” (or is it propaganda?).

A 18-min rant to express what are some very simple ideas should be enough of a major red flag. But let me point out some tactics/fallacies. They are used elsewhere in this “space” too.
Tactics/fallacies used:
(a) “Call black white, white black”
(b) Deflection
(c) Framing
(d) Ad Hominem
(e) Intentional Vagueness
When someone suggests Zamfir’s idea invites centralized control/reinvents the status quo, note that he doesn’t respond to that point directly.
He turns around and frames Szabo as THE centralized authority, when all Szabo did was to write (with depth & extremely persuasively) about how trust-minimization socially scales better.

Either Zamfir is honestly confused about message vs. messenger, truth vs. authority, persuasion vs. control, or he’s intentionally being misleading to his readers.
This is deflection (a), turning black into white, white black (b) and framing (c).
A similar thing happens to “security”. Zamfir discusses security not in the technical sense - which we should be discussing, but in the personal & emotional sense.
Zamfir accuses Szabo of being “insecure” for wanting to minimize the governance surface (?!). Whereas in the technical sense, having humans involved in the process almost always leads to more insecurity. Bad opsec.
See how that works? Suddenly a timeless principle for technical security has been turned into “insecure”. Crazy how words work eh?
Not only Zamfir's flipped secure into insecure (a) (c), he’s using ad hominem (d) to boot.

His ad hominem gets even more bitter & spills over to Twitter:
So far we have:
(a) “Call black white, white black”
(b) Deflection
(c) Framing
(d) Ad Hominem

What else?
Intentional vagueness (e).

A keen reader would notice that this rant, while extremely long, lacks specifics or evidences (read: there is not a single one).
Instead, Zamfir keeps the conversation highly vague & abstract. Repeating the terms “blockchain”, “crypto law”, “autonomous software”, “insecure” many many times.

Contrast this with Szabo’s work which is heavily backed by examples/evidences/references.
A note on "autonomous software”.

By framing “autonomous software” as “bad”, Zamfir invokes the image of AI taking over the world. But note that Bitcoin, while autonomous, is anything but AI. Its scope is a lot less limited than AI. Nuances matter.
This is just the top of my head. I’d leave you to find other holes.

I find it amusing that some people find this piece of "work" remotely convincing/interesting. 🤷🏻‍♂️
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Hugo Nguyen
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!