WARFIGHTING FOR BITCOINERS
a low level intro to maneuver warfare and organized violence for those confused by @JasonPLowery's arguments
THREAD 🧵
a low level intro to maneuver warfare and organized violence for those confused by @JasonPLowery's arguments
THREAD 🧵
The vast majority of people have 0 understanding of violence and the military. There's not much reason to when you live in a mostly safe society. This is where the sheepdog meme comes from, where military and cops see ourselves as knowing violence so others don't have to.
However, when we're talking about building a civilization on a new sound monetary standard like we are with Bitcoin, it becomes necessary to reacquaint ourselves with the nature of war and violence if only as a defensive measure in the event it is used against us.
The single best resource on this is a book called "Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1: Warfighting" from which I will quote liberally in this thread as a primer for understanding warfare.
I also think a better understanding of maneuver warfare will give us deeper appreciation of the brilliance of Bitcoin's security model as what @JasonPLowery describes as "nuclear grade military technology".
With that out of the way, let's get into the meat of warfighting;
With that out of the way, let's get into the meat of warfighting;
First we define out terms. "A common view of war among Marines is a necessary base for the development of a cohesive doctrine because our approach to the conduct of war derives from our understanding of the nature of war."
What is the NATURE of war? Given that, what is our THEORY of war? And finally, how do we apply that theory through a STYLE of war?
THE NATURE OF WAR
"The essence of war is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose itself on the other... War is thus a process of continuous mutual adaptation, of give and take, move and countermove."
"The essence of war is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose itself on the other... War is thus a process of continuous mutual adaptation, of give and take, move and countermove."
You claim something, I claim that same thing, and we have no mutually agreed upon mechanism to adjudicate those claims. "The object in war is to impose our will (our claim) on our enemy."
I think this is where Bitcoiners get lost. We don't want to impose our will on anybody, we want to live in voluntary societies. The idea of making people do things through force is repugnant, and we view people who do want to do that as immoral commies.
BUT YOU DONT GET TO DECIDE THAT, BECAUSE THE ENEMY ALWAYS GETS A VOTE. I may not want to impose my will on anyone, but when someone wants to hurt or take from me (which doesn't necessitate offensive violence, more on that later) I will have to impose my will that he not do that.
THEORY OF WAR
Given the nature of war as a contest between wills, the libertarian tack is to develop a theory of war between aggressors (offensive actors imposing their will) and victims of violence ( whose rights are being violated).
Given the nature of war as a contest between wills, the libertarian tack is to develop a theory of war between aggressors (offensive actors imposing their will) and victims of violence ( whose rights are being violated).
This theory of war as between offense and defense is imprecise, and opens you up to exploitation by maneuverists with a more accurate theory of war as interplay between INITIATIVE AND RESPONSE.
INITIATIVE
"At least one party to a conflict must take the initiative for without the desire to impose upon the other, there would be no conflict."
It is through the initiative that we seek to impose our will on the enemy.
"At least one party to a conflict must take the initiative for without the desire to impose upon the other, there would be no conflict."
It is through the initiative that we seek to impose our will on the enemy.
RESPONSE
"The second party to a conflict must respond for without the desire to resist, there again would be no conflict. If we cannot take the initiative and the enemy does, we are compelled to respond in order to counteract the enemy’s attempts."
"The second party to a conflict must respond for without the desire to resist, there again would be no conflict. If we cannot take the initiative and the enemy does, we are compelled to respond in order to counteract the enemy’s attempts."
"But Kody, that just sounds like initiative is offense and response is defense?" NO. This is the fundamental misunderstanding.
"The relative advantages and disadvantages of offense and defense are situationally dependent. Because we typically think of the defense as waiting for the enemy to strike, we often associate the defense with response rather than initiative."
To illustrate: the classic libertarian theory of violence is that your right to swing your fist stops when it hits my face. A maneuverist will surround your face with fists and wait for you to move, then by your own logic say you attacked him by hitting his fist with your face.
This 0/D understanding of war fails with @JasonPLowery 's go-to case: if China puts nukes in orbit around the moon claiming it's defense, what do you do? What I do is understand that the distinction between O/D is inadequate. They've taken the initiative and forced me to respond.
Now given that definition and understanding of war's nature and theory, I'm going to make the case that Bitcoin's security model is the ultimate defensive technology. Not from the O/D distinction, but from the initiative/response distinction.
There's a 7 step process for developing a defense which we don't have to get into, the relevant steps are that I first red team the enemy's most likely coarse of action and design my defense to take and seize the initiative from the enemy when he attacks.
I cannot protect myself from all sides, splitting my forces evenly across all possible attack surfaces. I therefore assess the enemy's strengths/weaknesses/psychology, and design a defense that forces him to attack me where I am strongest & exposes gaps where he is weakest.
Bitcoin's security design tradeoffs are a beautiful example of a "defense in depth". It forces you to attack it at known points where it is strongest, and through the process of attacking it incentivizes the attacker to defect and act to support the network instead.
I submit that Bitcoin's PoW is an active defense measure that constantly seizes and maintains the initiative from potential attackers. It's defense is designed to minimize gaps (unknown & unknowable attack vectors) & funnel attackers into its engagement area: the chain tip.
Bitcoin's design decisions are such that you have to attack it where it is strongest, where it is constantly updating its defensive posture, and where to attack it you must in the process accumulate incentive to defend it yourself.
Tweet thread limit, will continue later.
Tweet thread limit, will continue later.
@PrestonPysh would appreciate your thoughts/feedback on this :)
PS I've been practicing Cornhole for BTC22, looking forward to a rematch at the bar crawl haha
PS I've been practicing Cornhole for BTC22, looking forward to a rematch at the bar crawl haha
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
