Really interesting. I think he’s set himself a challenge to fully steel man the case, but released it April 1 as a way to signal it’s not fully serious.
The problem is that despite him articulating some good arguments in a coherent and intellectually honest way, he’s also missed some really important arguments too.
Cynically, this means his case becomes seen as the Bitcoin maximalist one even though it’s just Vitalik’s steel man, and becomes easier to attack. More charitably, Vitalik doesn’t appreciate the full case for maximalism despite making an honest attempt at it.
One more comment. I think it’s safe to say he’s serious about some of the points (like that Bitcoin is focused on empowering oppressed people, while other protocols work on more trivial things), and that these are intended to offer some meaningful internal critique of the Ethereum community.
Even while he’s more tongue in cheek about other points: like the Kevin Pham bit, which honestly just makes maximalists look like dicks, and Ethereum people look like they can at least laugh at themselves.
Basically the whole thing is another Vitalik April 1 “meta joke” where he gets to watch people take the wrong things seriously, and contort themselves to criticise the correct things.
reply