1. What ‘we, Core [the oligarchs]’ believed was already known. That frame is the issue more than the contents. The message reiterates a position of authority, not of consensus.
2. If it wasn’t known, individuals could have made it known in a way that wasn’t declared from on high.
3. There are contributors absent from the signatories.
and what about the position was zugzwang?
These are their options as I see it:
- Disengage from the conversation and keep moving the PR along.
- Keep fighting individual battles with people who are better at rage-baiting on twitter and have more time for it.
- Put out a cohesive statement as a group.
- Admit defeat and close the PR.
The 1st and 4th listed are the only real strategic options. The inner 2 are tactics for persuasion to 1, since that’s obviously their stated goal, but it completely backfires by reinforcing the perceived problem rather than either ignoring it or addressing it with a conciliatory measure.
I doubt that persuasion is the goal of the letter. The PR will get merged. The letter explains why. People who agree with its contents and the majority of people who just don't care will keep running Core and touching grass. The Knots runner were already lost anyways and will keep decrying the death of Bitcoin or whatever.
> individuals could have made it known in a way that wasn’t declared from on high.
How? This is pretty much impossible when the individuals themselves are perceived as "elites" by the opposition.
Start an email thread on the mailing list where you +1? It was already done, which is my point. The letter does not communicate a new position, only that it comes from the authority bitcoincore.org. This message has the effect of making these people seem like insider elites, what else?
