Within an hour of posting this essay several Bitcoin Core supporters tried to hack into my Twitter account.
A common argument used by Bitcoin Core is that Bitcoin Cash users should stop attacking Bitcoin Core and focus on itself and it’s own merits.
This is amusing coming from a group of people who get accounts banned on Twitter, censor Reddit forums, smear heroes like Roger Ver, and scream “BCASH BTRASH BCASH” every chance they get. If Bitcoin Core did not want the discussions to get so hostile, they should have allowed an open, civil discussion to take place to begin with. They have not and we are forced to be more aggressive. For lack of a better phrase, “they started it.”
At the same time, this argument is demonstrably wrong and I can’t help but see it as an attempt to undermine the entire case for Bitcoin Cash. One of the most powerful things someone in the wrong can do is to make themselves immune from criticism. The fact is that the good things about Bitcoin Cash are inseparably bound up with the bad things about Bitcoin Core. You really can’t discuss one properly without discussing the other. Bitcoin Cash was born at of necessity created by the artificial limitations imposed by the Bitcoin Core cartels, not out of some happy-go-lucky idea for a new coin. As Chris Pacia writes:
Remember, not a single one of us wanted Bitcoin Cash to happen. We did everything in our power, offered every conceived olive branch, including reducing our demands for a capacity increase by 90% and offering to activate segwit to avoid a chain split.
But the Core developers and their supporters were so intransigent that they refused to compromise even an inch. So there was no alternative but a chain split. Now we’re being viciously attacked by these douche bags for splitting a chain, which was 100% avoidable.
It would simply be inaccurate — and impossible — for us to pretend that this part of the history of Bitcoin Cash never happened. It would also weaken our case and allow the Core community to continue it’s propaganda and censorship campaigns unharnessed.
And from a strategic standpoint, nobody ever got anywhere by painting a strictly positive vision for his position. Hate, disgust, frustration, and anger are all powerful motivators.
When I look at the history of the American Revolution, which I’ve taken to comparing the Bitcoin Cash movement to, I see obviously the noble picture of mankind presented by the declaration of independence, but I also see the denunciations of King George. I see the manifest destiny vision for America, but I also see commoners tarring and feathering British tax collectors.  I see Thomas Paine writing about the rights of man, but also rebels throwing British tea into the bay.
Criticizing your enemy is strategically necessary. To give another example, anti-German propaganda in WW1 was one of the driving forces behind bringing the US into the war. It works.
The late classicist and military historian John David Lewis  wrote that the records of war history,
…show that the strongest power belonged to those who were, in fact, right, if those who were right knew it. This may be unfashionable to say today—in an intellectual climate that sunders fact and value, and understands moral claims as inherently contested matters of opinion—but it remains a demonstrable fact that the Spartan and Confederate slave systems were morally debased and that the freedom upheld by the Thebans and the Union was good.
If we want Bitcoin Cash to survive, we need the understanding of the rightness of the BCH case, technologically and philosophically, a vision for the future, and yes, the idiocy of the Bitcoin Core stance and the immorality of many of it’s supporters. And we need to use all these understandings to craft a compelling, robust message.
Anyone who says otherwise is no friend.
Like this essay? You can support my Bitcoin Cash writing here.
 I’m not suggesting we tar and feather anyone from Core…..
 I cannot recommend John David Lewis enough. His lectures, which are available at the Ayn Rand Institute eStore, are brilliant and cover a wide range of topics from Ancient Athens and Roman Law to modern military strategy and healthcare policy. He was taken from us too early.