What started as a bold idea to create an alternative to the current monetary system is now beginning to turn into a full-fledged industry with its main players, basic ideas and rules, jokes and disputes about the future development. The army of followers is gradually growing, low-quality and stray personnel are gradually weeded out, a community is being formed that takes projects of this kind more seriously. As a result, two main fronts have now formed - those who see victory through the blockchain and who are trying to improve the current reality through blockchain solutions; and those who see victory through cryptocurrencies and the formation of a new reality. Among the latter, it is important to single out such a category as bitcoin maximalists, who are one of the strongest currents in this direction.
Quite often, the front-line soldiers look not towards the creation of means and solutions for the victory they have chosen, but towards their brethren for moralizing about the adequacy of their approach. There are more loyal towards one of the approaches that do not try to denigrate the other side. Eat who are already trying to prove that their approach is more important and valid. And there are those who positions of another author to convey his vision of the situation. I deliberately chose articles with almost the same title so that you can clearly see how just one statement “who is important” can be presented in different ways.
The questions “who matters” and “who has a brighter future” are starting to turn into a kind of local taboo, because in addition to intellectual disputes like the above articles, they can also start a full-blown fight that turns into a stupid argument “which is better: a console or PC” local tailoring.
In this article, I'm not going to drown for one of the parties, but rather to show the futility of this dispute. I do not know what will come of this, I only hope that it will lead to a constructive dialogue from which I will be able to draw important theses for myself for the future.
Okay, I'll stop marinating you with these preludes. I'll start with a couple of theses, which for some reason many people forget.
Bitcoin is not a technology, but an economic idea
Yes, bitcoin has a technological basis in the form of a blockchain, a large number of restrictions, built-in algorithms, the use of cryptographic functions, and more. Further improvement of bitcoin will most likely also be of a technological nature (the appearance of second-level networks like the Lightning Network, the introduction of Schnorr signatures), rather than an economic one (changes in the number of coins in circulation, a strong change in difficulty to adjust the average block generation rate). All this is a feature of the Bitcoin network and the conditions in which it exists.
Bitcoin itself in the form of a cryptocurrency is more of an economic category. The concept of bitcoin was originally created as an alternative electronic transaction system that would not need centralized moderation. And based on this concept, the bases have already been formed and the infrastructure has been created that allows us to implement our plans. As a result, we have a system that should solve the issue of trusting third parties. And where is the dependence on third parties and the requirement to trust them to a large extent? In economics.
If the state pursues an untenable monetary policy, as a result of which “money” turns into a useless piece of paper, then such a state loses the support of its users, and they look for other ways to save their funds. The value of bitcoin is that it challenges the established system and provides a partial alternative to those who seek it. I do not want to delve into this topic now, since I already wrote which addresses this issue in more detail. But it was important to talk.
Blockchain is not a panacea
I think everyone has come across articles where it is written that the implementation of the blockchain can change the whole industry. How blockchain will change life, transportation, science, medicine, accounting, content making, the automotive industry and other joys. This is the first thing I got in a search engine.
After reading such articles, some people begin to imagine that the blockchain is such a magical prodigy that can reshape our life up and down. But, in truth, many of the proposed blockchain solutions can be implemented using a centralized system, it may even be more efficient. There are projects that are a kind of blockchain analogue of an already existing centralized solution. Using blockchain for the sake of blockchain is a so-so idea. Sometimes the blockchain can, on the contrary, become a problem and turn into a kind of . I think something like this would look like a traffic light on the blockchain.
I'm not saying that blockchain is a useless technology, just don't make some kind of aspirin out of it. Blockchain at least showed its viability by the fact that on its basis a working protocol in the form of bitcoin was created. This is already one kind of applications that can be created thanks to the blockchain. And in this case, it is the necessary technology for the operation of bitcoin and its concept, and not built-in ... just like that.
Blockchain is not only suitable for producing endless varieties of cryptocurrencies. It can also be used to create other applications, but only where there is a real need for it.
Now let’s take a closer look at the comparisons between blockchain and bitcoin.
Car and gearbox
Blockchain and bitcoin are two different categories, so it makes no sense to compare between them who is more important and more promising. For example, can you say which invention is more important - the car or the gearbox? Personally, it is difficult for me to answer it.
Bitcoin is not a technology, but a set of technologies that forms a new category - an alternative monetary system. The car is also a collection of technologies that has co-created an alternative vehicle. In this case, the blockchain is a gearbox, since it is exactly the technology that helps the device (application) work according to a certain principle.
If you take the gearbox out of the car, needless to say, the car is now a pointless bucket of bolts that won't go anywhere without the gearbox. The gearbox outside the car also has no value. What's the use of her hanging out on your balcony? Thus, the value of each of the participants can be traced only in the case of joint work, and not separately.
But don't think that these are mutually exclusive categories. You can create a car without a gearbox, like electric cars, where there is only one gear. In this case, we simply change the approach. If a car does not use the principle of a box, then this does not mean that it is no longer a car. He's just different.
Nobody is stopping you from creating a cryptocurrency without a blockchain. The first thing that comes to mind is a directed acyclic graph or DAG, which is used, for example, in the IOTA cryptocurrency. Quite often they try to sculpt IoT from the blockchain, for which it is not designed in principle (although I do not deny if someone succeeded). In turn, DAG is already more loyal to those who want to create a cryptocurrency IoT, but it may require some features that are inherent in the blockchain.
At the same time, the gearbox principle is not only used in cars or other vehicles. There is such a thing as a gearbox, and it is quite common in various machines. I have never worked in production, so I cannot fully describe the importance of a gearbox for machine tools and its impact on the quality of manufactured products. I just think that it plays an important role for manufactories of different directions, because you can’t go far at one speed and this greatly limits the capabilities of the machine.
So the blockchain can be used not only for the sake of the idea of cryptocurrencies. Now they are trying to put the blockchain into the “machines” of various industries with the slogan: “Look how many possibilities, how much it increases the transparency of the workflow, how it reduces the cost of storing and processing information, you no longer need to have 5 “machines” with different speeds, you can use one universal “machine”. Time will tell where this "machine" is really useful and for what purposes.
bitcoin kids
Remember the gearbox lying on the balcony? So, one of the main current arguments for its usefulness is that it can be used and converted for other, similar cars. My point is that a large number of current blockchains are very similar to the Bitcoin blockchain, as it is used as a template.
What does bitcoin do well? It generates a block approximately every 10 minutes in a decentralized and seamless manner and conducts transactions, ignoring international borders and regulators. And in a way, that's all he does. There is a transaction - we send a transaction, and it is unchanged. It may seem to someone that this is somehow not enough to be called a revolutionary technology or idea. For others, this is quite enough, because few people can provide the same.
Here you can give an example of a hammer and hammering nails. Bitcoin will be our so-called standard hammer, and hammering nails into the wall will be an immutable transaction.
It may seem to some that bitcoin is somehow too simple, has a “stripped down” functionality, or a slightly irregular shape. And what do they do? They stamp different hammers for every taste and color: someone changes the size of the striker or handle (hello, Bitcoin ... something there); someone makes specialized hammers for certain jobs; someone attaches an ax or a nail puller to the hammer on the other side, trying to make it more functional; someone just adds rhinestones, because the hammer seems somehow gloomy to him. And everyone says that his hammer is the best and most progressive. This is what Coinmarketcap looks like.
Sometimes it gets ridiculous when nails are driven in with a shovel (hello, ether), and then shovel lovers rejoice, declaring that their device is still capable of much. Um, guys, as if no one bothers you to hammer nails with a shovel, but it was not created for this. It can indeed be useful when you need to build something new, but it is not necessary to claim that the standard hammer is flawed because of its simplicity. Let each tool do what it was created for.
I think everyone will choose what is most convenient and most important for him. Users' choice of how to hammer nails will be a good indication of which is the better option for the task.
But it's not that the bitcoin blockchain or the concept of bitcoin is used as a template that is borrowed to create their solution. The dilemma is that many look up to Bitcoin and its blockchain.
Bitcoin is a specific idea and a specific way to achieve it. And instead of creating their own ideas and their own way, or suggesting ways to improve bitcoin, someone just makes “their own bitcoin”. The choice is, of course, good, but do we really need so many “our bitcoins”? For me, the “level up with bitcoin” approach limits the view of both bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, as well as blockchain technology itself. Although I may be wrong.
Why Bitcoin is a Model T
But since the cryptocurrency community has more or less decided on the basic concept of what a cryptocurrency should look like, drawing further parallels with the automotive industry, we can say that bitcoin is a kind of Ford Model T. Although it cannot be called the first car, since they were before, but it was he who first solved the main problem that prevented the initial mass adoption - cost.
The idea of cryptocurrencies was also in the air back in the 90s and there were attempts like Bit Gold, B-Money and Hashcash, but they all had one problem - centralization. And bitcoin solved this problem, which gave him initial support among those who cared about it.
And now the question is: does anyone see Model T roaming the streets now? I think it is unlikely that many of us have seen live at least one of these machines. If anything, this is not a stone in the garden of bitcoin and not a statement that it will be irrelevant over time.
The concepts and principles that we put into modern cars are the evolution of the idea and design of the Model T. The bitcoin that we know now will eventually step aside. Many basic principles will be subject to modification and revision of views. The bitcoin of the future may be very different from the current bitcoin. It may lose some modern shortcomings, but it may well get new ones that we don’t think about yet. Even the bitcoin that exists now is not the same as it was 10 years ago.
It is not known what process of evolution the original bitcoin itself will go through. Maybe the base will remain practically unchanged, and its networks of the second and third levels will already be subject to changes and development. Maybe we will constantly change only the base itself. Or it will remain the same ancient Model T, which will be collected and used as a store of value.
There is no need to immediately prophesy oblivion or success for bitcoin, because we do not know the future vector of its development. Speaking of oblivion, criticizing bitcoin and its blockchain is now very easy. And for those who like it, here is a small present in the form . I hope it helps you and makes your work easier.
The main thing is that criticism of bitcoin and its ideas should not be reduced to a simple thought: “This carriage has no horse.” How can we be sure that it will take us, and how will we control it? Why invent a complex and incomprehensible mechanism to move around when we can just saddle a horse? What makes you think that we will ride this, if we have been riding horses for thousands of years? What if it breaks? All of these are important questions. Perhaps someone will be able to partially answer them if they do not just look under the hood, but try to understand how “it” works and what it gives in the end.
Yes, the horse is a great and convenient centralized solution, but this does not mean that we will exploit it forever.
A little about the prospects
Since blockchain is a technology, it is easier for it to take over the world. It can be implemented, after which you can quickly understand what results it gives. You can constantly try and recheck until you find the best option, or discard it as unnecessary. There is no need to create a new reality and radically change the perception of people, you can simply modify what is. Because of this, the blockchain seems more real, and therefore more promising.
Ideas like bitcoin are a bit more complicated. If the technology is objective, then the idea is intersubjective. That is, its influence and plausibility grows with the number of those who support this idea and see sense in it. Money, the state, religion, human rights, the idea of progress are all intersubjective ideas and myths, and the systems that have been built around them are much more powerful than any technology.
Ideas are always stronger than technologies, but not always more promising than them. The idea can be brought to life with various technologies, we just choose the approach. Reminds Nassima Taleb: “Bitcoin will go through ups and downs. And he may fail. But we can easily reinvent it because we now know how it works.”
Yes, now bitcoin can become a kind of insurance policy, but I don’t think anyone would like to get into a situation where a person will forced use bitcoin, as in the case of Venezuela. It's better when a person want to use it. And you need to strive for this, dear crypto-anarchists.
Although blockchain and bitcoin have the same origins, they have different development paths. No need to argue with allies who is better and more important. It is better to direct this energy to the development of solutions that will allow everyone to win not in words, but in deeds. Peace for everyone.
Don't hate horses
Source: habr.com