Looking forward to bitcoin after 2140: Disputes and differences about this "future currency"

Foresight News 2022-04-05 03:09:39 阅读数:762

looking forward bitcoin disputes differences

writing :Peter Rizzo

compile :Amber

In the short ten years since its birth , The platforms of technology idols and top investors and the performance of currency price have brought considerable benefits to bitcoin 「 believer 」. Today, , These bitcoin advocates have even begun to talk about , In the future, the global economic market will face a 「 disaster 」 It is likely to rely on bitcoin 「 Future currency 」 Can be solved .

however , Even now, more and more people are beginning to admit that bitcoin has a place in the economic order , But in fact, there are still serious differences in people's views on its long-term development . The argument follows 2021 In, a large number of new investors poured into bitcoin , It becomes more obvious , Many of them are now more concerned about the economic model design of bitcoin , Not its breakthrough in Computer Science .

As a result, more and more users no longer think that bitcoin is an emerging technology trapped in the competition , Instead, bitcoin will be regarded as a predator in the global financial market , Bitcoin has a special deflationary design such as a fixed upper limit, which makes it not only with fiat money , And it is absolutely different from most other cryptocurrencies .

Those preachers who understand bitcoin better have expressed dissatisfaction with the current boom , These people are concerned about the problems existing in the bitcoin market 「 Complacent culture 」 And expressed clear opposition to the call to speed up the pace of network upgrading , And began to try to pour cold water on this upsurge , Claiming that bitcoin is still likely to fail in the future .

Although bitcoin is becoming the mainstream as a portfolio asset , But it's still a point-to-point network , These two attributes are irreversibly intertwined , For the final operation of the system , Each is equally necessary . So let's start here , More difficult dilemmas are beginning to emerge —— That is, if the long-term viability of bitcoin as an asset is guaranteed , Why improve its network ? On the other hand , If our optimism about its asset attributes proves to be a burden on its network economy , So what do we do? ?

First , The intention of this article is not to cause panic , But by analyzing the mainstream opinion that bitcoin is the only feasible cryptocurrency today , Separate the different mainstream voices in the market , And do a systematic combing .

This article will try to divide bitcoin extremists into three camps —— Monetarists 、 The ultimate platform and the ultimate web , Each camp has a different bias towards its long-term direction .

This article will expand on these different world views , Explain how and why they have subtle 、 It doesn't make sense .


Conflict of ideas


Of course , The similarity of the above three groups is that they all admit that bitcoin is " De centralization " Of , This term indicates how its currency operates uniquely without being controlled by any individual or group . But we just need to briefly investigate the cryptocurrency world , There will be differences in this definition .

Inside bitcoin , There are also obvious differences in its use , ad locum , Differences between sectarian groups of bitcoin extremists are beginning to become apparent .

The main thing is , Although all variants firmly believe that bitcoin is the only decentralized cryptocurrency , But their views on the reasons are different . for example , Monetarists believe that all alternatives are inherently centralized , But when asked in time , Their answers are based on the monetary policy of bitcoin .

In short , Monetarists seem to think bitcoin is decentralized , Because it has limited supply and fixed monetary policy , No one can change . If a cryptocurrency can change the rules governing its assets or networks , Monetarists would argue that the system is centralized .

however , In this observation, it is obvious that , In holding this view , Monetarists are introducing a definition of decentralization purely related to the bitcoin world , It is not applicable to other fields of Computer Science . Besides , This masks the fact that , That is, bitcoin as a network can and does change parameters , The most recent update was last year .

It is as expected , This is the obvious difference between the network extremists . Web extremists are mainly composed of more long-term developers , They grew up under the bitcoin white paper and its cyberpunk vision , Their aversion to centralized cryptocurrencies is the same as that of monetarists , But they stick to the definition that applies to the Internet and network technology .

To be clear , Internet extremists believe that bitcoin is decentralized , Because the cost of reviewing transactions and changing rules is high . Bitcoin may be valuable because of its asset attributes , But these values are protected by a network that is always at risk of subversion .

undoubtedly , On the factors that contribute to the value of bitcoin , There is a lot of consensus among the groups —— Including the fair release of the creator Nakamoto , Verify the low cost of transformation with nodes , And the free market competition for the issuance of new currencies facilitated by work certificates .

However , For network extremists and platform extremists , Decentralization needs to be evaluated 、 To measure , For networks built on bitcoin ( Like lightning 、 Liquid and side chains ) Come on , There is a need to strategically limit the size of the network , To handle a larger number , Add new features , And carry out experiments .

Either way , The difference in attitude should be obvious —— One group believes that decentralization is absolute , Other groups see it as a fragile 、 A volatile state . When this disagreement is accepted , We can move on to the next question —— That is, the long-term economic growth of each group of bitcoin 、 What is the attitude of safety and feasibility ?


Network and platform extremism


For the biggest advocates of networks and platforms , The answer has long been , Network security is linked to decentralization , Decentralization is protected by its mining capacity . in fact , The idea that hash values are equivalent to security is a long held belief , In many preliminary evaluations of its design .

As these extremist groups know very well , In order to maintain its limited supply of assets , The number of new bitcoins issued by the network to miners must tend to zero over time . Because there is only 2100 10000 bitcoins , One day bitcoin will not issue any new bitcoin .

immediately , This seems to be a driving force for bitcoin believers , therefore , People infer , Due to the miner protection network , such " Subsidies fall " It's a responsibility , It can only be solved according to Nakamoto's proposal , The user pays the transaction fee .

therefore , The total fee paid by bitcoin users is sometimes referred to as " Security budget ", Its meaning is , Replacing new bitcoin issues with fees is crucial to the final operation of the network . thus it can be seen , The extremists of networks and platforms foresee that the cost of bitcoin transactions may remain high in the future , The attitude will be consistent .

However , Cryptocurrency is not immutable , Not long after , A development will divide the two groups . stay 2010 Alternative cryptocurrencies that emerged in the mid-s will begin to be introduced , Provide users with new and experimental functions , Including some functions that both camps consider bitcoin valuable —— Such as increasing privacy and the ability to create or represent new types of assets .

In response, an ambitious topic emerged , Side chain , This is a hitherto unfulfilled effort , It tries to take advantage of bitcoin's network effect and user base , Strive to absorb new assets and blockchains , Think bitcoin can be the ultimate platform for digital assets .

however , When Internet extremists believe that bitcoin's ability as a platform is a more limited function , Designed to give users new freedom and privacy , Instead, platform extremists interpret it as a mechanism , Designing its economy at the expense of alternative networks .

in fact , It will become clear that , Although the network extremists accept the inherent value of bitcoin relative to other networks , But platform extremists worry , Bitcoin as a platform to compete with these networks , If this competition fails , May lead to its demise .

however , Although the impact of the bitcoin has been less recent , But platform extremism continues to dominate the cryptocurrency design ecosystem , One of the leading cryptocurrency builders publicly asserted , demand ( Measured by cost ) Is to give its competitive cryptocurrency network the value and security as a platform .

The definition of this prospect , Obviously, platform extremists have accepted a world where blockchain is just the competition of trading platforms , With .1) Win demand 2) Establish cost volume and 3) Basic incentives to ensure that their respective networks are powered . Internet and monetarists are not .


Monetarism


However , Due to the rapid growth of the demand for bitcoin as an asset over the past decade , Monetarists seem to have the most say , They question the idea of bitcoin networks in any competition .

More and more bitcoin is the dominant form of consumerism , Monetarists believe that bitcoin assets have intrinsic value , Its network benefits from inherent needs . let me put it another way , Because bitcoin has intrinsic value , Therefore, the settlement on its network also has internal value .

in fact , Monetarists foresee , some time , The demand for bitcoin will increase to the extent of payment and settlement on its blockchain , Not dispensable . contrary , Because bitcoin will become the most widely accepted global currency , Everyone will have to pay to transfer bitcoin .

For all that , As outlined , This is of great significance to the development roadmap of bitcoin . After all , By holding this view , Monetarists are actually rejecting the idea , That is, the demand for top-level networks increases or increases the demand for bitcoin , Make it more than natural .

Their main criticism of other cryptocurrencies proves this , These currencies allow the creation of new currencies in the form of tokens in their efforts as a platform —— Monetarists say bitcoin solves the problem of printing money . They assert that this practice is not only bad , Instead, these cryptocurrencies can't get any real demand .

Oppose this alternative economic design , Monetarists rejoice when bitcoin costs remain low , And outline a future that may remain low forever .

just as 《The Bitcoin Standard》 The author of Saifedean Ammous As explained in a recent interview .「 There is no value that people hold 1 Trillions of dollars of bitcoin , But can't afford to keep the network running .」

Even like Adam Back Such long-term developers , It also suggests that they support this view . Last year he proposed , Users may pay to run the network just because the network is valuable , Just like their Internet today .

let me put it another way ,Ammous and Back Et al. Portrayed such a future : Bitcoin is not absolutely safe —— Some mechanisms are designed to ensure the cost equivalent to today's block Awards —— It's up to users to ensure the security of bitcoin , They say users always have a way to keep it running and overcome attacks .

Ammous Even think of the value of block rewards —— Now it is 25 Thousands of dollars —— Maybe it's just a boot tool , It is necessary to protect the bitcoin network in its infancy . He thinks that , When subsidies are in 2140 When the year runs out , Hyper bitcoin will have happened , This transition will see global economic activity repricing in bitcoin .

in summary , Stay away from the environment where bitcoin networks are still at risk of being attacked , Monetary extremists see that mankind is destined to embrace and protect the future of bitcoin .


Conclusion


After figuring out these positions , We can assert that , There are three important differences between these groups , The first is their preference for actions to improve today's Network , The second is their attitude towards the application based on bitcoin network , Finally, their confidence in the safety of their final design .

in fact , View the views of different maximum groups as a prospect that users can freely adopt , It's good for them , This can be tempting . Bitcoin has formed a cyclical asset , As long as this monetization trend does not decrease , It may be decades before the life of bitcoin becomes a problem .

However , The fact is that , In the process of following monetarists , Bitcoin is clearly planning a very different path from that accepted by other cryptocurrency developers , They still believe that blockchain networks have little value other than economic utility .

For bitcoin platform extremists who still hold this view , The change of mood shocked them , lately , They are forced to consider that they may now be a minority in the culture , Strive to solve problems that are no longer widely accepted .

The author asserts that , It may be that some people have recently started from the bitcoin fan camp 「 Defection 」 Why , Including those recent enthusiastic advocates , They will think that the future of bitcoin is no longer worth looking forward to , Because users are not interested in competing or cooperating with other networks .

however , It is worth noting that , All these groups have made efforts in different aspects in the process of promoting bitcoin , And they have made some achievements . Cyber extremists seek to use bitcoin to build technologies that expand user freedom , The model promoted by platform extremists believes that , The price appreciation of bitcoin may not be enough to ensure the future of the network , The monetary extremists focus on the adoption of bitcoin institutions .

Of course , What we have to admit , forecast 100 The future in years is very difficult . that , Why study this problem ? This is because although bitcoin has been proved to be a historic invention to some extent , But bitcoin as a technology designed and operated by humans , Whether we can really get rid of human 「 defects 」, Remains to be seen .

in the final analysis , The real question raised by studying these differences may be to reveal the core bias of each prospect —— Platform acme obsessed with economic engineering , Obsessed with the network acme of activism and the monetary acme of money brokerage .

However , From this point of view , It's hard not to understand why the idea of platform minimalism has fallen out of favor recently . Relative to a system defined by economic engineering , Bitcoin's monetarists seem at least united in their belief that , The value of bitcoin needs to be protected by collective consensus .

版权声明:本文为[Foresight News]所创,转载请带上原文链接,感谢。 https://netfreeman.com/2022/03/202203301427264354.html