In retrospect, bitcoin users have accepted various accusations of bitcoin from the media and those in power. Even if they make pessimistic predictions about the future of bitcoin, this “magical” network continues to operate.
• when the price is $2.37, the headline of Wired magazine is “the rise and fall of bitcoin”
• when the price was $15.15, Forbes reported that “so, that’s the end of bitcoin”
• when the price was $93.57, Bloomberg reported that “the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proved why bitcoin is doomed to failure”
• when the price was $105.7, bitcoin saw death in the headlines of the New York Times
• at $182.00, the Washington Post reported “exposing bitcoin: a Ponzi scheme to redistribute wealth from one liberal to another”
• when the price is $208.50, today’s US report “bitcoin is coming to an end”
• when the price is $327.20, Reuters “the defects of bitcoin will accelerate its failure in 2015”
• when the price was $332.63, AOL reported “can bitcoin survive 2015?”
• when the price was $433.57, business insider reported that “bitcoin is too ridiculous”
Bitcoin is seen as a niche thing, even just a joke. With the new low of price and the great growth of seven network effects in the past decade, the view of it began to change. We see that bitcoin flows from “nerd’s money” to companies, governments, banks and institutions. Ironically, there have been many attempts to package bitcoin as something “compliant” or catering to the legal system. Creating a new digital currency is one of these recent attempts. Blockchain has become the latest hot word to meet this purpose.
For some people, this may be news, but literally, the word “blockchain” only means “chain composed of blocks”. The concept can be traced back to cryptography and computer science 30 years ago, but due to the emergence of bitcoin network, the word and technology have become very popular. The ledger itself is not interesting. The bitcoin ledger is unique because no party can control the addition of transactions to its structure. Stripped of its decentralized nature, it is just a database.
Andreas antonopoulos in his speech（ https://youtu.be/1MG1aR71uFg ）This paper discusses the phenomenon of digital currency upgrading and cryptocurrency corporatization, and why we should strive to maintain the “extraordinary” brought by bitcoin to the world.
This has not stopped many attempts to control it. As of today, several countries in the world are actively developing digital currency, using the same “blockchain” infrastructure as bitcoin. They adopted the cryptopunk concept of bitcoin and removed the “punk” feature while preserving financial privacy. 2019 will be remembered because the government no longer ridicules bitcoin and begins to launch digital currencies:
• DCEP (China)
• eurochain (EU)
• e-dinar (Tunisia)
• petro (Venezuela)
• ABER (Saudi Arabia)
• turkcoin (Turkey)
• e-krona (Sweden)
• paymon (Iran)
There has always been a non extreme practice of making bitcoin compliant through “financialization”. This is the inevitable process of Wall Street controlling bitcoin. Of course, it’s just a joke.
It is reasonable to believe that the financialization of bitcoin and these financial products complicate the market, which requires most market participants to master skills that are difficult to reach. Bitcoin makes ordinary people walk in front of Wall Street for the first time, and many people don’t want to give up this. If the indicators on the chain are not audited, the increased complexity may eventually mask the “out of thin air” of bitcoin. Market participants and bitcoin users need to be aware of this and use the auditability of the network to maintain confidence. Authentication without trust.
Even in the bitcoin community that rejects the status quo and supports the meme of “internet currency”, it has experienced a “corporatization” attempt called segwit2x in the past. Bitcoin may eventually need all the supporters and supporters it can get, and re exposing the “Scar” will hardly benefit anyone at present. But still, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes.
Here is a brief introduction to the background. The New York agreement (nya) was proposed in 2017; In case of 2 Mb hard bifurcation later, isolation witness will be agreed. This proposal and the hard bifurcation of the bitcoin network are called segwit 2x. This means doubling the size of the block, which supporters believe is a compromise between those who want a larger block after the implementation of isolation witness. This proposal was supported by 58 large companies in the ecosystem and 83.28% of hashing power.
Only a few months later, the proposed segwit2x hard bifurcation was finally cancelled. Bitcoin users voiced their concerns. Similar to the original proposal, only six people later issued a joint statement to eliminate the hard bifurcation. This shows that, compared with the traditional bitcoin governance, in fact, not many people participate in the decision-making process, or lack of governance. It is commendable that they put this content into the decision-making:
Our goal has always been the smooth upgrade of bitcoin. Although we firmly believe in the need for larger blocks, we think there are some more important things: bringing communities together. Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not reached enough consensus on a clear block size upgrade. Continuing the current practice may divide the community and become an obstacle to bitcoin growth. This is by no means segwit2x’s goal.
Again, those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. So please keep bitcoin “unusual”!
Responsible editor; zl