Looking forward to Bitcoin after 2140: Controversy and disagreements about the “currency of the future”

The three camps of Bitcoin maximalism — monetary maximalists, network maximalists, and platform maximalists — all hold different biases about its long-term direction.

In the short period of more than ten years since its birth, the platforms of technology icons and top investors and the performance of currency prices have brought considerable “believers” to Bitcoin. Now, these Bitcoin advocates have even begun to talk about a “disaster” that the global economic market will face in the future is likely to be solved by relying on Bitcoin, the “currency of the future”.

But even as more and more people begin to acknowledge that Bitcoin has a place in the economic order, the fact remains that views on its long-term development are deeply divided. The debate has become more apparent as 2021 sees a flood of new investors pouring into Bitcoin, many of whom are now more concerned with Bitcoin’s economic model design than its breakthroughs in computer science.

As a result, more and more users no longer think of Bitcoin as an emerging technology that is trapped in competition, but instead regard Bitcoin as a predator in the global financial market. Bitcoin has an established upper limit, etc. The special deflationary design makes it absolutely different not only from fiat currencies, but also from most other cryptocurrencies.

Evangelists with a deeper understanding of Bitcoin have expressed dissatisfaction with the current craze, and these people have expressed a clear sense of the “culture of complacency” existing in the Bitcoin market and the call for faster network upgrades. Opposing attitudes, and began to try to pour cold water on the craze, claiming that Bitcoin is still likely to fail in the future.

While Bitcoin is becoming mainstream as a portfolio asset, it is still a peer-to-peer network, and these two properties are irreversibly intertwined, and each is equally necessary for the ultimate functioning of the system. From here, the more thorny dilemma begins to emerge – namely, why should Bitcoin’s network be improved if its long-term viability as an asset is guaranteed? Conversely, what if our optimism about the properties of its assets proves to be a burden on its network economy?

First of all, the intent of this article is not to cause panic, but to separate and systematically sort out the different mainstream voices in the market by analyzing the mainstream opinions that today believe that Bitcoin is the only viable cryptocurrency.

This article will attempt to divide Bitcoin maximalists into three main camps — monetary maximalists, network maximalists, and platform maximalists, each of which holds different biases about its long-term direction.

This article will expand on these different worldviews, showing how and why they can be subtly but meaningfully out of sync.

conflict of ideas

Of course, all three of the above groups are similar in that they all acknowledge that Bitcoin is “decentralized,” a term that denotes how its currency functions uniquely without the control of any individual or group. But we need only briefly survey the cryptocurrency world to find disagreements about this definition.

Within Bitcoin, there are also stark divisions in its use, where divisions between sectarian groups of Bitcoin extremists begin to become apparent.

The main thing is that while all the variants firmly believe that Bitcoin is the only decentralized cryptocurrency, they have different views on why. Monetary maximalists, for example, believe that all alternatives are inherently centralized, but when asked, their answers are all about Bitcoin’s monetary policy.

In short, monetary maximalists seem to think that Bitcoin is decentralized because it has a finite supply and a fixed monetary policy that no one can change. If a cryptocurrency could change the rules governing its assets or network, monetary maximalists would see the system as centralized.

What is evident in this observation, however, is that in holding this view, monetary maximalists are introducing a definition of decentralization that is purely relevant to the Bitcoin world, and not applicable to other areas of computer science. Furthermore, this masks the fact that Bitcoin as a network can and does change parameters, the most recent update being last year.

Unsurprisingly, this is the stark divide among online maximalists. Network maximalists are mostly made up of more long-term developers who grew up under the Bitcoin white paper and its cyberpunk vision, who have the same level of distaste for centralized cryptocurrencies as monetary maximalists, but they are more Stick to definitions that apply to the Internet and web technologies.

To be clear, online maximalists see Bitcoin as decentralized because of the high cost of censoring transactions and changing the rules. Bitcoin may have value due to its asset properties, but those values ​​are protected by a network that is always at risk of disruption.

Undoubtedly, there is a lot of consensus among the various groups on the factors that contribute to the value of Bitcoin – including the fair launch of creator Satoshi Nakamoto, the low cost of validating transformations with nodes, and the free market competition for new currency issuances enabled by proof-of-work .

However, for network maximalists and platform maximalists, decentralization needs to be assessed, measured, and for networks built on Bitcoin (such as Lightning, Liquid, and sidechains), it needs to be strategically limited Scale the network to handle larger volumes, add new features, and experiment.

Either way, the difference in attitudes should be obvious — one group sees decentralization as absolute, while others see it as a fragile, volatile state. After this disagreement is accepted, we can move on to the next question – what is each group’s attitude toward Bitcoin’s long-term economics, security, and viability?

Network and Platform Maximalism

For network and platform maximalists, the answer has long been that the security of the network is tied to decentralization, which is in turn protected by its mining power. In fact, the idea that hashrate equals security is a long-held belief that is evident in many initial evaluations of its design.

As these maximalist groups know all too well, in order to maintain their limited supply of the asset, the amount of new bitcoins issued by the network to miners must tend to zero over time. Since there will always be only 21 million bitcoins, one day bitcoin will not issue any new bitcoins.

Immediately, this seems like it should be a driving force for Bitcoin believers, so it is inferred that this “subsidy drop” is a liability due to miners protecting the network and can only be solved as proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto, paid by users transaction fee.

As such, the total fee paid by Bitcoin users is sometimes referred to as the “security budget,” in the sense that replacing new Bitcoin issuances with fees is critical to the network’s eventual functioning. It follows that the maximalists of the network and the platform will be aligned when they foresee that the fees for Bitcoin transactions may remain high in the future.

However, cryptocurrencies are not set in stone, and soon, a development will divide the two groups. Alternative cryptocurrencies that emerged in the mid-2010s will begin rolling out, offering users new and experimental features, including some that both camps see as valuable to Bitcoin — such as increasing privacy and creating or representing new kinds of asset capacity.

What emerged in response was an ambitious thesis called sidechains, a hitherto unrealized effort to take advantage of Bitcoin’s network effects and user base in an effort to absorb new assets and blockchains, argues Bitcoin Can be used as the ultimate platform for digital assets.

But while network maximalists see Bitcoin’s ability as a platform as a more limited function designed to give users new freedoms and privacy, platform maximalists instead interpret it as a mechanism to sacrifice alternative networks for cost to design its economy.

In fact, it will become clear that while network maximalists accept Bitcoin’s inherent value relative to other networks, platform maximalists are concerned that Bitcoin as a platform competes with these networks for demand, and that competition if failure, may lead to its demise.

But, while less of a recent influence on Bitcoin, platform maximalism continues to dominate the cryptocurrency design ecosystem, with leading cryptocurrency builders openly asserting that the need (measured in fees) is to empower their competing cryptocurrency networks as The value and security of the platform.

By definition of this prospect, it is clear that platform maximalists accept a world where blockchains are nothing more than competition for exchange platforms. 1) earning demand 2) building fee volumes and 3) securing fundamental incentives to power their respective networks. Not so with internet and monetary maximalists.

monetary maximalism

However, given the rapid growth in demand for Bitcoin as an asset over the past decade, monetary maximalists seem to have the most voice, questioning the idea of ​​the Bitcoin network in any competition.

An increasingly dominant form of Bitcoin maximalism, monetary maximalists believe that Bitcoin’s assets have intrinsic value and that its network benefits from intrinsic needs. In other words, because Bitcoin has intrinsic value, settlements on its network also have intrinsic value.

In fact, monetary maximalists foresee that in the future, the demand for Bitcoin will increase to the point where payment settlements are made on its blockchain, rather than dispensable. Instead, everyone will have to pay fees to transfer Bitcoin as Bitcoin will become the most widely accepted global currency.

Nonetheless, as outlined, this has important implications for Bitcoin’s development roadmap. After all, by holding this view, monetary maximalists are actually rejecting the idea that top network demand grows or raises Bitcoin demand beyond what would naturally occur.

This is evidenced by their main criticism of other cryptocurrencies, which in their efforts as platforms allow for the creation of new money in the form of tokens — monetary maximalists say Bitcoin solves exactly the problem of printing money. Rather than benefiting, they assert that the practice is preventing these cryptocurrencies from gaining any real demand.

Opposing this alternative economic design, monetary maximalists rejoice as Bitcoin fees remain low and sketch a future that may remain low forever.

As Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, explained in a recent interview. “There is no such thing as a situation where people hold $1 trillion worth of bitcoin and can’t afford to pay to keep the network running.”

Even longtime developers like Adam Back have hinted that they support this view. Last year he suggested that users might pay to run the network simply because it has value, as they do with the Internet today.

In other words, Ammous and Back et al. picture a future in which Bitcoin is not completely secure – through some mechanism designed to guarantee fees comparable to today’s block rewards – but instead it is up to users to secure Bitcoin , they say the user always has a way to keep it running and overcome the attack.

Ammous even argues that the value of the block reward—now $250,000—may just be a bootstrapping tool necessary to secure the Bitcoin network in its infancy. He believes that by the time the subsidy runs out in 2140, hyperbitcoinization will have occurred, a transition that will find global economic activity repriced in Bitcoin.

In conclusion, far from an environment where the Bitcoin network is still at risk of being attacked, what monetary maximalists see is a future where humanity is destined to embrace and protect Bitcoin.

in conclusion

Having figured out these positions, we can assert that there are three important differences between these groups, first in their bias towards actions to improve the network today, second in their attitude towards applications built on the Bitcoin network, and finally in their Confidence in the safety of its final design.

In fact, it may be tempting to view the perspective of different maximal groups as a prospect that users can freely adopt in their favor. Bitcoin has formed a cyclical asset, and as long as this monetization trend continues, it may be decades before Bitcoin’s longevity becomes an issue.

However, the truth is that in following the monetary maximalists, Bitcoin is clearly charting a very different path from what other cryptocurrency developers have embraced, who still believe that blockchain networks have little value other than economic utility .

For Bitcoin platform maximalists who still hold this view, the change in sentiment has come as a shock to them, who have recently been forced to consider that they may now be a minority in the culture, for issues that are no longer widely accepted And try to solve it.

The author asserts that this may be the reason why some people have recently started “defection” from the Bitcoin fanatic camp, including those ardent advocates recently, who will think that the future of Bitcoin is no longer worth looking forward to, because users have no interest in interacting with others. Online competition or cooperation.

However, it is worth noting that all these groups have made efforts in different aspects in the process of promoting Bitcoin, and they have also achieved certain results. Network maximalists seek to use Bitcoin to build technology that expands user freedom, platform maximalists promote a model that argues that Bitcoin’s price appreciation may not be enough to secure the network into the future, and monetary maximalists focus on institutional adoption of Bitcoin .

Of course, we have to admit that predicting the future 100 years from now is difficult. So, why study this question? This is because although Bitcoin has been proven to be a historical invention to some extent, it remains to be seen whether Bitcoin, as a technology designed and operated by humans, can truly get rid of human “flaws”.

Ultimately, the real question raised by studying these differences may be to uncover the core biases of each prospect—platform maximalism obsessed with economic engineering, online maximalism obsessed with activism, and currency brokerage obsession. Monetary maximalism.

Viewed in this light, however, it’s hard not to see why the platform maximalist view has fallen out of favor of late. In contrast to a system defined by economic engineering, Bitcoin’s monetary maximalists seem to be at least united in the belief that Bitcoin’s value needs to be protected by a collective consensus.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/looking-forward-to-bitcoin-after-2140-controversy-and-disagreements-about-the-currency-of-the-future/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-03-30 11:30
Next 2022-03-30 11:31

Related articles