Bitcoin vs blockchain: why do not care who is more important?

What began as a bold idea of ​​creating 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 debates about future development. The army of followers gradually grows, substandard and incoming cadres are gradually eliminated, a community is formed, which takes the projects of a similar focus more seriously. As a result, two main fronts have now been formed - those who see victory through the blockchain and try to improve the current reality through solutions on the blockchain; 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, which are one of the most powerful currents of this direction.

Quite often, the gaze of veterans does not turn towards the creation of means and solutions for their chosen victory, but towards their fellow moralists regarding the adequacy of their approach. There are more loyal and soft articles in the direction of one of the approaches that do not try to denigrate the other side. There are more aggressive articles that are already trying to prove that their approach is more important and well-off. And there are those that are trying to reveal the slyness of the position of another author to convey their vision of the situation. I deliberately chose articles with a practically identical heading so that it was clearly visible, as only one statement “who is important” can be presented in different ways.

The questions “who is important” and “who has brighter perspectives” are beginning to turn into a kind of local taboo, because besides intellectual disputes like the above articles, they can also initiate a full-blown srach that turns into a silly argument “which is better: console or PC "local tailoring.

In this article I am not going to drown for one of the parties, but rather to show the senselessness of this dispute. I do not know what will come of it, I hope only that this will lead to a constructive dialogue, from which I will be able to take important theses for myself for the future.
')
Okay, 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, embedded algorithms, the use of cryptographic functions and other things. Further improvement of Bitcoin is likely to be of a technological nature (the emergence of second-level networks like Lightning Network, the introduction of Schnorr signatures), rather than economic (change in the number of coins in circulation, a strong change in complexity for adjusting 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 cryptocurrency is more of an economic category. The concept of Bitcoin was originally created in the form of an alternative system of electronic transactions, which will not need centralized moderation. And based on this concept, bases have already been formed and an infrastructure has been created that allows us to carry out our plans. As a result, we have a system that should resolve the issue of trust to third parties. And where is there a dependence on third parties and a requirement to trust them? In economics.

If the state pursues a non-consistent monetary policy, due to which “money” is turned into a useless piece of paper, then such a state loses the support of its users, and they are looking 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 are looking for it. I do not want to go into this topic now, since I have already written an article in which this issue is revealed in more detail. But it was important to speak.

Blockchain is not a panacea

I think everyone met articles where it is written that the introduction of the blockchain is capable of changing the whole industry. How blockchain will change the life, transportation, science, medicine, accounting, content-making, automobile industry and other joys. This is the first thing I got in the search engine.

Having read such articles, some people begin to imagine that the blockchain is such a magical wunderwatch, which is capable of redrawing our life up and down. But, in truth, many of the proposed blockchain solutions can be implemented using a centralized system; it can even be more efficient. There are projects that are a kind of blockchain analogue of an existing centralized solution. Using the blockchain for the blockchain is just an idea. Sometimes a blockchain can, on the contrary, become a problem and turn into a kind of Goldberg machine . I think something like this would look like a traffic light on the blockchain.



I’m not saying that blockchain is a useless technology, I just don’t need to make some aspirin out of it. The blockchain at least showed its viability by creating a working protocol in the form of a bitcoin based on it. This is one type of application that can be created thanks to the blockchain. And in this case, it is the right technology for Bitcoin to work and ensure its concept, and not embedded ... just like that.

Blockchain is suitable not only to produce endless varieties of cryptocurrency. It can also be used to create other applications, but only where it is really necessary.

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 promising. For example, can you tell which invention is more important - a car or a transmission? Personally, I find it difficult to answer it.

Bitcoin is not a technology, but a combination of technologies that forms a new category - an alternative monetary system. The car is also a combination of technologies that co-created an alternative vehicle. In this case, the blockchain is a gearbox, as it is the technology that helps the device (application) work according to a certain principle.

If you get the gearbox out of the car, then there is no need to say that the car is now a meaningless bucket of bolts that will not go anywhere without the box. Gearbox outside the car also has no value. What is the use of having her hang 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 do not think that these are mutually exclusive categories. You can create a car without a gearbox, like an electric car, where there is only one gear. In this case, we simply change the approach. If the principle of a box is not used in a car, this does not mean that it is no longer a car. He is just different.

No one bothers you to create 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. Of the blockchain, they often try to sculpt IoT, which is not designed in principle (although I don’t deny it if someone succeeds). In turn, the DAG is already more loyal to those who want to make a cryptocurrency IoT, but it may need some features that are typical of the blockchain.

At the same time, the principle of transmission is used not only in cars or other vehicles. There is such a thing as a gearbox, and it is quite often found in various machines. I have never worked in production, so I can not fully describe the importance of the gearbox for machines and its impact on the quality of manufactured products. I just think that it plays an important role for manufactures of different directions, because you cannot go far at one speed and this greatly limits the capabilities of the machine.

So blockchain can be used not only for the sake of the idea of ​​cryptocurrency. Now the blockchain is trying to shove in the “machines” of various industries with the slogan: “Look at the number of possibilities, how much it increases the transparency of the workflow, as it reduces the costs of storing and processing information, you no longer need to have 5“ machines ”at different speeds, you can use one universal “machine”. Time will tell where this “machine” really comes in handy and for what purposes.

Bitcoin kids

Remember the gearbox lying on the balcony? So, one of the main current arguments of its utility is that it can be used and converted for other, similar cars. I mean 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 decently and smoothly generates a block approximately every 10 minutes and conducts transactions, ignoring international borders and regulators. And in a sense, that's all he does. There is a transaction - we send transaction, and it is invariable. 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 very few people can provide the same thing.

Here you can give an example of a hammer and nailing. Bitcoin, we will have a so-called standard hammer, and hammering nails into the wall - holding a constant transaction.

It may seem to some that some bitcoin is too simple, has a “truncated” functionality, or a slightly irregular shape. And what do they do? Different hammers are stamped for every taste and color: someone changes the size of the striker or the handle (hello, Bitcoin ... something is 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 to him somehow sullen. And everyone says that his hammer is the best and most progressive. This is what Coinmarketcap looks like.



Sometimes it is ridiculous when nails are hammered with a shovel (hello, ether), and then lovers of shovels rejoice, claiming that their adaptation is still capable of much. Um, guys, no one bothers you to hammer nails with a shovel, but it was not created for that. It can really be useful when you need to build something new, but you do not need to declare that, because of its simplicity, the standard hammer is flawed. Let every tool do what it was created for.

I think everyone will choose what is more convenient and most important to him. The choice of users than hammering nails will be a good indicator of what is the best option for this task.

But the point is not that the bitcoin blockchain or the concept of bitcoin is used as a template that is borrowed to create its solution. The dilemma is that many are equal to Bitcoin and its blockchain.

Bitcoin is a specific idea and a specific way to achieve it. And instead of creating your own ideas and your own way, or suggesting ways to improve Bitcoin, someone just makes “your Bitcoin”. The choice is, of course, good, but do we really need so many “our bitcoins”? As for me, the approach “to be equal to bitcoin” limits the view, both to bitcoin and cryptocurrency, and to the blockchain technology itself. Although maybe I'm wrong.

Why Bitcoin is Model T

But since the cryptocurrency community is still more or less determined with the basic concept of how the cryptocurrency should look, then drawing further parallels with the automotive industry, it can be said that Bitcoin is a kind of Ford Model T. Although it can’t 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 - the cost.



The idea of ​​cryptocurrency also soared in the air back in the 90s and there were such attempts as 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 to whom it was important.

And now the question is: does anyone see a Model T driving around the streets now? I think it is unlikely that many of us have seen at least one of these machines live. If anything, this is not a stone in the Bitcoin garden and not a statement that it will be irrelevant with time.

Those concepts and principles that we lay in modern cars are the evolution of the idea and design of Model T. The Bitcoin that we know now will step aside. Many basic principles will be subject to modification and revision of views. The future bitcoin may differ significantly from the current bitcoin. It may lose some modern flaws, but it may well get new ones, which we don’t think about. Even the bitcoin that is now is not the same as it was 10 years ago.

It is not known what evolution process will go through the original Bitcoin itself. Maybe the base will remain almost unchanged, and its second and third level networks will already be subject to change and development. Maybe we will continually change only the base itself. Or, it will remain the same ancient Model T, which will be collected and used as a value storage repository.

It is not necessary to immediately predict bitcoin oblivion or success, because we do not know the future vector of its development. By the way, about oblivion: it is very easy to criticize Bitcoin and its blockchain now. And for those who like it, here is a small gift in the form of a guide, how to do it correctly . I hope he will help you and simplify your work.

The main thing is that the criticism of Bitcoin and his ideas should not be reduced to a simple thought: “This coach has no horse”. How can we be sure that it will take us, and how will we control it? Why invent a complicated and incomprehensible mechanism to move, if we can just ride a horse? What makes you think that we will ride this, if we ride horses for thousands of years? And what if it breaks? These are all important questions. Perhaps someone will be able to partially respond to them, if not just look under the hood, but try to understand how “it” works and what it gives in the end.

Yes, the horse is an excellent and convenient centralized solution, but this does not mean that we will exploit it forever.

Little about the prospects

Since the blockchain is a technology, it is easier for him to take over the world. It can be implemented, and then quickly understand what results it gives. You can constantly try and recheck until you find the best option, or do not throw it as unnecessary. 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.

With ideas such as bitcoin, a bit more complicated. If technology is objective, then the idea is intersubjective. That is, its influence and credibility grows with the number of those who support this idea and see the meaning in it. Money, state, religion, human rights, the idea of ​​progress - these are all intersubjective ideas and myths, and the systems that were 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 realized by various technologies, we just choose the approach. Recalls the words of Nassim Taleb: “Bitcoin will go through ups and downs. And he may fail. But we can easily reinvent it, because now we know how it works. ”

Yes, now Bitcoin can become a kind of insurance policy, but I do not think that someone would like to get into a situation where a person will be forced to use Bitcoin, as is the case with Venezuela. Better when a person wants to use it. And you need to strive for this, dear crypto-anarchists.

Although the blockchain and Bitcoin have one source, they have different paths of development. 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.