Bitcoini kaevureid pole olemas – aga Bitcoini valideerijaid on

This is an opinion editorial by Doc Sharp, a bitcoin product designer currently funded by Spiral to contribute to various bitcoin FOSS projects.

It’s not a stretch of truth to anyone who’s been around the digital assets space for a while that almost every project, except the industry’s magnum opus bitcoin, succeeds in constructing effective public relations to sell their detsentraliseeritud ainult nime poolest (DINO) projekt. See pole üllatav, sest viimastel aastatel kogutud kümned miljardid pidid kuhugi minema ja kindlasti ei läinud see uue uuendusliku tehnoloogia ehitamiseks.

One area that bitcoin has fallen short in the public relations department, and the focus of this piece, is in the framing of how blocks are validated, colloquially called proof-of-work (PoW) or mining.

Esiteks, kuidas kaevandamine töötab?

In a nutshell bitcoin miners use PoW, which uses energy, to find a needle in a haystack. When they find the needle, they use it to create and add a new block to Bitcoin’s blockchain. When this new block is added, the miner gets rewarded with newly minted bitcoin. To date, this is the most decentralized means to achieving network consensus and creating valid blocks. More on bitcoin mining siin.

Bitcoin Mining And The Framing Effect

Maailmas, kus kapitali juhivad sellised kriteeriumid nagu keskkonna-, sotsiaal- ja juhtimissüsteemi (ESG) hinded, muutuvad rohelised narratiivid uue tehnoloogia kasutuselevõtul üha olulisemaks.

Knowing this, the perceived high energy costs of bitcoin mining and the term mining itself, which is associated with environmental destruction, has become a barrier to bitcoins adoption and a red herring used by DINO projects to discredit bitcoin and pump their bags.

Relatively speaking though, bitcoin mining’s energy usage is quite small and is enamasti rohelised. Põhjus, miks inimesed nendest reaalsustest mööda vaatavad, on tingitud kognitiivsest eelarvamusest, mida tuntakse nimetuse all raamimise efekt.

Mõiste kaevandamine comes with many negative connotations (see image below). With other digital assets available that promise similar solutions to bitcoin with a much smaller environmental footprint, naïve users in many cases will choose them over bitcoin due to the framing effect.

Inimesed mõtlevad sellele kaevandamist kuuldes.

I won’t get into the details in this piece, but the “greener” solution proof-of-stake (PoS) is ei ole elujõuline alternatiiv and will inevitably lead to centralization. Though with the complexities underpinning both PoW and PoS, it’s no surprise that people make choices due to superficial reasons, such as naïve views on energy.

Psühholoogiline teooria, mis toetab raamimisefekti, on tuntud kui väljavaadete teooria selgitab, miks:

Most people don’t understand that the gain of PoW (More energy use, but decentralized) is greater than the loss of PoS (Less energy use, but centralized). Although it’s easy to understand the loss from a purely environmental perspective.

Seda süvendab asjaolu, et enamik inimesi tänapäeval näha, et kliimamuutus on tõsine ühiskondlik probleem ja sensatsioonilised tükid nagu “Bitcoin Uses More Electricity Than Many Countries. How Is That Possible?” regulaarselt ringlema. Nii avaldub raamimisefekt, kuna indiviididele näidatakse vaid ühe kaadri (keskkonna oma) konteksti.

So, what can we do to overcome the framing effect and have people realize bitcoin mining isn’t going to boil the oceans and is actually a good use of energy? We could take a note out of DINO handbook and leverage narratives that have less negative connotations associated with them to our benefit.

How could this be applied to bitcoin mining? Well …

Let’s Call Bitcoin Miners, Bitcoin Validators

Ethereum 2.0 ühendamisega on Ethereum liikunud PoW-ga kaevandamiselt PoS-iga validaatorite kasutamisele. Kaevandamine ja kaevurid, nagu me neid teame, ei eksisteeri enam Ethereumis ja nõuded kuni 99.5% energiatarbimise vähenemist.

These energy savings are a red herring as it comes at the cost of decentralization. Decentralization is a fundamental first principle of cryptocurrencies, without it they are useless. A centralized public cryptocurrency’s energy usage, even if tiny, is 100% wasted as the network has failed. Bitcoiners know this, and it’s why they will mitte kunagi muuda koodi.

So, back to the framing effect. The term validators has much more positive connotations towards it due to DINOs marketing efforts, and it’s not as loaded of a term as mining. Less negative connotations means people will perceive the term more positively. Avoiding the framing effect by using a more media friendly term like validator will make it easier for people to understand the gain of PoW (More energy use, but decentralized) is greater than the loss of PoS (Less energy use, but centralized).

DINO has done all the work here by shifting the narrative to being PoS > PoW. The least we can do is leverage this effort for our benefit as they have done time and time again using the bitcoins brand to justify their Rube Goldberg machine.

So, calling bitcoin miners, bitcoin validators can prevent the framing effect from occurring and shift the narrative towards PoS < PoW. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum using the same term also makes discussions contrasting the two less nuanced making it easier for people to grasp. It's also more of a technically correct and explicit term as producing valid blocks is what miners (validators) do.

Allpool on kaevandamisega seotud terminid, mida peaksime muutma:

Bitcoin mining pools = Bitcoin validator pools

Bitcoin miners = Bitcoin validators

Bitcoin mining = Bitcoin validating

kokkuvõte

In summary, re-framing PoW mining to PoW validating will benefit bitcoin long term by preventing the framing effect from occurring which is a cognitive bias where people decide on options based on whether the options are presented with positive or negative connotations.

Kaevandamine = negatiivsed konnotatsioonid.

Valideerimine = positiivsed konnotatsioonid (aitäh Ethereumile).

This is a guest post by Doc Sharp. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.