Koga briga Bitcoinov maksimalizem?

To je mnenjski uvodnik Shinobija, samouka, izobraževalca v Bitcoin prostoru in tehnološko usmerjenega voditelja podcasta Bitcoin.

What is Bitcoin Maximalism? People will not stop asking this question, either to defend it as a virtuous label, or to attack it as a symbol of everything wrong and rotten in this ecosystem. This question is as meaningless in my opinion as asking:

• “What is a liberal?”
• “What is a conservative?”
• “What is a Christian?”

Nihče ne bo imel enake definicije ali enakega pojma. Te oznake bodo različnim ljudem vedno pomenile popolnoma različne stvari. Povezani bodo z različnimi identitetami, različnimi vedenji, različno moralo in vrednotami. Ne glede na to, kaj pravi slovar ali definicija v strogem pomenu, okoli njih nikoli ne bo soglasja.

It is completely and utterly meaningless in a discussion on a topic like this to fixate so much on labels, attempting to universally apply them to everyone, instead of focusing on the actual conceptual core of the conversation. The root of this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with labels, and everything to do with behaviors. So let’s talk about the behaviors.

One of the core behaviors commonly associated with Maximalism is a focus on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the longest running project in this ecosystem. It is the most sound system compared to everything developed thus far, and is extremely conservative in its approach to changes and upgrades. While everything in this space in terms of assets is highly speculative in nature, Bitcoin is the one with the longest running and most consistent market performance, and has maintained the top spot in terms of overall market value through the entire history of every asset in this space. Approaching things from this reality, focusing on bitcoin above all other assets in this ecosystem is a perfectly rational financial decision. Yes, like everything else, it is still speculation to invest in bitcoin, but in terms of the financial risk that entails bitcoin is the least volatile asset trading in this space. Most people are not day traders, they are not financial experts, and the further away from bitcoin you go in terms of investments the more skill and understanding of those activities is required to not burn yourself. The vast majority of projects in this space have their one blow-off market pump, crash and then do not recover. There is absolutely nothing wrong or toxic with sticking to bitcoin given that reality, and attempting to inform people of that reality is in no way unethical.

Another core behavior is the criticism of other technologies in this space, particularly with the goal of demonstrating a lack of decentralization, or more specifically misrepresentation of the degree to which something is decentralized. Bitcoin is the only system in this space that has demonstrably shown an extreme degree of decentralization. It has fought off numerous attempts by developers to alter the core of the system, as shown when Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen were still involved and pushing for velikost bloka poveča do skrajnosti. Boril se je proti kasnejšemu poskusu večine večjih korporacij, vključenih v Newyorški sporazum/UASF debakel narediti isto stvar. Preživelo je implozijo edine precejšnje menjave, ko Mt. Gox je potonilje Vdor v Bitfinex, doprsni kip Svilena cesta in celo ogromne nacionalne države, kot je Kitajska, počasi lezejo proti prepovedi, kar doseže vrhunec v omejevanje vseh rudarskih dejavnosti. Bitcoin has stood strong and continued functioning in the face of everything thrown at it so far.

Contrast this with platforms like Ethereum. The DAO was launched as the first massive experiment in decentralized coordination of financial activity on the platform, with the promise “code is law.” This blew up in their faces due to poor engineering that allowed funds locked in the DAO contract to be izsušena by what were supposed to be unauthorized users. The code however allowed it, the “law” as it were.

Kot odgovor na to sta fundacija Ethereum in razvojna ekipa uvedli fork, da bi ugotovili, kaj se je zakonito zgodilo v skladu s pravili sistema v verigi blokov. Natančneje, to so storili zaradi konflikta interesov v obliki številnih ljudi povezanih z njimi biti vložen v DAO in izgubiti denar. Večkrat so se razcepili, da bi potisnili naprej težavna bomba, funkcija, zaradi katere je rudarjenje vse težje in težje, dokler ni dejansko nemogoče, funkcija, ki je posebej implementirana, da jih prisili, da preklopijo na dokazilo o deležu. Imajo vilice to alter the economic issuance policy. The development plan has pivoted drastically more times than I can count based solely on Vitalik Buterin’s changing ideas about how to improve the system.

Opozarjanje na te razlike je spet povsem racionalno in legitimno ravnanje. To so zelo resnične kritike, ki temeljijo na resničnosti, z zelo resničnimi posledicami. Manj ko je nekaj decentralizirano, bolj je nagnjeno k nenadnim velikim spremembam, kar ima zelo resnične posledice za vrednost in uporabnost sistema. To odlično dokazujejo nedavni dogodki s Tornado Cash. Da, pogodba je še vedno prisotna, da, v teoriji jo lahko še vedno uporabljate, toda v resnici je vsak večji ponudnik API-jev in zaledje denarnice dominantno rabljen ima medsebojno delovanje na črnem seznamu s to pogodbo. Spletno mesto so zasegli in zaprli preko DNS registratorjev. Za interakcijo s to pogodbo je potrebno tehnično znanje, ki presega veliko uporabnikov sistema, saj je bila večina načinov interakcije s sistemom močno centralizirana. Izpostavljanje te dinamike je povsem racionalno in legitimno.

What is the root motivation behind these behaviors? In the case of focusing on Bitcoin and conveying to people why that decision was made, to provide realistic expectations of how you will do in a market. Also, to correct the illusion in most people’s heads that they will magically figure out how to time the market, ride the pump and make out like a bandit; because most people won’t. In the case of correcting misrepresentations of the level of decentralization in other projects, it is to allow people to make rational decisions when interacting with them, and to make people aware of the potential consequences and risks varying degrees of decentralization expose them to.

Šli smo skozi nekaj pozitivnih vedenj — poglejmo nekaj negativnih.

Constantly preaching like you are a priest in church, speaking directly from the holy gospel that preordains Bitcoin’s success in consuming the entirety of the world’s financial system and currency markets as a guaranteed divine certainty. Stock-to-flow was a perfect example of this type of behavior. In reality, all that model is, is a somewhat interesting backtest. By backtest, I mean it is a model that can verify that a market has followed some particular behavior v preteklosti. It has no predictive power, and no ability to model things going forward. It literally does not have the data in the model necessary to do so, i.e., the demand variable to account for shifts in demand for bitcoin. The movement around the model was completely absurd cult-like behavior. It had no rational basis at all, and yet became a dominant narrative pushed all over the space. This did not inform people, or give people realistic expectations or reasons to invest in or use Bitcoin. It projected the outward appearance of a cult.

Or take for instance, in the exact same dogmatic manner, calling something a scam without being able to actually provide a reasoned argument or criticism. One example are the ICOs of Ethereum and EOS. Mobs of individuals constantly rail against these systems almost solely on the basis of being a scam because they centrally issued tokens before launch. There are almost no mention of real technical faults. In EOS’s case, there is a concept called “virtual RAM,” which limits how many smart contracts are allowed to exist and run on the system. Use of the virtual RAM is a scarce economic resource you have to pay to own, while at the same time EOS block signers are in total control of the supply. This allows the block signers to buy RAM, sell it as it appreciates in value, and then create more to crash the price, buy low and repeat. The incentives of the entire system are totally gameable by block signers to rent-seek and extract maximum value from users in a manipulative fashion. Another example, one of the biggest value propositions of Ethereum currently is the use as a platform for decentralized finance, i.e., building exchanges and trading platforms on-chain to allow people to trade peer-to-peer. A requirement for that to work is a smart contract that anyone can interact with by themselves, that automatically handles facilitating a trade. Anyone being able to engage in that interaction, in combination with the fact that miners (or stakers) choose which transactions interacting with the contract occur first, allows them to front-run any use and soak up any profit able to be made doing so. The incentives are broken.

The vast majority of people, at least that I see, criticizing other projects articulate criticisms more along the lines of, “It was an ICO, scam!” rather than, “The RAM market, or MEV, fundamentally breaks the incentives of block producers.” Such behavior is not at all constructive, informative or something that will actually convince people to reassess their opinion of a project. “It’s a scam,” with no supporting argument is not convincing at all and it does not inspire self reflection or reassessment. It creates the perception of jealousy over a potential for greater profit.

Now think about the “left/right” categorization of political positions versus the four quadrant categorization. That is what is occurring, a complex reality of many different behaviors is being over simplified into “left/right” categories. That is not productive, it is not constructive criticism or feedback, it is binary over-simplified tribal thinking. It does not change people’s minds, does not equip people to make informed decisions, it does nothing constructive.

Pomislite na vsa ta vedenja in nato na vse ljudi, ki jih poznate v tem prostoru, ki jih izkazujejo. Lahko narišete črno-belo črto, da jih razdelite v skupine? Dvomim. Zakaj je torej celoten pogovor v celoti osredotočen na oznake in skupine, namesto na posameznike in vedenje? Ena je popolnoma moteča, delitvena in v vseh pogledih neproduktivna. Drugi je racionalen, potencialno povezovalni in produktiven.

Labels ultimately are nothing but vague and shallow social signaling. Virtue signaling. Behaviors and their effects are ultimately what really shapes and changes things. If there is any discussion to be had, that is the one that should be had. Not one over labels, but actual substantial behaviors and rational arguments. Who gives a shit about the label “Bitcoin Maximalism.”

To je gostujoča objava avtorja Shinobija. Izražena mnenja so v celoti njihova lastna in ne odražajo nujno mnenj BTC Inc ali Bitcoin Magazine.