Adam Ludwin of Chain offers this interesting (and, I believe, effective) attempt to explain crypto to high-profile doubters. It is an open letter to naysayers that argues against extreme positions on both sides of the “money revolution” argument.
Check out 8 quips by Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase. I believed that he had moderated his position after originally panning Bitcoin / blockchain. These quotes contradict that impression. But, they were uttered before October 2016. They may not represent his current position…
Here at Wild Duck, we aren’t fully on board with Ludwin, because we represent one side of what he suggests are two ‘extreme positions’. But we certainly are closer in spirit to his side—especially, his effort to educate those that see zero value to to Bitcoin and no profound opportunities for the blockchain. They see only fad and frenzy.
Bitcoin and the blockchain are radical, transformative instruments. But they as not as radical as some claim. In fact, they address a profound technical problem that has been the subject of research and debate for more than 2300 years. They are a surprisingly natural product of the internet. With instant, inexpensive, portable and ubiquitous communication, it is possible to distribute consensus. That consensus can be applied to any set of records: ledgers, deeds, votes, and a many things that, at first, seem quite surprising—areas that we never previously thought of as a “ledger” or an ownership stake.
A: Let’s begin by reducing two concepts into the very simplest of definitions:
- Bitcoin is the original, decentralized, permissionless cash.
- The blockchain is a social consensus mechanism. It crowd-sources record keeping, commitment and all manner of accountability by adding a distributed and robust log that is fair, immutable, testable and measurable. Most importantly, it is open to public scrutiny. Effectively, the blockchain crowd-sources fair play.
B: Next, let’s set aside some growth pains. They are transient:
Both Bitcoin and the blockchain are a work in progress—and so they are flawed. But that doesn’t mean that their survival is threatened. Let’s dispel two common misconceptions. I won’t argue or elaborate here. The arguments are all over this blog:
- Bitcoin cannot be overtaken by a better coin with improved features. This is not a situation like Beta–vs–VHS. The entire community is transparent, open source, unlicensed and without proprietary barriers. Bitcoin will simply fold competitive advantages into its architecture. That process involves a messy democratic process among parties with different interests. But, ultimately, the process works.
- The blockchain will correct the energy consumption that is consumed in its current implementation. We have already demonstrated that it adapts and that democratic evolution is possible. Brilliant replacements for proof-of-work are in development.
C: Now, the part that the critics cannot accept:
Both Bitcoin and the blockchain will herald a profound and fundamental shift in offering secure, trustworthy, fair, decentralized and autonomous mechanisms—not just with payments (or currency), but across the board: voting, contracts (including settlement and arbitration), Proving ownership or transactions, including property deeds and corporate stakes, provable jury evidence, administrating & enforcing environmental trade credits, verifying scientific research (especially the outcome of blind tests).
These examples barely scratch the surface of fields that will be transformed or made better by blockchain technology.
D: The really radical application was also the very first implementation:
What about Bitcoin. Is it just a payment instrument, or will it become the money?
Indeed, Bitcoin is likely to replace government issued FIAT all over the world in our lifetime (not only as a payment instrument, but as the actual store of value, without being tied to any national currency or to an underlying asset or promise). But what critics don’t yet appreciate is that this will not impact a government’s ability to tax, spend or enforce tax collection.
It will lead to a deflationary economy and it will decouple a government from its own monetary policy. These are *not* bad things. They are good for all stakeholders. Ultimately, Bitcoin will be recognized as far more of an opportunity than a threat, even by banks and governments.
Even if you vehemently disagree with D, it is difficult to argue against C. The blockchain is as fundamental and profound a contribution to society as the pulley and lever. It it so natural an evolution of the internet, that it is more a discovery than an invention. (I am not attempting take credit away from Satoshi—I am only reclassifying his invention as revelation).