Having said all this, we just want to say that
there is only one simple truth in the development of science and technology:
"Everything depends on human effort", and blockchain is definitely
A recent Cross-Shore article "Blockchain is
the solution to a problem it doesn't know how to solve" suddenly went
viral. But first let me introduce to you, the main source of this article comes
from the correspondent of Base International Independent Media Netherlands and
USA, writer Jesse Frederik. He is a financial reporter who focuses on the
financial and economic issues of the underprivileged in society.
This article sparked both positive and negative
discussion yesterday, especially on my wall. Many of my friends who appreciated
the article are mostly mobile internet entrepreneurs or practitioners who
started their businesses in 2010. Many of them are very successful
entrepreneurs. The industry has flourished with huge revenues.
Emotionally, we can totally understand why they
agree 100% with this article. Because the costs of "legal compliance"
for Internet entrepreneurs have been very, very troublesome in the past few
years. Such as selling paid apps in the App Store that require the opening of
invoices, which the industry and lawmakers have spent several years.
Then it's a big project to get cross-border
e-commerce invoices from Facebook and Google to deduct taxes properly. It took
the industry five or six years to finally get the finance ministry to calculate
a reasonable ratio. Entrepreneurs are overwhelmed and intimidated by the law
every day before the situation normalizes.
As industry reporters, whenever we write about
shipment issues, we sigh again. Naturally, we know the heartache of these entrepreneurs
- and then look at the coin circle. In reality, many simply ran away. rat feces
that are difficult to catch by law. Of course, there are many internet
entrepreneurs who later became blockchain entrepreneurs. Just collect the big
bucks, and maybe run away after doing so. Do you think you are too stupid to
obey the law and "forced" to obey the law too tightly? From their
point of view, this is already a problem.
This topic has been discussed frantically since
the ICO trend three years ago. But as little white nanometers aka technology
researchers in coin circles, we've witnessed some coin exchanges on the front
lines over the past three years. Wind and rain in circles and chains, some of
these experiences have been reported for a long time, but some are not
newsworthy or can't be published... so we want to synthesize some of these
experiences and share our views.
To talk about the inevitability of blockchain, we
still have to start with Satoshi Nakamoto's paper. We know this is a book bag
for many people. Satoshi Nakamoto's invention of Bitcoin was originally
intended to focus on replacing traditional third-party institutions with
encrypted certificates. A digital payment system that avoids double-spending.
But since he clearly states in the paper that Bitcoin avoids central
authorities, mints, and banks, he also writes "At this time 03/Jan/2009
the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is being forced to consider a second
shot at getting out of banking crisis.", and Blockchain is thus widely
considered a powerful anti-government character.
After several years of development, Bitcoin and
many other large-scale public chains have become a very stable value
transmission system. Sending mainstream virtual currencies to wallets on the
other side of the world takes minutes or seconds. . From a technical
perspective, many PoS chains process transactions at a rate of hundreds of
thousands of tx/s per second. But today, not from a technology perspective, but
from a "social level", blockchain still has three major trust issues:
Just admit it, ICO losses are
really deep, it's a bad debt. Too low a threshold makes ICOs too superficial
and fraud too high, which ultimately leaves a strong negative impression on
virtual currencies for the global public who do not understand blockchain well.
It is most realistic and brutal.
Blockchain people believe that
algorithms and miners do their best to avoid problems due to profit-driven
security measures. But common people still believe that the country founded by
them pays huge amounts of taxes. The Judiciary, when they have disputes,
intervenes forcibly as a last resort according to law. Whether to cooperate
with blockchain to gain public trust (or you can say consensus) is a very
traditional but constantly debated, very complicated old topic, but even
Facebook is not sure about it. what do you say?
Blockchain cannot currently solve
the garbage in and garbage out problem. The original text also states, "This
is not a system that can itself verify the accuracy of the data." Previous
blockchain impositions in Taiwan were considered such problems. What can be
solved by adding SSL to MySQL, why not use it?
Except for the last point, these three points are
all trust issues that have nothing to do with the technology in the eyes of
blockchain professionals. But in the eyes of the common man, they are very
important. We can carefully negotiate with each other the technological
stratosphere where smart contracts can stabilize. But after all, it is
difficult for the general public to immediately understand that
"Blockchain is as safe as a bank" in a matter of seconds.
can't just say "Blockchain is useless".
But, we don't think blockchain's useless theory is
correct and we don't agree that "blockchain is a solution to a problem it
doesn't know how to solve".
But we also refute the "Blockchain must be
the Internet 3.0 Bala of the future..." "Blockchain will directly
replace the whole bowl of stocks. It's foolish not to buy now. Now we must
exchange which chain and which currency. Cars... etc." (Two years ago,
some foreign exchange trader tried to rob me.) We scoffed at this statement.
That's not how the development of science and
technology works, there's no contradiction. Scientists will break away from the
original idea and establish a new idea. The theoretical system, and form a new
paradigm to replace the old standards.
Even the laws of science are no longer linear,
incremental, and incremental developments. Science and technology development
is similar to science but more complex. The bulk of each technological
iteration is not a natural process but depends on engineers and entrepreneurs.
Constantly communicating with the public, the market clash.
Of course, blockchain is the same, until the
killer product is built and successfully distributed to everyone, it's not
easily predictable. In the words of Perpetual Contract founder Tempo, it's now
"a good way to think about (blockchain) to see new ways to use it and to
think about why it should be used."
DeFi has that sparky smell. Although the harmful
exit at the moment will scare many people for a while, aside from liquidity
mining, in fact, DeFi has many infrastructures, already has many functions, and
digital financial services can be compared to traditional money.
That's about it. Having said all that, it doesn't
matter if you feel like there's no real nourishment or motivation in the end.
But remember the last sentence: As we've seen in the past three years of
blockchain litigation, be aware of blockchain projects that give you too much
hype at the start and repeat promises. There are many tricks in the coin circle
and nothing usually ends well.