Blockchain has become a well-known term. Some people even assert that everything in human society in the future will be based on blockchain. However, if you ask what technology blockchain is, the explanations of various "experts" can be described as vague: some pile up terms that ordinary people can't understand, some talk about its potential application, and some simply call it "the fourth industrial revolution"-as for the essence of blockchain, everyone is still unclear after all.
It's not hard to guess why we are evasive. In terms of function, blockchain is just a public database encrypted in a special way. This sexy concept can't be used for hype. Of course, the blockchain is eye-catching, and its connotation and extension cannot be as lacking in nutrition as its function. To be clear, we need to know a lot of information beyond the technical ontology, and the most important thing is the virtual currency represented by Bitcoin.
The pain point of blockchain
Five years ago, not many people in the world knew what a blockchain was. As the underlying technology of Bitcoin, this system transmits in the form of blocks, and connects the blocks into a chain by adding at the end, hence the name blockchain. From a technical perspective, there is no significant barrier between blockchain and existing IT technologies, and there is no innovative progress; However, from the perspective of values, they are fundamentally different-all technologies used to improve efficiency, while blockchain is the opposite.
Since bitcoin is a symbolic existence of blockchain, we might as well take it as a sample.
Every transaction in the Bitcoin system has been verified by countless users in the whole network. After verification, the transaction can be established. Users with a successful first account can get a certain amount of bitcoin rewards. This information processing process is usually called "mining". At present, there are about 5 million active users in Bitcoin system, and about 30 million transactions are processed in 20 17 years. What is the turnover of 30 million pieces? In one day of 20 17, 165438+ 10,1,Alipay completed 148 billion transactions, which is about 50 times of the annual transaction volume of Bitcoin.
This gap does not make much sense. After all, the number of users of Bitcoin is far lower than that of Alipay, and the application scenarios are far less than that of Alipay, so it is not surprising that there is an order of magnitude difference in transaction volume. What really illustrates the problem is the power consumption supporting these 30 million transactions: foreign media Digiconomist announced that the power consumption of Bitcoin system reached 30 billion kWh in 20 17 years, accounting for 0. 13% of the global power consumption, exceeding the national annual power consumption of dozens of countries. In other words, to handle a transaction, the Bitcoin system needs to consume 1000 kWh on average; Based on the electricity price of residents in China, it is equivalent to each active user bearing the electricity bill of 3000 yuan. Such incredible power consumption means huge computing power configuration, which is in sharp contrast to its small processing function.
The inefficiency of "decentralization" is not only reflected in computing power, but also in data storage.
Continue to take Bitcoin as an example. As we all know, Bitcoin (blockchain technology) requires users to store public books in a distributed manner. The logic behind it is wonderful: the concept of "decentralization" thinks that the manager of the central ledger will cheat, so the storage of the ledger must be made public. At present, the size of the complete public account book of Bitcoin has exceeded 150GB, and it is rapidly increasing at the rate of tens of GB every year-just to support 5 million users and 30 million transactions every year. If one day its processing power is comparable to that of Alipay, the size of the Bitcoin account book will increase by more than 500TB every year. This is equivalent to backing up the stored data of Alipay server on all users' personal computers, and its absurdity is obvious.
In order to solve this problem, the Bitcoin system now allows users to store incomplete public account books, that is, "light wallets", but its transaction verification still depends on the complete account books of others on the network. Let's imagine that when the public account book is too big for most people to store completely, won't the remaining complete user nodes become the central account book again?
To expand our horizons to blockchain applications other than virtual currency (if any), public books need to record not only the pure digital transaction amount, but also the insurance information of each car and everyone's credit information. If we want to "decentralize" these multidimensional data and store them on each user's terminal, what we need will be the storage space of astronomical figures. In a short time, this will be an impossible problem.
From a philosophical point of view, the essence of science is doubt, and the essence of religion is belief. As a concept in the field of science and technology, how does blockchain make people ignore many paradoxes and become their followers? The answer is, of course, inseparable from Bitcoin, the miracle of making wealth in the world.
The philosophy of bitcoin
I don't know when it started, and the big brothers began to deliberately separate Bitcoin and blockchain as two concepts. Everyone says that bitcoin is just one of the applications of blockchain.
There are various motives.
Anyone with a little common sense in economics knows that Bitcoin cannot be the currency of a normal economy. It has deflationary nature, ignores monetary policy, and is inconsistent with modern economic theory. The more important reason is that the credit currency it challenges is too strong. Except for a few failed countries, all countries in the world issue money on the basis of government credit. Credit currency is also called legal tender because most countries clearly stipulate by law that domestic currency is a universal equivalent that must be accepted in the domestic circulation field. In this way, the state ensures that credit currency will not be rejected, and at the same time, the rights of currency holders will not be violated. In other words, credit currency is not issued out of thin air, it is backed by government credit endorsement and state machine.
The issue mechanism of Bitcoin (that is, mining) is intended to "decentralize" the government's monetary centralization, and behind it is the rationality of the government.
As mentioned earlier, the logical starting point of "decentralization" is distrust of centralized institutions. The fundamental reason why Bitcoin fundamentalists choose to use "machine consensus" instead of "institutional consensus" is that the government-led currency issuance system cannot reflect fairness and justice-inflation and inequality between the rich and the poor-and these problems that Bitcoin tries to solve all point to the organizational system. From this perspective, the inefficient consensus mechanism of Bitcoin also has the philosophical significance of "efficiency for fairness".
If technological progress will eventually make the lost efficiency negligible, does that mean that "untrustworthy" centralized institutions do not need to exist?
This is a dangerous question, but fortunately we don't have to answer it for the time being-because the attempt to "fair" Bitcoin has basically failed.
The original intention of bitcoin designers is to hope that bitcoin participants can get bitcoin at the same time roughly equally. For this reason, a rather exquisite and idealized blockchain algorithm is designed, which is the so-called PoW(ProofofWork) mechanism. By enumerating random number variables, the first user who gets a specific hash function value will have the right to book a transaction and get the corresponding bitcoin reward. Based on the PoW mechanism, the probability of each user obtaining bitcoin is directly determined by the computing power he contributes. It seems reasonable that the more he invests, the more he will get back.
Of course it's not that simple.
On the one hand, the PoW of Bitcoin is extremely energy-consuming, and the expected probability of obtaining a specific required hash value every time a random number is generated is 1/62 18 (less than one billion), so all devices need massive exhaustive operations to determine the accounting authority. The high operating cost of Bitcoin is largely due to this "fair" incentive mechanism.
On the other hand, the designers of Bitcoin have made a serious misjudgment on the allocation of computing power. He thought that users would honestly use CPU to run mining programs, but limited by the number and cost of CPU cores, a single user is unlikely to concentrate too much computing power. However, everyone knows what happened later. From GPU to mining machine to big mine, a decentralized system has almost become an oligopoly.
It is no accident that Bitcoin seriously deviates from its concept.
Large-scale production has brought many benefits to "mining giants": the bargaining power of electricity charges is stronger, the utilization efficiency of fixed assets is higher, the comprehensive labor cost is lower, and the R&D amortization cost is thinner. Even for virtual products like Bitcoin, its production process still conforms to the simple economic law of diminishing marginal cost, which is the inevitability of centralization. From the perspective of natural science, a similar conclusion holds: a fragmented individual has the highest entropy, and a high entropy means incompetence.
Some people think that PoW distorts the concept of bitcoin, reduces efficiency and induces competition in computing power. If it is abolished, the problem will be solved. So they designed new incentive mechanisms, such as PoS and dpo. In my humble opinion, these efforts will not bear fruit, because on the seesaw of "efficiency" and "fairness", you can't satisfy everyone, even most people.
To put it more mysteriously: any kind of virtual currency incentive mechanism is an economic system-a "dead system" cannot guarantee the stable operation of a dynamic economic system, only the "living" can.
Dilemma of de-monetization
Due to various problems of Bitcoin, people of insight in the circle realized that it would be a loss to continue to bind the blockchain and Bitcoin together, and it is imperative to cut the relationship in the name of "technical innocence". This is both a response to the status quo and a wish: the impact of Bitcoin has been too far-reaching. If the blockchain is not liberated, the space for latecomers to get rich will be squeezed.
However, is it really possible to monetize the blockchain?
Many ordinary people who don't know the truth, even some well-known investors, feel that the "real and tamper-proof" blockchain itself has unlimited value.
In this regard, I have to say that there is a big misunderstanding.
For example, cross-bank settlement, even if the blockchain system successfully completes the bookkeeping operation, but a rogue bank refuses to make money, can blockchain replace the law to ensure that the rights of rival banks are not infringed? Another example is product anti-counterfeiting. Even if the QR code is correct, the seller will install the defective product in the box at the first time. Can blockchain exert magic and let customers receive genuine products smoothly? In fact, the "real, tamper-free" blockchain can only take action on virtual information at best, and its tentacles can't touch the real world at all.
However, these concepts are being abused intentionally or unintentionally. To be responsible, most of the so-called promising blockchain applications are completely based on the fantasy of "authenticity and cannot be tampered with". The people who put forward these applications don't understand the blockchain technology itself. They just find some application scenarios with "authenticity" as the pain point-and such scenarios are of course everywhere. However, in the end, everyone will find that even if many problems such as inefficient redundant security are overcome, the imaginary blockchain demand will still not appear.
Because this is not a technical problem to a large extent, but an economic problem.
The "decentralized" design of blockchain means that the operating cost of the system will be shared with each user, but the nature of rational people has never been sharing and dedication, but hitchhiking. Take bitcoin as an example, not to mention the investment in hardware such as mining machines. Just the electricity bill, active users have to pay 3000 yuan a year. If blockchain applications cannot generate tangible personal benefits, there will be no spontaneous participants, and even if they are reluctant to participate, their reliability will be questioned. Therefore, the commercial application of blockchain cannot be decoupled from the incentive mechanism.
To put it further, the consensus of blockchain is not only the consensus of technical public books, but also the consensus of blockchain value media. For example, in the Bitcoin system, if there is no incentive mechanism or Bitcoin is worthless, then no one will provide computing power, no one will provide storage space, and no one will preach-Bitcoin itself is the value of the system, and ideas and technologies are just beautiful stories.
At present, there are two kinds of blockchain applications reported by the media: one is to use the theme to speculate and forcibly apply blockchain algorithm in the transactions of centralized institutions; Or a pure "prospect", regardless of the way and difficulty of realization. For some reason, these media reached a wonderful tacit understanding in the process of promoting blockchain, never mentioning virtual currency, which seriously misled everyone and thought that blockchain was just a pure network technology. In fact, if there is really a veritable blockchain ecology, then the last picture of the white paper must be virtual currency.
Accordingly, we may wish to re-examine the relationship between virtual currency and blockchain.
There is a saying in the circle called "blockchain-based, using virtual currency", which is difficult to distinguish.
To put it bluntly, the essence of blockchain is a specific algorithm created by virtual currency in order to establish a "fair incentive mechanism". The so-called "virtual currency based on blockchain for use" is tantamount to buying gifts and returning pearls. Here we can assert that once the soul of virtual currency is lost, the blockchain is worthless.
This statement may be hard to accept at the moment, but it is not logically wrong.
The so-called "generating value" is nothing more than three criteria: creating demand, reducing costs and reshaping fairness. From the perspective of cost, blockchain has no advantage in centralization; From a fair point of view, the grand Bitcoin social experiment has been unveiled. Then the only suspense is whether the blockchain will "create demand".
At this time, people in the currency circle can jump out and say categorically that there is of course demand. Look at this surging ICO!
ICO carnival
ICO, the full name of InitialCoinOffering, is the first token issue. In short, it is a crowdfunding financing behavior of pricing specific virtual currencies of early projects with general virtual currencies such as Bitcoin and selling shares to the public. How early are the so-called "early projects"? It is enough to form a team and write a white paper. It's also very diligent to make a PPT when you are free. As for due diligence and financial analysis, it is completely unnecessary, because most projects have no operating income at all.
The term "specific virtual currency" is a bit unprofessional. The popular name of the currency circle should be token, and the elegant translation is "pass card". In the white paper, the project team will draw all kinds of cakes to tell you how valuable your pass will be in the future. But if you want to know what a pass is, I'm sorry, there is a fine tradition in the blockchain circle, which is called "unclear"
For some meaningful reasons, most of ICO's LegalDocuments are in pure English, and the true definition of general certificate is actually hidden in them. Almost all ICOs have made the following provisions in legal documents: "The pass will not grant any rights except the return stipulated in the white paper, and will only take effect when the project is successful. Crowdfunding investors should not exert any influence on project development and management. Passing does not mean that investors have any form of ownership of the project, nor can they obtain future income and intellectual property rights related to the project. "
This jaw-dropping text, to put it bluntly, is: although you have paid the money, you are nothing. ICO crowdfunding is not the crowdfunding we used to know. Investors spend money on chips instead of stocks. When the dealer stops playing, the chips are classified as air-what's more, most dealers simply can't afford to play.
Can such virtual currency be sold without underlying assets, subject credit, business model and legal protection? The answer turned out to be yes.
All this seems ridiculous, but the logic behind it is actually simple: because many people make money through ICO.
Building a team to write a white paper is the first link in the ICO industrial chain. Next, it is necessary to pull a big platform to send money to overseas "exchanges". When the virtual currency goes online, it is necessary to manipulate the price of the currency to attract more speculators to enter, and finally see the opportunity to cash out and leave, even if the whole process is completed. Someone directly realized financial freedom in this game; Some people eat soup instead of meat.
In the face of the miracle of making wealth with such a low threshold, anyone should be moved.
However, if the project itself is not profitable, no matter how ICO is packaged and beautified, it is still a zero-sum game-someone makes a lot of money, and someone must have lost underwear. Just like the pyramid scheme we are familiar with. Everyone knows that you will die if you take the last stick, but everyone thinks you won't take the last stick.
What role does blockchain play in the ICO tide?
As we all know, decentralization, de-creditability, fairness and justice are all concepts promoted by blockchain. On the other hand, ICO: If you want to remit money online, you must pay a huge "currency fee" to the centralized exchange. What kind of "decentralization" is this? What kind of "de-crediting" is it because the project team is rampant in fraud, the media in the currency circle is deliberately misleading, and trading accounts are frequently hacked? How "fair" are bookmakers and predators driving up prices, profiteering and crushing leeks? In fact, in addition to providing virtual currency and gimmicks, blockchain is useless in the currency circle. Ironically, many virtual currencies issued by ICO are not even based on blockchain technology.
Therefore, ICO is not a demand created by blockchain, but a shame of blockchain.
The future of chains and coins
Now that we know that virtual currency is the only value of blockchain, we have a general idea of the future analysis of blockchain.
At the moment when legal tender is completely electronic, virtual currency based on blockchain technology has little practical value in normal social life. But in special situations, virtual currency has an advantage that electronic legal tender can't be copied, and that is privacy.
All transactions that use banks as payment channels can be regulated. If the authorities like, they can know who you gave the money to, the background of the transaction, the time when it happened and everything. So before the advent of Bitcoin, most shady transactions were done in cash. You've only seen gangster movies with a big box of cash to buy drugs, and you'll never see one with a POS machine.
The emergence of bitcoin has completely changed money laundering, drug trafficking and black market arms trading. With this completely anonymous currency, criminals no longer have to worry about boxes of cash or pay discounts for consecutive dollars-Bitcoin is portable gold, just like its design concept.
Therefore, Bitcoin and its substitutes cannot be completely eliminated, because the need to evade supervision will always exist.
As long as the virtual currency does not die, the blockchain economy must have room for survival, because the value represented by the virtual currency must be realized, and this way cannot be legal tender forever.
It is necessary to interject here. Recently, the compromise products between blockchain and centralized ledger, such as lightning net, are gradually emerging. In principle, the central account can greatly improve the processing efficiency and adapt to large-scale high-frequency applications, but if the main demand of the core users of virtual currency is to get rid of supervision, then this function may not be popularized. The result will be known soon.
Another question that everyone cares about is: Will the surge of ICO lead to the explosion of virtual currency? The answer is of course no.
Virtual currency is not protected by law, so its public acceptance largely determines its value and future. When we accept legal tender payment, we acquiesce in the legal tender we get, and others will accept it. Its face value does not generate any discount in the circulation process, and it has the liquidity of 100%. The situation of virtual currency is different. Due to the lack of quantitative indicators of liquidity, we can only decide whether to accept this kind of virtual currency payment according to the overall judgment of the public on its acceptance. This judgment will have a strong Matthew effect, because the choices of the public will converge rapidly.
On the other hand, there is an upper limit to the types of currencies that the public can accept spontaneously. Take bicycle sharing as an example. We will carefully store mobike, OFO and Bluegogo. How many people share more than four kinds of bicycles at the same time? Usually, the upper limit for the public to accept the homogenization function is only "three". At the time of currency, the status of legal tender is unshakable, the second is mostly bitcoin, and the third is Ethereum-so unfortunately, not surprisingly, other virtual currencies are not big.
Some people will say that this is based on the judgment of public chain, and we also have private chain and alliance chain.
In this regard, we must clearly point out that private chain companies are a general ledger and have nothing to do with the concept of blockchain. As for the alliance chain, there are many misunderstandings. For example, many alliance chain ideas now have no token component, which is the biggest misunderstanding. As previously analyzed, if there is no incentive mechanism, high-frequency applications will become hitchhiking tools for low-frequency applications, and worse, even the media for value transmission will be missing. In addition, if there are differences between different applications in the way of cashing in the value of tokens, arbitrage within the alliance will be inevitable. In a word, compared with the public chain, the alliance chain has only a few more problems besides a slight improvement in privacy. The gap in the universality of Token means that it can only survive in the shadow of public chain and rely on the value of the underlying assets.
To sum up, we have a basic understanding of the future application scope of blockchain: most of the naturally growing blockchain economy will be based on Bitcoin and Ethereum. The natural growth mentioned here is especially different from the pseudo-blockchain forcibly attached by centralized institutions. Whether it is inter-bank settlement, product anti-counterfeiting or any other scenario, if the consensus and trust among participants already exist, then the so-called blockchain application is only a database at best, and it will not be an optimized design database.
The last question: When will the prosperity of blockchain fade?
This is a difficult question to answer. But there is a good saying: you can fool everyone for a while, or you can fool one person forever, but you can't fool everyone forever.