So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be put at risk even in a hundred battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Before I get started, let me just state the obvious. I’m admittedly the furthest thing from a Bitcoin expert imaginable. Some people associate me with Bitcoin because I was relatively early in seeing its tremendous potential for positive change, writing my first public piece on the subject in August 2012, when the price was about $10. If you never read it, here it is: Bitcoin: A Way to Fight Back Against the Financial Terrorists?
For the next couple of years I wrote about Bitcoin extensively, proselytizing about it to anyone who would listen; especially to some of my friends who remained in the financial services industry, though most of these efforts proved fruitless. As time went by, more and more people became interested in Bitcoin, and I simply became outclassed as a commentator on the topic. I decided to opine less and listen more, especially since I started to spend much less time reading and thinking about Bitcoin, and became much more focused on politics. With so many far more knowledgeable Bitcoin thinkers out there, I’ve taken an entirely appropriate backseat on the punditry front. If I feel I have nothing meaningful to add to the debate, why enter the debate at all?
Vinny Lingham’s writings were instrumental in my decision to take a backseat in the realm of Bitcoin commentary. When I saw his deep understanding of the technology coupled with a track record for making accurate macro price forecasts, I knew how important his voice was, and I started highlighting his work as opposed to producing my own. Over the last week or so, Vinny has weighed into the Bitcoin scaling debate with two very important articles. I’ll admit, the first article freaked me out significantly for several days. Particularly this part:
It’s inarguable that Bitcoin is the single strongest brand in the crypto space. I believe it probably received $2–5bn in free media exposure over the years. A Hard Fork would create 2 brands of Bitcoin — essentially handing over some brand value to Bitcoin Unlimited. I wrote a post about Bitcoin’s power and network effect over 2 years ago — it’s worth reading if you haven’t.
If a split is portrayed badly in the media and creates confusion, we will possibly go into another 2 years of sideways and down. Do we have that much time again with other competitors on the heels? And let’s be frank, a Hard Fork is not Bitcoin dying. It’s Bitcoin duplicating. Now we have two Bitcoins, both won’t die, maybe one will. Which one is the real Bitcoin? Do not underestimate how many enemies Bitcoin has — a fork will just give them all the ammunition they need to confuse the market.
The whole point about Bitcoin being a long term store of value is that there are only 21m coins, ever. Stability, security and scarcity are the differentiation properties of Bitcoin, a contentious Hard Fork attacks these properties and will be strongly reflected in the price. After a Hard Fork, we will be sitting with 33m “Bitcoins”, on track for 42m and we’ll be having arguments about which one is the legitimate Bitcoin for years to come. You can expect legal cases to arise around the use of the brand, as the Ethereum Classic Investment Trust has shown.
Imagine someone says: I want to buy Bitcoin. Next question is: Which one?! After that, the very next question will be :
“What if one of these coins fork again — then we will have 63m coins, and so on and so forth.”
I can tell you with 100% certainty that a huge part of the appeal of Bitcoin for so many of us was the network’s stable, transparent supply curve. One of the biggest critiques of the naysayers in the early days was that it was just code, what’s to stop it from being nefariously altered in the future? Unfortunately, we’ve come to a point in the road where we’re being confronted with this exact contentious reality. So how did we get here?
First as Vinny explained in his Fork in the Road post:
Bitcoin was largely built on the premise that economic forces and self interest would help govern the security of the network. We talk a lot about decentralization but the reality is that the hardware that powers Bitcoin is produced by a handful of companies who also control mining pools which can be used against the network.
That was just an appetizer to more expansive commentary on the issue of centralization, which he outlined in his next piece, The Power of the Invisible Hand.
The goal of this post is not to get to the bottom of Andrew’s tweets or discuss the details around it. I’ll leave that up to the community to figure out. I want to instead focus on answering just 2 questions — “How did we get here?!” and “Where do we go from here?!”
Now, before we all start blaming Roger, Jihan, John or anyone else for the current situation we’re faced with (an impending hard fork), let’s look inward. How did we get to the point where just a handful of players in a $20bn ecosystem could plausibly derail a peer to peer, globally distributed and seemingly decentralized network. It shouldn’t be possible. But it is. Even if their intentions are being misunderstood, and they mean well, the fact that it’s possible means that if it’s not them, it will just be another group in time trying to achieve the same outcomes. We need to fix this, but it’s not a short term fix.
To a large extent, Bitcoin has been a victim of its own recent successes. Since the recent halving event in July last year, Bitcoin has already doubled in price. This has resulted in miners earning larger transaction fees and demanding larger blocks, which will result in more centralization as it gives larger mining pools an edge. The higher the price goes, the less likely we are to get to an agreement with miners. The market keeps rewarding them for keeping the Bitcoin network secure, because the price keeps rising? Or is it.
Irrespective of the scaling debate, we seem to have an uncomfortably centralized Bitcoin ecosystem in some important and meaningful ways. It is this backdrop which makes the current situation so concerning, and it is this backdrop that has made Bitcoin as vulnerable as it is right now.
Now here’s where it gets even more concerning. Many observers are warning that Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), if it happens, could make the centralization issue even worse. As Vinny notes:
Bitcoin has been criticized for a lack of governance or the ability to break a deadlock. So, in the example of the scaling debate, a group called Bitcoin Unlimited broke away to create what they believe to be true to the founding principles of Bitcoin.
Unlimited wants to have larger block sizes, and this means that larger pools will benefit more, leading to more centralization of Bitcoin mining and higher fees for them (more transactions per block). Their argument is that block sizes were never meant to be constrained. Arguably, they’re right, but mining centralization with ASICs has meant that this is not an option right now. If we were to revert to another Proof of Work algorithm that was more decentralized, then I would be very supportive of larger block sizes.
If this is right (people I respect disagree on whether BU will make the miner centralization problem worse), this is a gigantic elephant in the room for Bitcoin Unlimited. It also makes it increasingly likely that behind the scenes the Chinese government is supporting BU as a way to either take over Bitcoin or destroy it from within. You may think this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but after looking at this debate from all angles, I’ve come to the conclusion that this whole thing has seemingly morphed into a state sponsored attack (read more here). That’s not to say the whole push started out this way, but I think the Chinese government saw an opportunity and pounced on it. If this is true, BU shouldn’t be derisively referred to as RogerCoin, it should be called ChinaCoin.
While I’m no Bitcoin expert, I’m friends with several people who are. Big names in the space who I’ve gotten to know over the years, and whose opinions I respect and honesty I trust. All of them confirm my suspicion about the Chinese government even if they disagree on other points, which got me thinking further. If this is the case, then those arguing against BU and a hard fork are doing it all wrong. With all due respect, simply telling people to hold onto to their Bitcoins assuming it will all work out and demonizing Roger Ver and his ego is the completely wrong strategy. It’s both naive and counterproductive. Naive, because if we are indeed battling a state actor, we need to take off the rose-colored glasses immediately. Counterproductive, because we are spreading the narrative that there’s a civil war in Bitcoin that may not really exist. We should not mistake a coup for a civil war, these are two very, very different things, and they need to be addressed differently.
As I tweeted earlier today:
Strategy suggestion for BU opponents. Forget Ver, focus all energy on saying this is a fight against Chinese state and centralized miners.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) March 20, 2017
At this point, I want to be clear about where I stand on this entire debate. I’m not knowledgeable enough on Bitcoin and the technicalities of what’s going on to make a cogent argument defending Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Unlimited. What I can do is trust the judgement of the people I respect most in Bitcoin, and I’ve discovered that those people are opposed to BU and the idea of a hard fork. The point of this post is a friendly wakeup call pointing out that the current narrative against BU appears both childish and ineffective.
If the Chinese state is in any way involved in this behind the scenes, then those opposed to what is going on need to wake up and smell the danger. Understanding your opponent is a key component to winning a battle such as this, and if the message is simply “don’t sell your bitcoin, everything will be fine,” and “isn’t Roger Ver’s huge ego terrible,” the outcome may not be the one you desire.
In my mind it’s time to face the music and deal with reality. If you want to control the narrative around BU, then you need to associate it with the Chinese government. Not just because it will be effective, but because it’s probably true.
To conclude, this post merely addresses a near-term issue related to BU and a potential hard fork. I think those against such an outcome need to get control of the narrative and fight fire with fire. That said, preventing a worst case scenario in this specific instance doesn’t solve Bitcoin’s bigger miner centralization problem, it’s merely addressing a symptom of a larger issue. As Vinny noted:
How did we get to the point where just a handful of players in a $20bn ecosystem could plausibly derail a peer to peer, globally distributed and seemingly decentralized network. It shouldn’t be possible. But it is. Even if their intentions are being misunderstood, and they mean well, the fact that it’s possible means that if it’s not them, it will just be another group in time trying to achieve the same outcomes. We need to fix this, but it’s not a short term fix.
This is the big issue, and I’d be way out of my league to begin to chime in on how to solve it. I’ll leave that to the actual experts.
Thanks to Tone Vays for reading this piece before I hit publish. He assured me he has a very interesting blog post coming shortly, which he’ll publish at his website: Liberty Life Trail.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
This isn’t a handful of players, there’s huge support for Unlimited. You just won’t see it in the censored forums cause.. well, it’s censored.
Here’s what I know. Over the last few years, I’ve gotten to know several very smart, well respected people within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Not a single one supports Bitcoin Unlimited and this hard fork. To me, that’s noteworthy.
As Chatham House and other think-tanks concluded, Cashless Society requires a trusted grant of legitimacy as determined by Local Alternative Currencies and Networks…
If central banks, BIS, World Bank, IMF, or AIIB truly desired destroying Crypto-Currency usages, they wouldn’t at best treat transferring fiat units into digital ones at lesser burden of fees as cash withdraws for physical cash withdrawals that even digitized states utilization of possessing that cash unit. Meaning, when you hear investors screaming to get out of cash, they mean transferring out of that currency unit.
Shouldn’t that have been a dead giveaway from the start?
divide and conquer………
turns out bitcoin mining pool cooperation and competition is sujbect to the same incentive strategies as banking.
seniorage ( the cost of printing money and servicing the physical supply of fiat , namely the cost of ensuring its authenticity and destroying old currency ) is compensated for by the profit of issueance . money has an IPO value just like new alt-coins or bitcoin itself did when first issued and then it has the repeated transaction cost of confirmation.
so running money in a decentralized fashion winds up looking a lot like what people call ‘centralized’ money. but then……isn’t the definition of centralized versus decentralized all relative to what is being compared?
i think there’s a reason ethereum has exploded in price. it’s becasue decentralized verification services are the implicit value of an ethereum service and what you are paying for is processing power of the network rather than the guarantee that some mining pool won’t eventually hard fork the output address of your transactions.
before the world is ready for a single electronic currnecy it will get decentralized software verification as a service and that may one day be a multibillion dollar a year industry as measured in the transaction fees paid.
the real work of your money can be measured by the cost of seniorage, or in this case, the cost of verifying the transaction. bitcoin is now being unmasked as somewhat obsolete relative to ethereum. http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/11/how-do-ethereums-transaction-fees-compare-to-bitcoin
a few years time should show that ethereum is more useful than bitcoin because it was built by a guy who saw bitcoins’ limited and narrow use cases and decided to build a network with broader horizons . this of course, takes into account an entirely more sophisticated regime for transaction fees.
disclosure i have never owned a bitcoin or an ether coin of any type.
But Ethereum already had a hard fork ( Dao debacle, Etherium vs Etherium Classic ) plus there is official fork Ehterium Enterprise or something.
So while ETH is truly adding new dimension, whether that experiment adds any practical value is very doubtful.
Obviously ETH/ETC do stand out of other altcoins, but their potential of more different and versatile applications than BTC remains merely a promise.
What needs to be added is that there is a decentralisation revolution taking place- centralised control of banking is being challenged by the blockchain, social media is challenging centralised MSM. This is great as there is a positive correlation between economic success and respectful cultures that decentralise power (Kotter and Heskett 1992).
While it is great to be part of the decentralisation revolution and use Bitcoin the problem with Bitcoin is that people mix up the role of an investment with the role of a medium of exchange. There is no real obstacle to having millions of virtual currencies and they all can function effectively as mediums of exchange. The issue is whether they should be looked at as investments and there is some doubt about this.
To me, Bitcoins are little more than a digital version gold, with the similar benefits and drawbacks:
1) Bitcoins and gold cannot be easily/cheaply counterfeited
2) Money supply cannot be easily macthed to size of economy, leading to unstable value
3) Gold has very limited intrinsic value; Bitcoins have zero intrinsic value. Nobody ever answered the question: “What would you take with you to live on a deserted island?” with “100 bitcoins” or “5 ounces of gold” They waste valuable resources (labor, energy, materials used for the contruction of the mining equipment), leading to a Negative productivity ratio. Since we live on a planet with a fixed amount of resources (with a few exceptions such as sunlight), and a rapidly growing population, this is a major problem.
Two differences:
1) Bitcoins are very portable
2) Bitcoin monetary system requires significant infrastructure (computers + software), both for creation and for transactions.
It’s no wonder that Bitcoin valuations goes through similar large price fluctuatiosn like gold.
Oh my, above I read: “Unlimited wants to have larger block sizes, and this means that larger pools will benefit more, leading to more centralization of Bitcoin mining and higher fees for them (more transactions per block)”
BU will cause higher fees? Really? The whole point is to reduce congestion on the network to REDUCE fees. You have been talking to the wrong people.
That’s not what Vinny wrote, he stated that BU will increase miner centralization, which will in turn give the biggest players even greater shares of the fees, which will be higher overall fees for them.
However, I recognize that smart people in Bitcoin have different opinions on whether BU will lead to increased miner centralization or not, which I specifically pointed out.
It clearly says “higher fees”, not “higher share of fees”. Doesn’t matter. Have you seen the backlog of transactions that are stuck because of full blocks? Have you seen the current fees necessary to get a transaction confirmed? That is the Core/Lightning/Blockstream strategy. Maximize fees. Centralization? How about massive lightning nodes that will earn the bulk of the fees at the expense of the “small guy”.
Higher fees after his point about about centralization. It read clearly to me.
Either way, after last night the war/coup is essentially over. At this point it would just be scorched earth if BU moves to fork, and history will see it that way for eternity.
For instance, let’s look at the latest BTC block # 458445. It has 1659 transactions. The total fees are 2.39 BTC or $2,461 USD. That’s an average of $1.48 per transaction. Let that sink in for a minute.
Pardon my asking, but what happened last night?
Interesting take on the Chinese government aspect. However, both a softfork with Segwit or a hardfork to BU will not solve Bitcoin’s inability to function a currency on a global scale. My prediction is that if Core wins out, bitcoin will settle into a role of being the global reserve currency which everything is pegged to and will have a long future ahead of it while newer, better technologies like Dash will become the day-to-day currencies, but if BU wins out, it will become just an antiquated currency that will only lose market share over time.