最有看点的互联网金融门户

最有看点的互联网金融门户
区块链国际资讯

祸起分叉:意识形态决定BCH无法摆脱分叉威胁

区块链国际资讯

祸起分叉:意识形态决定BCH无法摆脱分叉威胁

比特币现金当前正面临分裂。Bitcoin ABC的开发者似乎完全没有注意到这种威胁,因此他们提议在11月15日就非关键问题进行硬分叉。目前尚不清楚其他BCH客户端,如Bitcoin Unlimited和Craig Wright的新项目Bitcoin SV,在11月15日当天的计划。但很明显的是,社区中存在很多敌对情绪(开发人员被禁止进入沟通频道),并且比特币现金很有可能分裂成多个链。各种趁火打劫的链已经开始出现,比如Bitcoin Cobra和Bitcoin Stash都试图利用这种情况。

比特币现金建立在一种意识形态(理念)的基础上,即一个硬分叉的少数链可以成为原链的合法继承者。“比特币现金就是比特币”是Roger Ver发明的基于这一信条的说辞。因此,比特币现金社区内的分歧将通过分叉的方式来解决,使用这一信条作为理由,并不让人感到意外。下面将进行详细的说明。

任何一个大型群体的核心基础都在于意识形态(理念)。没有意识形态,国家、宗教和政治运动都不可能存在,加密货币也一样。稳定的意识形态能使社区蓬勃发展。宗教中一个简单的例子就是基督教的信条,即“真正的上帝只有一位”。这种信仰加强了基督教的力量,因为它削弱了其他竞争宗教的影响。意识形态不稳定的社区最终会崩溃。比如Shakers,一个18世纪的基督教派,它认可独身主义为核心信条。 Shakers现在已经消失了,这并不让人意外,因为其成员没有生下孩子以延续这种宗教活动。

解释了比特币现金存在合理性的意识形态也同样证明了使用链分叉来解决社区内任何分歧的合理性。很容易看出,这种意识形态,即一个硬分叉的少数链可能是原链的合法继承者,是非常不稳定的。BCH专家David Jerry建议,为了解决分叉问题,少数链应该向获胜的链投降并转换到获胜的链,但是他没有意识到比特币现金本身就是比特币的少数链。

虽然David Jerry的解决方案在比特币中是明智的,但它与比特币现金意识形态完全不相容。因此可以合理地得出结论:比特币现金将面临永无止境的威胁——社区成员威胁要永久地从主链分叉。可以预测,在1年内,将有多个竞争的硬分叉出现。最终,比特币现金网络可能分叉很多次,在最坏的情况下,它可能成为加密货币历史中一个被遗忘的脚注。

现在让我们回到引发比特币分叉的最初争论上,即区块大小的争论。比特币极端主义者经常说区块大小的争论与区块大小本身毫无关系。这是事实,区块大小的争论是关于保持稳定的意识形态。比特币极端主义者在区块大小争论中想要坚持的最重要的信念就是,向后兼容性永远不会被破坏(或者我们永远不会硬分叉)。这种意识形态是稳定的,因为它保证了未能成功进行软件升级的成员永远不会被网络排斥。这听起来可能像是对软件项目的严格要求,但比特币不仅仅是一个软件项目。它是一种对一大群人进行协调的方式,而这些人会面对极度敌对和强大的对手。了解这一事实后,很明显软件升级可能是一个很大的攻击向量(黑客用来攻击计算机或者网络的一种手段),并且当攻击者完全参与时可能是不可行的。

批评者说,目前没有国家级的对手完全参与攻击,而且硬分叉在实践中是完全可能的。这些说法都是正确的。但是他们不理解的是意识形态的本质。意识形态只有通过严格遵守才能得到加强。当对手突然参与时,加密货币项目将无法轻松转换到不允许硬分叉的政策。对于比特币现金这样的项目,它已经在一年内硬分叉两次以解决问题,用户已经习惯于相信硬分叉是安全的。因此,当一个由国家赞助的恶意硬分叉出现时,他们将成为毫无防备的攻击目标。相比之下,比特币用户已经习惯于相信所有硬分叉都是不安全的,因此当这种攻击发生时,它们将免受影响。

一个稳定、可持续的意识形态必须是所有加密货币的基础。任何形式的加密、共识协议的开发和技术的优化都不能帮助一个带有不稳定意识形态的加密货币发展壮大。

Bitcoin cash is facing a schism. Developers on Bitcoin ABC seems to be completely oblivious to this threat, hence they are proposing to hardfork over non critical matters on Nov 15th. It is not clear what the other BCH implementations like Bitcoin Unlimited and the new Craig Wright project Bitcoin SV intends to do on Nov 15th. What is clear is that there is a good deal of hostility (devs being banned from communication channels, Faketoshi posturing), and a high likelihood of Bitcoin Cash splitting into multiple chains. Various vulture chains have started to come out like Bitcoin Cobra and Bitcoin Stash trying to take advantage of the situation.

Bitcoin cash is founded on the ideological tenet that a hard forked minority chain can be a legitimate successor to the original chain. “Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin” is a Roger Ver invented meme based on this tenet. It should not surprise anyone that disagreements within the Bitcoin Cash community will be settled by the chain splitting into multiple forks, using the tenet as the justification. Allow me to “unroll” this statement:

The core foundation of any large group of people rests on ideology. Nations, religions, and political movements cannot exist without ideology and neither can cryptocurrencies. Stable ideologies allow communities to thrive. A simple example in religion is the Christian tenet that “there is one true god”. This belief strengthens the religion because it weakens membership in competing religions. Communities with unstable ideologies will eventually collapse. Think of the Shakers, a 18th century Christian sect that endorsed celibacy as a core tenet. It should be no surprise that Shakers are now extinct because its members did not have children that could continue the practice of the religion.

The very ideology that justifies the existence of Bitcoin Cash, also justifies the use of chain splits to settle any disagreements within the community. Its easy to see that this ideology, that a hard forked minority chain can be a legitimate successor to the original chain, is completely unstable. Witness below this profoundly confused statement by professional BCash shill David Jerry. He proposes that to solve a chain split, the minority chain capitulates and switches to the winning chain, while not realizing that Bitcoin Cash itself is a minority chain to Bitcoin.

While David Jerry’s solution is sensible in Bitcoin, it is completely incompatible with the Bitcoin Cash ideology. It is thus reasonable to conclude that Bitcoin Cash will face a never ending threat where its community members threatens to split off permanently from the main chain. I predict that within 1 year, there will be multiple competing hard forks that come out Bitcoin Cash. Eventually, the chain will have been split so many times that it will be a forgotten footnote in the history of cryptocurrencies.

Now let us go back to the original debate which created Bitcoin Cash in the first place, the block size debate. Bitcoin Maximalists often say that the block size debate is not about the block size at all. This is true, the block size debate is about retaining a stable ideology. The most important belief that the maximalists wanted to stand by in the block size debate is that backwards compatibility is never broken (or that we never hard fork). This ideology is stable because it guarantees that members who failed to upgrade their software are never dropped from network. This may sound like a rigid requirement for a software project, but Bitcoin is not just a software project. It is a method of coordination for a large group of people who face extremely hostile and powerful adversaries. Understanding this fact, it becomes clear that software upgrades can be a large attack vector and may not be feasible when the adversaries are fully engaged.

Critics are correct in saying that currently, the state level adversaries are not fully engaged and that hard forks are completely possible in practice. What they don’t understand is the nature of ideology. Ideology can only be strengthened through strict adherence to it. A cryptocurrency project will not be able to easily switch to a policy of having no hardforks when the adversaries become suddenly engaged. For a project like Bitcoin Cash, which have already hard forked twice within a year to solve its problems, the users have been conditioned to believe that hardforks are safe. Thus when a malicious state sponsored hard fork comes along, they will be sitting ducks. Bitcoin users, who have been conditioned to believe that all hardforks are unsafe, will be immune when such an attack comes.

A Stable and sustainable ideology must be the foundation of all cryptocurrencies. No amount of cryptography, consensus protocol development, and technical optimizations will help a cryptocurrency with an unstable and bankrupt ideology.

用微信扫描可以分享至好友和朋友圈

扫描二维码或搜索微信号“iweiyangx”
关注未央网官方微信公众号,获取互联网金融领域前沿资讯。

发表评论

发表评论

您的评论提交后会进行审核,审核通过的留言会展示在下方留言区域,请耐心等待。

评论

您的个人信息不会被公开,请放心填写! 标记为的是必填项

取消

比特币跌破5000美元的幕后黑手:暗网消亡、BCH分叉、美国监管

一本财经 11-21

SegWit2X分叉或取消,比特币现金再次向BTC发起挑战

薛洪言 | 苏宁金融研... 2017-11-14

SegWit2X分叉失败:6个人就取消了分叉

未来财经 2017-11-10

比特币与比特币现金有哪些区别?

未来财经 2017-10-27

比特币即将迎来两次分叉,大风暴前你需要了解这些事

未来财经 2017-10-23

版权所有 © 清华大学五道口金融学院互联网金融实验室 | 京ICP备17044750号-1