Consensus2016 reflection
Interviewed about this reflection by BitcoinReport http://ow.ly/5H2q30107Ju
Consensus2016, May 2, 7 AM: Centre New York, Times Square, luxurious hotel, more than 1700 visitors, 150 “speakers”. It promised to be some great 3 days of conference. And Satoshi had only just been unmasked by Gavin Andresen himself: “It is Craig White”, he had stressed.
I joined the conference for two days and tried to follow the third day back home… Here is my personal reflection of what Consensus2016 has meant for the community. For those who were there too, I hope to offer common ground to agree with me, but if you disagree, please let me know. And for those not present and not willing to pay the $199 bill for remote access, good on you, it is a shame that footages of the conference are not freely broadcasted. Maybe I am mistaking, but even myself as a paying attendee have no free access to footages*.
Smart contracts of Coindesk
Why I put “speakers” between quotation marks in the header? Because there were so many of them! They mostly sat in panels together with 3 to 5. Many speakers were interviewed by a moderator and their answering slot was often very limited. That is a pity, because many sessions could not reach the level of in-depht discussion you would expect from the expertise present.
I could not put the idea out of my head that organiser Coindesk had done a smart job to invite so many of them. Inviting speakers certainly brought Consensus2016 extra visitors in their slip stream.
The state of blockchain Q1 2016
Garrick Hileman (@garrickhileman) in the first hour of Consensus2016: he starts off with a clear distinction between private and public blockchains. He calls this ‘Taxonomy’, which is a euphemism for the world of difference between the people working in both ends of the blockchain spectrum: cultural, philosophical and ideological differences.
These differences are hard to miss on the conference floor during Consensus2016. To illustrate this, I cite Roman Mandeleil of Ether.Camp: “I heard some heated discussion among Venture Capitalists on how crowdfunding should be done. I won’t mingle with them. I just show you how to do it yourself, with a few lines of code…” :-)
Other news facts…
Bitcoin trading volume 424 % up in 2 years, volatility Bitcoin lowest in 2 years. Ethereum 1000 % grow in marketcap, we are not surprised about those Q1 facts, are we.
Read more facts and figures here: state of the blockchain
A question I had after State of the blockchain:
400 Dead Alt-coins! Wow, how did they die? What are the patterns? What could we learn from the causes of death? Could we recognise lethal symptoms upfront? Etc.
Sathosi yes, Sathosi no
What was that piece of theatre at Consensus2016 in hindsight? A publicity stunt? Craig White declares himself ‘Sathosi’ at the eve of Consensus2016. Shortly after the admission, Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, wrote a blog saying he was sure Wright was who he claimed to be. “I believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin,” he wrote. Vitalik Buterin, the “Sathosi” of Ethereum (2nd r.), opposed Gavin Andresen (r.) at the first day #consensus2016. Vitalik explained again what every insider already knows: The whole discussion could easily be solved without words. Any self proclaimed Sathosi should send or sign a small amount of BTC to authenticate himself from the public address that received 50BTC for “winning” the genesis block, the first block of the bitcoin created on Jan 3 2009.
I happened to speak to Peter Todd, Core dev of Bitcoin, who was only for an hour at the conference, between appointments, rushing through New York: “The first hours of bitcoin back in 2009 are covered in mist. It is all about verification. We know we want the real Satoshi to sign a certain transaction. That would do. White could have faked the evidence he presented and Gavin should have known. ” A publicity stunt: probably not; a publicly visible stunt: yes.
We could not care less
It is a feature of decentralised systems that a central leader is not needed. The president of Bitcoin does not exist. We don’t need Sathosi around. Sathosi’s place is taken by other contributors that entered the network permission-less. The book ‘The starfish and the spider’ explains in 213 pages why this and other features of decentralised systems are so powerful.
Bankers reasonable
International banks and also the three biggest Dutch banks were represented at Consensus2016 as visitors. I was surprised by the way bankers accepted the reality of the blockchain invention. They seemed to be more concerned about their colleagues and fellow bankers at home than about their own jobs. “We will see if I still have a job in 5 years from now”, one of them said calmly.
The main issue for early adopters of blockchain technology working at banks is how to convince colleagues that the technology is worse than just ’disruptive’ and even worse than a revolution. William Mougayar uses the analogy of a tsunami in his book which was released the second day of Consensus2016 and given away as a freebie at the conference called ‘The business blockchain’. More about that later.
Rabobank enthusiastic visitor
At the very start of the conference, I happened to meet Rabobank blockchain expert Chris Huls and his colleague Roel Steenbergen. A few weeks later I reminisced about Consensus2016 with Chris. “The standardization debate is conducted increasingly”, referring to the panel discussion of Vitalik Buterin, Simon Taylor and William Mougayar. “It is called Modularization: a concept of Plug and Play of these modules:
o Crypto
o Network Protocol
o Data storage format
o Consensus algorithm
o Identity.”
Asked about were Rabobank sees opportunities/needs to put energy to peg private blockchain initiatives into a public block chains, Huls says: “Public blockchains are very interesting. However the bank’s point of view should be such — because we trust the other banks already for 80–90% — adopting a model that assumes that you trust nobody would be a step backwards. For us, the permissioned consensus protocols are a type of architecture which is much more efficient than a public blockchain can ever be for the job it has to do. Public blockchains are a different ball game and of course we look into the innovative power too. The public blockchains will have their use cases, but so will the permissioned consortium blockchains.”
For Chris, the most notable news of Consensus came from 21.com CEO Balaji S. Srinivasan “Bitcoin blockchain and other blockchain will steam up on applications that not yet exist. Like virtual reality and IoT. Banks are de facto standard for payments that we’ve know for decades, but blockchains will be de facto for future applications”.
Dutch contribution
Bart Suichies (@bsuichies) of Philips was as far as I know the only Dutch speaker at a panel during #consensus2016:
He said it is difficult to partner because the ecosystem is still so young, an internal roadmap is needed for blockchain research and development.
He said he had been surprised that internal legal support within Philips was unexpectedly high. To continue with an understatement: “Which comes in handy treating health care information.” He urged to be careful to not promise too much. His advice: “Take the biggest small steps you can take.”
Strong plea for more women in the male dominated blockchain arena
Jessica Renier, a manager of Deloitte, stood up for female involvement in blockchain tech. Very brave of her to ask for an unscheduled plenary speaking slot which was granted to her by the organisers at the beginning of Consensus day two. She explained on soft wording that the blockchain line of work is flooded with male geeks. Communication is often not their best feature. Blockchain technology is hard to understand and hard to explain. Take your time, Jess advised us.
“Take them out of for lunch,” Jessica tipped us, males, bridging the gap between the sexes self confidently.
Read more on the topic of women in blockchain and here is the current list: Google sheet
The business Blockchain
The blockchain is much disputed. Fundamentalist versus wishful thinkers. Negativism or realism. Acceptable futurology or historical mistakes. Who knows, time will tell.
Nevertheless, the book of William Mougayar The Business Blockchain is a good reflection of the current state of blockchain and stresses the contrast between different people working in the field. Mougayar does so by obviously taking the stand as a positive thinker and pragmatic analyst who describes possible future outcomes in a good structure. The book offers a handhold to understand the impact of the technology. In whatever directions that might go.
In my opinion, Mougayar succeeds very well in describing the blockchain’s extent, its reach, its expected impact and its (in)capabilities and limitations. Well structured. Good overview. It represents the interests of all the attendees of Consensus2016.
On the other hand, the book gets some harsh criticism at Amazon too. Theoretically a lot could go wrong with blockchains. The base of assumptions that are used to dwell on future development is fragile. In that sense ‘the business blockchain’ is a futurology, which should be read with some restraint.
My 2 cents….
Personally, I am a big fan of the book. And think fundamentalist make the mistake that problems can be solved pragmatically as we go. An example:
A possible 51 % attack on the bitcoin’s blockchain will that be a show-stopper? No, because when it actually happened in the past, the offenders regretfully backed off, because they were very aware of the damage that could be done to their reputation and to their (and others) stake in bitcoin. There will be many more fundamental crypto-graphical - and consensus issues in the near future of the blockchain. And we will solve them pragmatically and with common sense. Just like we kept doing on the web for the past 20 years.
Consensus2016 well organised!
The organisation did well. The content of the conference was extensive and it has been great to absorb. The people that matter, at least business wise, were there. The food was great, the atmosphere relaxed, and the schedule was not compromised once in two days (not that I know off). The conference was packed for sure: In some parallel sessions, people had to stand in the back of the room. I have been an organiser of a much smaller congresses myself for five years and the planning of the speakers versus rooms is hard to play on.
Identity and blockchain: a weird interrelating duo
Identity has been discussed in depth on the third day of Consensus2016. I kept up with the talks and discussion via twitter, back in the Netherlands.
Dave Birch︎ (@dgwbirch), writer of the book “Identity is the new money” attended (and spoke at) Consensus2016 too. And here is why we have to move fast-forward studying blockchain thoroughly in the field of e-Identity and Identity and Access Management. Birch tweets May 4 #Consensus2016 ~”every conversation at Consensus has ended up being about identity after about five minutes”
Later, Dave Birch ︎ @dgwbirch : ‘#Consensus2016 in the “ID on blockchain” workshop with @PartelowPati listening to Chrisopher Allen, a very smart guy’
Christopher Allen — Self sovereign identity
Christopher shared a vision of how we can enhance the ability of digital identity to enable trust while preserving individual privacy. This vision is what he calls “Self-Sovereign Identity”.
Because of the alleged strong relationship between our electronic and physical identity and the future of money and other blockchain applications, I need to address Chris’ 10 point identity blockchain checklist. It was very well received at Consensus.
Personally I think this is counterbalance for the wish that Third World citizens have to migrate to richer parts of the world. I would feel the same way in their position. The Third World enters the computer age, digital citizenship is providing Third World residents with greater access to human rights and to the global economy. When properly designed and implemented, self-sovereign identity can offer these benefits while also protecting individuals from the ever-increasing control of those in power, who may not have the best interests of the individual at heart.
Path to Self Sovereigned Identity, inclusive the Ten Principles of Self-Sovereign Identity
Henk van Cann @henkvancann May 2
#consensus2016 about identities and anonimity on #blockchains: free choice to users will be important says #Ethereum founder @VitalikButerin
Bart Suichies @bsuichies May 4
Okay, that was seriously great stuff from @ChristopherA on #identity and #blockchain https://github.com/ChristopherA/self-sovereign-identity … #Consensus2016
Private versus public blockchains, very different!
The main difference between public or permission-less and private (or permissioned) blockchains is centralisation. Decentralisation however is the unique selling point of blockchains. So why would you use blockchains in a centralised environment? A simple answer might be efficiency enhancement. But at Consensus2016, there were no simple answers to this question. A lot of attention went to R3, Hyperledger, private chains, etc. When we would consider hybrid solutions public / private then the level of centralisation and its impact could be “controlled” or programmed ‘as is’ upfront.
For now, my personal preference is to focus on public permission-less open transparant blockchains, because these will be under constant attack by adversaries, cheaters, compromisers, scientists, fundamentalist etc. Innovation is to be expected from the public corner not from private protected field.
Blockchain dictates security, not vice versa
Austin Hill (@austinhill): Blockchain dictates security and not the other way around. Hill warns big organisations that test blockchain. Especially when they try to fit blockchain technology in their current security infrastructure: ’You can’t add on features to an airplane and keep it secure while its in the air.’
Most important public blockchain improvement
Segregated witness is best improvement since beginning Bitcoin according to Eric Lombrozo. Which might not be surprising to hear from him, he is a co-writer of the whitepaper.
Interledger protocols
Chris Larsen @chrislarsensf of Ripple: “Blockchain is just another network. To exchange digital value we need inter ledger protocols.”
Future? Be careful with what you say!
A common understanding at Consensus was: Blockchain is here to stay, but we do not know where it going to end up. Deloitte principal @joeguastella joked at Consensus2016: “I always say ‘+/-50% this and that in 3 or 5 years’ so I am always on the safe side, you might even forget what I have said about blockchains by that time.”
== THe eND ==
*I asked Coindesk per e-mail to grant access on day 3 but never got an answer back.
