Private blockchain behavior: smart denial and disarming enthusiasm
Does the subtle comparison of apples and oranges by some private blockchain devotees do any harm? Test your findings against this article.
As you get to know more, you will realize that you know very little about bitcoin and other public blockchains. And that any knowledge in this field is tenable for a year or so, no more.
And if this isn’t bad enough as it is: we’re faced with all kinds of stories in the public blockchain / bitcoin field that in one way or another are a negative for the bitcoin and public blockchain reputation. We have:
1. bashing
2. trolling
3. pump&dump-ers
4. hypers
5. ignorants
6. private initiatives
7. interest groups that feel attacked (banks, governments, notaries, etc)
Why should we care? How could a reputation do harm and what are the vulnerabilities? We should be able to better understand what is (not) said or written. Because if we don’t, we would be waiting longer for the benefits of the innovation to become apparent and the movement around it effective.
For that reason I’d like to elaborate a bit on the last two groups private initiatives and interest groups (bullet 6&7). But please hold on for a second. The five types of collateral damage to the great invention bitcoin on the top of the list (bullets 1 to 5) are very clear in the way they establish themselves in the blockchain arena. These types of bad mouthing bitcoin and public blockchain are easy to track down and respond to.
For example: if you were to buy a malicious crypto coin, sooner or later you would become acutely aware of this. Either the value has crashed (pump&dump) or your funds appear to be locked (for example with your hopefully one time OneCoin* “experience”).
Another example: if you are knowledgeable about blockchains, even on a basic level, you can separate hype from real value pretty easy. No problem there. You want to improve life for animals? Great, but why don’t you use a database? (WDYUD?) You finally want to open your front door from a distance using a mobile phone, WDYUD? You want to create a local currency to boost local economy; erm, pick a database?! You won’t need a blockchain in 90 percent of the cases, in fact the technology will be overkill and / or inefficient there.*OneCoin is a scam, a ponzi scheme pur sang, we don’t advise to get involved. If you are in: just try to get out with, let’s say, half of your funds, only as a small test and you will know the true nature of your master quickly.
So that were some examples of the easy part to respond to: bashing, trolling, pump&dump-ers, hypers, ignorants.
But with the private initiatives supported by powerful interest groups it’s quite different. These experts and workers are smart and determined, cooperative and inquisitive (a curious shade of nosy). The people that are under siege from the bitcoin invention really want to know what is coming at them. True, the sectors involved woke up pretty late, but since the invention of the word “blockchain” around 2015, banks and government are hasty to rummage through the newly invented technology of the bitcoin and later Ethereum (also called “bitcoin2.0”).
And then some of the later adopters started expressing themselves in the media like they have invented the wheel all by the themselves or just the more modest variant: Blockchain? Me too!!
Many times you really have to delve into the words used by private blockchain supporters, the flow and precedence of cites, the construction of sentences, and the creative compound sentences to get the hang of what people really want to say or not say. Subtle whispered subordinate clauses that stir your mind. Subtle denial of facts.
Even as an insider you might end up totally puzzled: “Yes, I can read this, it’s correct English, but it’s the world upside down and I can’t pinpoint the twist.”
We need examples, don’t we. Here you are:
@gendal in http://ow.ly/xcLb309jLA4, chief Corda*, writes April 2016.
“We concluded that a blockchain such as the ones underlying Bitcoin or Ethereum or any of the private variations actually provide at least five interlocking, but distinct, services. And the right approach is to treat them as a menu from which to select and customise… different combinations, in different flavours, for different business problems.”
Huh??! Wait a minute. “or any of the private variations…”? Please be perfectly clear: as soon as you privatize Bitcoin or Ethereum, it is no longer Bitcoin/Ethereum. Let me try an analogy to clarify: “we concluded that the engines such as the ones underlying a Boeing 747 or Airbus A340 or any of the glider variations actually …”
A glider has no engine, so it’s no “variation of” an airplane if you are looking at engines.
And phew! “…. treat five interlocking but distinct services as a menu …” Say what??! What are you doing to this ‘living’ public blockchain protocol of bitcoin? These are not five interlocking parts on the menu, as if you’d like to chop a chicken into pieces and then prepare a meal of ‘living chicken’, these are five vital interdependent services carefully governed in a very fine-grained and balanced protocol to keep all participating parties in a so called Nash-Equilibrium. They depend on one another uniquely. If you take one ‘service’ out, the whole system collapses. If one service tries the overpower the others: the whole system collapses. You can’t chop the chicken into pieces and put them back slightly modified and expect the chicken to walk out the door. You can’t leave the heart out. Even a headless ‘variety’ of chicken would walk only for a minute or so (some exceptions to the rule!).
OK, a bit exaggerated symbolism, but who started exaggerating in the first place :-)
One last strike to go by Corda: “…for different business problems.” This completes the triple blow on your brains. Business problems?? Satoshi solved a problem created by business. Public blockchain technique is not about solving problems of the establishment, it is about freedom. Freedom for everyone, the unbanked, the identity-less, the chance-less, the poor, etc. And only just at the end of the priority list of public blockchains comes the people that are already perfectly capable to buy their freedom. That is the real stuff, the real innovation, the real fairness, the real consensus that we strive for. And it is definitely not about solving minor efficiency issues for the powerful sectors that already earn trillions of dollars world wide every year…
Corporate looks and lowered voice with the right timbre adds to people’s expectation that you come across trustworthy and as a leader in your line of work. But the young and clumsy nerd sitting next to him/her might represent the real innovation and has more real value to offer but might get overruled by some bullshitters in fancy suits. When you get to know more, you see this happening on a daily bases.
Don’t get me wrong here. I like suits and cocky pencil dresses and love to listen to eloquent people and I have no problem being run over by charisma. You could see that ‘but’ coming from a mile away-> But don’t bullshit me.
Non-verbal communication has a significant effect on people’s orientation, their opinion and choices. Recipients get lost in the woods of jargon and complexity of the subject. And they will rely on their non-verbal reception.
Imagine a slimy creep crawling out of a grave saying “I love you” and a beautiful young lady in a white dress, really scared of the creep next to it reaches out for you with tears in her eyes whispering “I love you more!”. Who would you believe?
At least the lady gets picked 99.9% of the time and so will the corporates be selected to emphasize their vision too often.
Now that is an inappropriate comparison! But again: who started this anyway. Next:
Roger Strukhoff @IoT2040 https://www.altoros.com/blog/hyperledger-vs-ethereum-yes-no-maybe/ june 2016 knows what happened during a New York meetup early May 2016:
“A couple of other IBMers in attendance outlined their view of the Hyperledger Project’s history, with one noting that “we wanted the solution framework to be modular. One consensus and security model is not going to satisfy every case.”
If one were to be afflicted with a bit of paranoia, all of the soothing words from IBM might sound a bit like the calming speech you give to Old Rex as you bring him into the vet for that final shot.
He went on to say that the IBM Hyperledger team envisions “what we call HL Transaction Protocol, or HTLP. We spent months (wondering whether) to throw an army against Ethereum, which is open source but not openly governed. But what if you could shift time, with Ethereum built after HLTP existed; then, you would spend less time building Ethereum.”
“Hmm…”
Hahaha! Calming Old Rex and the subtle “Hmm..” However apart from a few insiders only few people will get the message here. Roger’s sharp analysis is as subtle as the private blockchain supporter comparing apples and oranges.
Let’s break it down. If somebody says “One consensus and security model is not going to satisfy every case.” what he/she really says is: we are copying the ideas, cut out the consensus and security model of cases that public blockchain particularly aimed to solve and use the resulting corps for their business as usual. And you’d be lucky if they don’t spit on their parents who raised them.
“But what if you could shift time, with Ethereum built after HLTP existed; then, you would spend less time building Ethereum.” Ouch, we are not lucky today. The chicken says to the eggshell that it was born from a few months ago: “you are such an ugly and clumsy egg, I’ wish I could have laid you and do much better!”
Or maybe it is better to just write “Hmm…” Public blockchains are digital open source golden eggs. If we would slaughter the chickens that lay them, no problem: eggs first, then chickens. And that is a very promising believe: eliminate the effect of people that compare apples and oranges when discussing private versus public blockchain technology. Remind anyone publicly about the precedence and historic facts around bitcoin and blockchain, even if they don’t want to hear them:
- the true value of bitcoin is freedom
- bitcoin was first, never deny your roots or disrespect your predecessor
- ‘blockchain’ is just a name, public blockchain is a crucial adjective to it
- public blockchain protocols are sensitively balanced but thoroughly battered and tested as a system, you can’t consume parts of it selectively at will and call it better, faster, more efficient, private, more secure, etc, it is not a take-away cafeteria menu.
Private blockchain devotees should be humble, grateful and openly stress the priority of public blockchains being improved. And in that context, they can enthusiastically ask for a decent share of attention for their own sub-optimizing private blockchain implementation. Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Enjoy them both.
*Corda has become part of the Hyperledger project recently.
