Does the Bitcoin World Need a Great Dictator?

Bitcoin has received a lot of attention over the past few years, with some people seeing it as the savior of the financial system, while others think it is just a new toy for the tech industry.

But no matter what you think, Bitcoin has achieved a certain degree of technical success. Despite its initial immaturity in the developer community, these geeks have really turned this imaginative computer protocol into a stable currency system that operates globally. The personal investment of these developers must be very huge. To build such a system, they need to combine extraordinary innovation with knowledge of software engineering and cryptography, as well as high political awareness and familiarity with international diplomatic game theory, and finally build alliances with others on the Internet and work hard to convince the public to accept this new thing.

These skills are essential for the healthy development of Bitcoin. As the stakes continue to increase, early developers are beginning to be stretched in all aspects. The big question now is, "Can the Bitcoin Alliance really reduce the growing political burden?"

    Bitcoin is a decentralized currency system that aims to become the new currency for the Internet. Through this system, developers want to eliminate and reduce the lack of trust and monetary system risks caused by human participation. However, even though Bitcoin is just a machine developed by humans, the political forces hidden behind it still want to intervene and hold the power of life and death over its core code. If you want to join this game, you need to invest a lot of money and come up with a modification plan, so that only those stubborn developers will remain. But the advantage of this is that you can prove that you are absolutely right and win benefits for millions of users, while also making a lot of money for yourself.

  Tough Choices

With so many players joining the game, how can we make overall decisions in such a challenging new environment?

     Until the end of 2010, the only spokesperson for Bitcoin was Satoshi Nakamoto, because he was the mysterious creator behind Bitcoin. The Bitcoin protocol was built on Satoshi Nakamoto's software. At that time, the Bitcoin community was not large, and Satoshi Nakamoto was worshipped as a god. But unexpectedly, Satoshi Nakamoto suddenly disappeared in late 2010, and a power vacuum appeared in the Bitcoin community. Since then, the power struggle in the Bitcoin community has never stopped, and the legitimacy of each leader has been questioned.

Because of the huge financial risks involved and the mentality of participants not trusting anyone, the game of Bitcoin has become more and more intense. However, ironically, this mentality has boosted people's demand for the Bitcoin system.

Unlike other software projects, small changes to Bitcoin code can affect the entire ecosystem . For example, solving the current Bitcoin crisis requires dealing with the consequences of a small change in the early days, when a transaction limit mechanism was introduced due to too many invalid transactions.

Now that billions of dollars are at risk of being wasted, who should deal with this mess?

  Learn from other software projects

     Countless historical experiences have proven that strong leadership makes it easier for everyone to reach a consensus. For example, Linus Torvalds, the inventor of Linux, has been a "dictator" for 24 years, promoting the continuous development of the Linux system.

The technological bet he made back then made this once enthusiast operating system enter thousands of households and become the basis of our smartphones and various servers. For the success of this project, Torvalds has invested countless efforts and constantly made choices at the crossroads of change or persistence. It is precisely because of his unremitting persistence and his spirit of never bowing to political correctness that he is always respected. If Torvalds doesn't like your code, you are out of luck. For many years afterwards, he has been a staunch defender of the Linux code. But you can make your own "special version of Linux" based on the original Linux code, so that you can install your own code and have complete control over the system.

However, this would be seen as a major move at the time and a challenge to mainstream Linux. After all, exchanging code between the two systems is a big project, and the code may go off track in the process, so developers and users have to make difficult choices.

     As Linux developed, its derivative versions became more and more, and maintaining them became a daunting task, so Torvalds created Git, a decentralized code repository so that developers can interact and share their code more easily.

     Bitcoin and Git have a lot in common in essence, because their purpose is to help people reach consensus. Bitcoin helps people find out which transactions are valid, while Git tells people what code changes should be made in the latest version of the system, thereby guiding developers' subsequent work.

     Git changed the guiding principle of code development. You no longer need to get the authorization of the source code owner to make any changes to the code. After the birth of Git, it became less important to publish your own version or let Torvalds incorporate his ideas into the final code. Each derivative code became a branch of the source code, but at the same time, it became easier to merge codes. With the development of this trend, developers pay more attention to the advantages and value of their own versions.

So what is a useful version? How does a small code create value? These are subjective questions that Git cannot solve for the time being. The power struggle behind the official version is still surging, but we can already hear more voices, and these branches are no longer such earth-shattering moves. In contrast, the problems faced by Bitcoin are more complicated because its rules require the approval of all participants. But in fact, the rules of Bitcoin are hidden in the code of its official version. Although the current situation of Bitcoin is very different from that of Linux, the successful experience of Linux is still worth referring to and learning from.

  What is the difference?

    But the fact is that Bitcoin cannot afford a new code branch. The smallest change will cause chaos in Bitcoin's accounts and affect the stability of its main database of transactions. Chaos will destroy user confidence, and in the long run, such a schizophrenic behemoth will inevitably go to extinction. This is also the reason why Bitcoin's core developers never act rashly. They have a verbal agreement with the Bitcoin community to ensure that they will maintain Bitcoin's basic principles and keep its system running, allowing it to challenge the traditional financial system.

Where is the future?

   There is no doubt that testing is not yet complete, and new changes must be introduced to the Bitcoin system as soon as possible, but the process must be rigorous and responsible. Some developers are now trying to develop new monetary systems and test their new codes. This new system is called Alt Coin, but it is not well-known yet. The team at Blockstream has proposed another solution. The venture capital company wants to conduct an experiment within the Bitcoin system, but it will never affect the operation of the main system. It will make the entire system more flexible, allowing developers to completely let go when innovating.

   Opponents believe that this will force the Bitcoin protocol to lean towards the government, thus truly taming this behemoth. Like Git, this experiment called "sidechain" distracts people from focusing on who is the real heir to the underlying code change mechanism. However, they still have a consensus, which is to preserve Bitcoin and grow it. As the game develops, the gunpowder smell becomes stronger and stronger, and then we are really awakened to how difficult it is to build consensus. The attempts made by everyone before have little effect. Venture capital companies can play an important role in the transformation, but most people still prefer fresh blood to take charge of the overall situation.

Companies that participate will get jobs that suit them, where they can prove their worth to the Bitcoin community. Can we really reach consensus automatically without human involvement? Satoshi Nakamoto left us a great experiment that has been valued at $4 billion, and the Bitcoin community has been looking forward to the results. Bitcoin may not need a "dictator," but when the system grows to a certain size, it must have a strong leader to lead the team forward on the road of experimental reform.