The attack on Bitcoin is a problem in itself worthy of the agreement. What motivates you ? How it is being executed? What are the strengths of the conflict? What factors in favor of it ? What factors are against it ? How to evict? To investigate each of these points open before us a variety of disciplines who would love to Carl von Clausewitz.
ocupación_bitcoin
We watched the last month to try to anticipate what awaits us . Attacks on Bitcoin has triggered a sequence of events that, in our opinion, is as predictable as the phases of the moon. Many wonder when will put each event - especially the latter: the fall Blockstream -. That, of course, we do not know; no one can know. "How", however, may itself be glimpsed; and that we will work today to try to identify some of the processes that guide and modulate the strength to compete in this new battlefield.
A common mistake made by supporters of Bitcoin essence , is to confuse the inertia of the status quo with great support and enthusiasm from Bitcoin users . the premise can be reduced with the following argument: "The market expresses a preference vote. The core customer is now the most widely used. So now the market is more like Core".
Although silogistis valid argument contains two errors: one in the original proposal and one at the conclusion.
First, it should be noted that in the absence of a mechanism for the market to efficiently express their preferences, it is not possible to know "what the market prefers" now. In its current state (the fork futures market of Bitcoin, among other catalysts), concluded that "the market prefers the Core" is to conclude that a woman is clogged is silently condone acts rapist, or a resident of Berlin timur are not risking their lives to cross the wall was under Soviet policy.
Second, although the use of the concept of personifying to explain certain phenomena can be pedagogically useful, it must have to remember that the market is not a man who makes the decision. "The market" is a very abstract concept that serves to bring the level to understand a very complex interaction between supply and demand of goods and services in a large order. If the demands of users (depositors, investors, consumers, merchants, payment processors, etc.) are not taken into account (because they are not relevant in view of the planner central) market, by definition, does not take into account .
To describe the characteristics of the attack on Bitcoin, as well as the challenge of organizing effective resistance, the best analogy that I can not think of people who invaded and occupied by foreign troops. Assuming that most people want to expel the invaders, and occupiers the right incentives to impose their will on the spot, what options do the latter?
The launch of major frontal attack might be tempted. But if the attack against the attacking forces are not simultaneous, determined and persistent, practically zero chance of success. In Bitcoinlandia, this would be equivalent to throwing a fork prematurely.
Once again, that people do not revolt active and explicitly does not mean that everyone is satisfied with the presence of the invaders . Although the village is invaded have a common goal (to repel invaders), they can not end the occupation if they do not act together, determined and persistent. We have, then, the problem sicronización.
Having infiltrated local institutions, the great advantage of the army of occupation is what you call social inertia. In other words, residents should benefit them the power of convention, or just strength precedente-. Under the new rule, if someone has to make the process of the city, it will be directed toward the same building that previously had made a similar process, although all city employees are now -a reluctantly or not at the service invaders.
To understand the social dynamics that facilitated and sustained attacks against Bitcoin, as well as the constraints faced by the attacker, you need to become familiar with the concept of point Schelling .
Schelling point is that the place where the spread naturally congregate and social forces improved. In the above example, the city government brings together people with a delayed process and despite his displeasure with the new government, did not find a safe and effective way to communicate your preferences or to coordinate their actions to enforce their preferences. Colonial power thus amplified.
This explains why Blockstream has set its sights on Bitcoin and not in cryptocurrency another: for the same reason that the government attacked the attempt to attack the institutions of society are established, rather than venturing into virgin forests face many dangers with difficult, remote and impossible goal of building a productive society that can be despoiled. Local agencies control without great effort allows access to the wealth created and accumulated in the conquered territories.
Schelling points invaders interested because this is where the focus on productive efforts that have been concentrated. In the case of Bitcoin, the gravitational force Schelling point is a function of the network effect ; and the net effect is a major promoter of economic growth that has been deployed around Bitcoin for years. Actually, the purpose of Bitcoin are not invaders, but the resources that Bitcoin has attracted thanks to the strong potential as a manipulation of a universal currency.
Hooked by an unwavering ideal, one day he ventured Satoshi Nakamoto, machete in hand, in the unexplored forests. Itself and ignore if not despreciado- by his colleagues, he wrestled for years in the wilderness, hostile to all kinds of poisonous creatures, insects and predators unforgiving silently, until he finally managed to clean up land that founded the city that day we all inhabit.
Potential occupiers know how much easier to hijack a network effect for play to start a new project. Thus, Bitcoinlandia population must become accustomed to living with the threat of invasion before and after the fall Blockstream-, while perfecting the science and art of repelling invaders.
Now let us see what advantage has the resistance to the occupation:
Bitcoin has no central guiding of which it is possible to force people to give up their wealth. In that sense, it was more like a hamlet that those institutions can be subdued.
Bitcoin users can act against the interests of Blockstream without compromising (in fact, strengthening) network effects, but Blockstream can not act against Bitcoin users without compromising network effects.
Resistance is reinforced as a violation of occupants increases the incentive to mount a local uprising effective. And we can count on it, because Blockstream need to squeeze users increasingly Bitcoin to keep their investors happy.
When the interests of the end users meet at the new point Schelling, inertia happen to play for the change and harm the status quo.
Remember, Bitcoin is not a sprint but a marathon . If you prepare for the first intend to compete in the second, you lose your patience very fast and your money.
ocupación_bitcoin
We watched the last month to try to anticipate what awaits us . Attacks on Bitcoin has triggered a sequence of events that, in our opinion, is as predictable as the phases of the moon. Many wonder when will put each event - especially the latter: the fall Blockstream -. That, of course, we do not know; no one can know. "How", however, may itself be glimpsed; and that we will work today to try to identify some of the processes that guide and modulate the strength to compete in this new battlefield.
A common mistake made by supporters of Bitcoin essence , is to confuse the inertia of the status quo with great support and enthusiasm from Bitcoin users . the premise can be reduced with the following argument: "The market expresses a preference vote. The core customer is now the most widely used. So now the market is more like Core".
Although silogistis valid argument contains two errors: one in the original proposal and one at the conclusion.
First, it should be noted that in the absence of a mechanism for the market to efficiently express their preferences, it is not possible to know "what the market prefers" now. In its current state (the fork futures market of Bitcoin, among other catalysts), concluded that "the market prefers the Core" is to conclude that a woman is clogged is silently condone acts rapist, or a resident of Berlin timur are not risking their lives to cross the wall was under Soviet policy.
Second, although the use of the concept of personifying to explain certain phenomena can be pedagogically useful, it must have to remember that the market is not a man who makes the decision. "The market" is a very abstract concept that serves to bring the level to understand a very complex interaction between supply and demand of goods and services in a large order. If the demands of users (depositors, investors, consumers, merchants, payment processors, etc.) are not taken into account (because they are not relevant in view of the planner central) market, by definition, does not take into account .
To describe the characteristics of the attack on Bitcoin, as well as the challenge of organizing effective resistance, the best analogy that I can not think of people who invaded and occupied by foreign troops. Assuming that most people want to expel the invaders, and occupiers the right incentives to impose their will on the spot, what options do the latter?
The launch of major frontal attack might be tempted. But if the attack against the attacking forces are not simultaneous, determined and persistent, practically zero chance of success. In Bitcoinlandia, this would be equivalent to throwing a fork prematurely.
Once again, that people do not revolt active and explicitly does not mean that everyone is satisfied with the presence of the invaders . Although the village is invaded have a common goal (to repel invaders), they can not end the occupation if they do not act together, determined and persistent. We have, then, the problem sicronización.
Having infiltrated local institutions, the great advantage of the army of occupation is what you call social inertia. In other words, residents should benefit them the power of convention, or just strength precedente-. Under the new rule, if someone has to make the process of the city, it will be directed toward the same building that previously had made a similar process, although all city employees are now -a reluctantly or not at the service invaders.
To understand the social dynamics that facilitated and sustained attacks against Bitcoin, as well as the constraints faced by the attacker, you need to become familiar with the concept of point Schelling .
Schelling point is that the place where the spread naturally congregate and social forces improved. In the above example, the city government brings together people with a delayed process and despite his displeasure with the new government, did not find a safe and effective way to communicate your preferences or to coordinate their actions to enforce their preferences. Colonial power thus amplified.
This explains why Blockstream has set its sights on Bitcoin and not in cryptocurrency another: for the same reason that the government attacked the attempt to attack the institutions of society are established, rather than venturing into virgin forests face many dangers with difficult, remote and impossible goal of building a productive society that can be despoiled. Local agencies control without great effort allows access to the wealth created and accumulated in the conquered territories.
Schelling points invaders interested because this is where the focus on productive efforts that have been concentrated. In the case of Bitcoin, the gravitational force Schelling point is a function of the network effect ; and the net effect is a major promoter of economic growth that has been deployed around Bitcoin for years. Actually, the purpose of Bitcoin are not invaders, but the resources that Bitcoin has attracted thanks to the strong potential as a manipulation of a universal currency.
Hooked by an unwavering ideal, one day he ventured Satoshi Nakamoto, machete in hand, in the unexplored forests. Itself and ignore if not despreciado- by his colleagues, he wrestled for years in the wilderness, hostile to all kinds of poisonous creatures, insects and predators unforgiving silently, until he finally managed to clean up land that founded the city that day we all inhabit.
Potential occupiers know how much easier to hijack a network effect for play to start a new project. Thus, Bitcoinlandia population must become accustomed to living with the threat of invasion before and after the fall Blockstream-, while perfecting the science and art of repelling invaders.
Now let us see what advantage has the resistance to the occupation:
Bitcoin has no central guiding of which it is possible to force people to give up their wealth. In that sense, it was more like a hamlet that those institutions can be subdued.
Bitcoin users can act against the interests of Blockstream without compromising (in fact, strengthening) network effects, but Blockstream can not act against Bitcoin users without compromising network effects.
Resistance is reinforced as a violation of occupants increases the incentive to mount a local uprising effective. And we can count on it, because Blockstream need to squeeze users increasingly Bitcoin to keep their investors happy.
When the interests of the end users meet at the new point Schelling, inertia happen to play for the change and harm the status quo.
Remember, Bitcoin is not a sprint but a marathon . If you prepare for the first intend to compete in the second, you lose your patience very fast and your money.