Last month saw Coindesk’s “Consensus 2017”, one of, if not the biggest Cryptocurrency and blockchain conferences. Everyone who is anyone was there (well—not me). It’s all too much, I can’t even work through the Coindesk reports, let alone all the presentations, panels, and demos. (Coindesk’s summary recap is here.)
There was a lot of excitement, although I haven’t seen much new technology or actual businesses. The promised land is still just over the horizon, as it has been for several years.
Even the generally enthusiastic Coindesk recognized some of the excess, with headlines like . “Consensus 2017: Even Academics Can’t Keep Pace With Blockchain Change”. A report on the separate Ethereum-centric Ethereal Summit has the memorable headline, “’Spiritual Experience’: Hot, Wild Ethereum Summit is Sign of the Times” <<link>> Castor comments,
“If there were a sign that blockchain may be overhyped, or that the industry is in the midst of a massive bubble, the Ethereal Summit may well have been it.”
The most significant news from the Consensus meeting itself was a somewhat opaque diplomatic communiqué from the Digital Currency Group, announcing a Bitcoin Scaling Agreement.
This is the latest step in the two plus year-long process that is attempting to deal with the perfectly routine engineering issue of adjusting a data structure to keep up with traffic. This issue has demonstrated the dysfunction of the so-called “consensus” governance of Bitcoin, and has nearly broken Bitcoin into multiple competing currencies.
So, “agreement” would be welcome.
Unfortunately, this grand announcement in fact announced that the same steps agreed to February 2016, which were never executed. This group has endorsed a plan that has been languishing for more than a year. (And there is no implementation in sight.)
As Coindesk reports, the underlying technical, business and political issues remain. The technical issue is pretty straightforward, but there are many people and companies using the protocol and network, and their interests conflict.
The decentralized decision-making process has been unable to find sufficient common ground to date, and has exposed deep divides in the “community”. The standard “consensus” process in such a case is for dissident factions to “fork” and do their own thing. That would mean two or more incompatible versions of Bitcoin, multiple protocols and virtual networks. This kind of fork works (sort of) for software, but isn’t a great model for what is supposed to be a universal shared resource.
So, things are not only “hot and wild”, but also on fire and adrift. (And QC will cause it all to fall down with a big thud within a couple of years.)
“It’s doomed, I tell you. Doomed!” 🙂
- Amy Castor, Spiritual Experience’: Hot, Wild Ethereum Summit is Sign of the Times Coindesk.May 20 2017, http://www.coindesk.com/spiritual-experience-hot-wild-ethereum-summit-sign-times/
- Digital Currency Group. Bitcoin Scaling Agreement at Consensus 2017. 2017, https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77.
- Pete Rizzo and Alyssa Hertig Bitcoin’s New Scaling ‘Agreement’: The Reaction Coindesk.May 24 2017, http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-new-scaling-agreement-reaction/