Recently, Guangzhou Huangpu District and Guangzhou Development Zone issued the “ Detailed Rules for Implementing Several Measures for Accelerating Blockchain Industry Leading Change ”, which mentioned that the Guangzhou Municipal Government will select two enterprises or institutions that have public chain and alliance chain construction projects every year. The subsidy method will be adopted, and 50% of the actual investment in research and development will be subsidized. Among them, the maximum subsidy for public chain construction projects is 10 million yuan, and the maximum subsidy for coal mine chain construction projects is 3 million yuan.
It can be seen that the public chain does have more significance than the alliance chain. However, traditional public chains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum all have original assets (also known as coins), which not only triggered a lot of speculation, but also attracted more Regulatory issues.
So, is the existence of these native assets necessary?
- The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has promoted the development of blockchain, and the Hong Kong Securities Regulatory Commission issued a regulatory framework for virtual asset transactions.
- Financial Times: The global blockchain market is developing rapidly China may have more voice
- China Europe Business School Gong Yue: DAO and Alliance Chain, a dispute that began with Hayek and Keynes
- How is the development of Ethereum 2.0? Take a look at the latest progress
- People in the central bank: access to the “regulatory sandbox” must be licensed for Beijing 46
- Babbitt column | Future thinking: Who will beat Ethereum?
Is it possible to realize a public chain without “coins”?
Before answering this question, we must first understand what these assets mean.
(Image courtesy of pexels.com)
The following is only a personal opinion:
What is the meaning of the existence of the public assets of the public chain?
The so-called public chain means that any person can participate in the accounting, verification, reading and other operations of the ledger without permission. Therefore, this requires an incentive to attract participants to actively maintain the operation of the ledger. The bookkeeping system also needs to ensure correctness, which requires a penalty mechanism.
These primary assets are the core of these two major events. When participants participate in the bookkeeping correctly, they reward their original assets. If the participants do evil or remember the books, they will be punished (one is unable to obtain assets). Reward and waste computing resources, and the other is to punish the pledge of the original assets).
It is because of their existence that the public chain can realize the characteristics of decentralization and difficulty in tampering.
In essence, the public chain has become a public chain because of incentives and punishments.
How to achieve the "no currency" public chain?
So, is it possible to replace the original assets with a fixed currency to act as a medium for incentives and punishments for the public chain?
It is very likely that this form is the form of public ownership that the government wants to see.
Based on this idea, we will briefly explore the possible path of implementation.
Assume that the public chain sponsor uses the central bank digital currency (DCEP) to be issued by the central bank as an incentive and punishment medium for the “no-coin” public chain.
This first requires that the project party must have a large amount of start-up funds (such as 1 billion central bank digital currency). For sustainable purposes, the public-chain system must have a source of income. A feasible solution is to set up the verification. The node needs to pledge a certain amount of funds (similar to the 32 ETH set by Ethereum 2.0). If the node does evil, it will confiscate the pledge funds, and then these funds will flow into the reward pool to motivate other participants.
However, the role that such a program can play is extremely limited. If there is no other source of income, then the system's initial injection of 1 billion central bank digital currency will soon be exhausted.
Continued financing will be the second possible way. Let the investment institutions pay for this temporarily, and finally let the investors provide blood by listing. But in fact, this approach is not fundamentally different from virtual currency speculation, but it is only Wrapped around a big circle.
The last possible legal path is to charge the public chain users. Of course, the users referred to here do not refer to ordinary users, but to the merchants on the platform.
Through reasonable settings, the system can be sustainable.
Or, if the public chain system is directly initiated by the central bank, then the source of the central bank's digital currency media can be solved.
Some problems that need to be solved in the "no coin" public chain
In the context of the currency-linked chain such as Bitcoin, the nodes participating in the accounting and transaction verification are deeply bound to the value of the system assets, which leads to a much lower possibility of node evil, but in the context of the “no currency” public chain. The lack of such a connection between the node and the system assets makes it possible for the malicious node to collude and attack the system to cause serious harm such as double-flowering.
One way to stop this type of attack is to raise the threshold for pledge funds and increase the penalties for making mistakes. However, these measures have a negative impact, which may result in higher concentration of the system, leading to a chain of alliances. Chain or private chain development.
In addition, the control of the system will be a big problem, because it is responsible for the injection of system funds and income distribution. The public chain sponsors have too much authority and will be greatly controversial, so as to avoid making the accounting nodes become working. The problem is a problem that must be solved.
First, the extraction authority of the system funds, any single node can not have (including the public chain initiator), the injection authority is completely open, the income distribution authority can be managed by the initiator, or voted in the form of DAO.
Also, the "no-coin" public chain will encounter difficulties in building dApps, because this will inevitably require dApps to be "no coins."
At the same time, scalability and privacy issues will also be a problem that the “no-coin” public chain will encounter.
Through the above simple analysis, we can realize that compared with the coin public chain, the “no-coin” public chain will encounter more problems to be solved, and this research direction has yet to be further explored.
(PS: Professor Turvio Micali, a former Turing Award winner, also proposed the concept of a public chain without motivation. Later, he gave up on this idea in the process of actually landing the project.)