Currency Security BSV Debate: Rules, Neutrality and Decentralization

One view is that a cryptocurrency exchange that quotes price data and executes transactions often takes place outside the chain and is not subject to strict, quasi-constitutional chain-based rules, cryptocurrency exchanges. You can reject prices and transactions that anyone likes, and doing so does not compromise the integrity of the freedom of speech/regression criteria of the underlying blockchain governance system.

The other view is that, according to the scale, the position of the currency in the cryptocurrency industry is like the status of Twitter and Facebook in the social media network. Just as the ban on the use of Twitter and Facebook would seriously damage the social media industry, the cryptocurrency of the currency will also seriously damage the value of this cryptocurrency.

What do you think of it?

The cryptocurrency exchange currency has recently removed Bitcoin SV (BSV), is this a form of censorship? If this is the case, wouldn't all of the Bitcoin Core supporters and the opponents of "Australian Cong" Craig White cheer? But perhaps this same group of people, they were also a staunch supporter of the blockchain against the censorship system. Is it now that the BSV has begun to use double standards?

These are the questions that Bitcoin skeptics have asked the cryptocurrency community. In their view, the attitude of the crypto-community should be like Voltaire said – I don't agree with what you said, but I swear to defend you. s right. (Yes, I know this is not what Voltaire said…)

But whether or not this "problem" is reasonable, has at least triggered a more interesting debate in the encryption industry, and has continued between the support of Craig White's BSV holders and the dislike of Craig White's BTC holders. It took more than a year. However, just recently, this incident was due to a turning point in a cryptocurrency exchange – the currency announced the removal of the BSV. In fact, before the CEO of Changan Zhao Changpeng made this decision, Bitcoin supporters had already put pressure on him to punish Craig White because some Twitter users claimed that Craig White was not Nakamoto Satoshi, but he was sued for his charges.

01 A popcorn debate

In fact, it is still unclear who really won the debate. If it is true, it is also reminding people that people trapped in the blockchain utopia and those stubborn realist critics often cannot fully capture The nuances of developments in the encryption ecosystem, or, in this regard, the nuances of the broader social media world and online communities.

One point is very convincing, that is, you can't get off the BSV because Craig White is a jerk. Although the bastard is a bastard, you can't accept the censorship because of the bastard. This is obviously believed by the Bitcoin believers. The "password punk" ideal – that is, the boycott censorship system is contradictory.

(Public disclosure of one thing: Craig White pulled me black on Twitter because I used the word "bastard" to describe him. The Twitter account used by Craig White is @ProfFaustus, but Interestingly, this account seems to have been deleted in recent days.)

When I was eating popcorn and watching this "big show" on Twitter, I suddenly saw Angela Walch, an associate professor at St. Mary's University School of Law and a researcher at the Blockchain Technology Center at University College London. He expressed his views on this matter. He is a critic himself, but he is also a blockchain advocate and has always called for support for “decentralization”. In this Twitter debate, Angela Walch pointed out that the move of the currency has triggered a cognitive imbalance in the cryptocurrency industry.

On April 15, 2019, Angela Valch wrote on Twitter:

"Do you have such a right?….. One person thinks that another person is not telling the truth, and then the person says that he does not allow anyone to trade a de-centralization of the boycott censorship system on his exchange. Digital assets."

However, investor Ari Paul gave the whole story a different background. He believes that you see, the criteria for boycott censorship do not extend to private entities that provide services on an open system, just as the currency treats bitcoin agreements and other blockchains, and these private entities are free to Dealing with customers.

On April 16, 2019, Ali Paul wrote on Twitter:

"Freedom of speech is a value in my heart. It is really frustrating to see people abuse the 'censorship system' and confuse the fundamentally different cases. This is different from the review system of the National Railway Passenger Transport Company. Do you want to have it? Is there a train that is full of people but dead? So, let us take a good look at what the currency and BSV are all about."

Of course, it seems that this is fair. Because the decentralization rule settings for the basic blockchain of each system are accurately distinguished, that is, the desire layer that applies the resistance to the review—and the centralized entity that accesses it.

On this basis, Paul's views are consistent with the way the US courts deal with the First Amendment lawsuit. To protect free business, US courts often allow private entities to select and select the people they deal with and the information they post, and they also try to reduce the restrictions that government entities restrict private citizens and businesses.

Similarly, we can argue that a cryptocurrency exchange that quotes price data and executes transactions often has business decisions that occur outside the chain and are not subject to strict, quasi-constitutional chain-based rules. These rules mainly allow the decentralized network governance of the running blockchain publishing protocol to be treated fairly.

A cryptocurrency exchange can reject prices and transactions that anyone likes, and doing so does not compromise the integrity of the freedom of speech/regression criteria of the underlying blockchain governance system.

02 holding the "thigh" to think about the problem

The problem is that there are too many blockchains, and most blockchains are different. In this environment, a cryptocurrency exchange like Coinan is not running an application, nor is it operating a private company, but is in a single blockchain governance system for those who want to To provide services to people across different blockchain systems.

If compared with similar constitutions, these cryptocurrency exchanges are more like shippers without borders, who deliver information across borders and are not subject to the jurisdiction of any government. In this role, cryptocurrency exchanges do not enforce blockchain censorship rules, but because of the ups and downs of asset prices in different blockchains, cryptocurrency exchanges are beginning to work on the wider cryptocurrency ecosystem. The more important it is.

That's why the “big coffee” critics like Angela Valch pays great attention to the behavior of these exchanges, because so far, the exchange is the only proven commercial use case in the encryption industry, they represent the cryptocurrency industry. (Even arguably the cryptocurrency industry), so they should maintain a high standard of neutrality.

We can also compare Twitter, Facebook and other social media with a real “decentralized” system that can actually be viewed as a private company, so feel free to review anyone on their platform as long as they want to do so. .

On the other hand, because their networks are extremely large, the public naturally wants to keep them at different standards. Given the enormous role these social media companies play in our communications systems, it is essential to have a strong case to regulate their review decisions, just as the government manages public power or water utilities.

In terms of scale, the position of the currency in the cryptocurrency industry is like the status of Twitter and Facebook in the social media network. Just as the ban on the use of Twitter and Facebook would seriously damage the social media industry, the cryptocurrency of the currency will also seriously damage the value of this cryptocurrency.

03 So, what role does regulation need to play?

For the behavior of the currency, let us make another analogy. Some people say, imagine, as part of the normal operation of the asset market ecosystem, if the head of the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq suspends the company’s transaction because he doesn’t like the CEO of a company, what will the market react to? What? Therefore, should the currency security comply with similar fair standards?

Of course, this comparison is not perfect, because the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, as well as many other formal stock exchanges in the world, are often forced to withdraw from the market because of the wrongdoing of certain companies, but they are This is done under a highly regulated framework.

If you take a look at Nasdaq's latest list of "suspension or delisting issues", you will find that the main reason for many delisting companies on this list is "regulation / violations." In other words, even the “review” delisting decisions made by complex traditional exchanges tend to occur on the basis of the rules set by the external governance system.

The United States has an interconnected hierarchy, including exchange members, self-regulatory organizations like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), compliance teams and oversight committees within the exchange, various legislative bodies, and similar US Securities and Exchange Commissions. External law enforcement agencies.

Now let's take a look at what Zhao Changpeng thinks. He was actually under tremendous pressure from the struggle between Bitcoin and BSV. Therefore, he decided to remove the BSV because of the industry he served and the long-term interests of the industry, but he did so. There is no set of external rules for reference. If he has one, he can liberate the bound hands.

I don't think Zhao Changpeng will ask for more regulation, but the fact is that by externalizing the rules of the listing rules, supervision will at least help cryptocurrency exchanges manage their public image on these issues.

On the other hand, all the issues we are discussing may be temporary, as the new decentralized trading model will allow client assets to be better hosted and execute transactions independently. However, executing a transaction is not the main reason we rely on the exchange. In fact, in a centralized exchange, many buyers and sellers come together to achieve more effective price discovery.

However, we have to face the cruel reality that the cryptocurrency ecosystem still needs to rely on a centralized exchange before running an effective, fully open source transaction matching and price discovery algorithm on a fully decentralized network. Relying on them to create network effects – that's why consistent UFO standards and how to enforce them are so important.

If there is no consistent, externally enforced rule, then it is unfair to require a centralized entity (and not a blockchain miner), such as a currency security, to maintain a "boycott review" standard. Zhao Changpeng must make decisions in a chaotic community, so for the same reason, we may be able to forgive those Bitcoin investors who support this decision and appear to be hypocritical.

However, we should support those who require cryptocurrency exchanges to establish and adhere to consistent standards and rules, considering the currency of a company that has such a size and influence on the cryptocurrency ecosystem, at least with the legal currency ecology. The requirements for banks in the system are the same.

Having said that, the topic discussed in this article seems to be no longer limited to the so-called "review" issue. Perhaps we can learn more important lessons from the case of the BSA.

Author: Michael J. Casey, Chairman of the Advisory Committee and MIT CoinDesk digital block chain Monetary Program Senior Advisor

Compilation: 氪12, Diana