Looking back at this article today, I feel a lot of emotion. Recall that in August 2017, in fact, it has been like a world, bitcoin and the entire cryptocurrency experienced 94 after that, experienced the 2018 New Year's skyrocketing, experienced a plunge, experienced a cold winter, and now seems to have some signs of spring. Then, interestingly, my identity also presents two different states. At the beginning, I was a fan of Bitcoin and I was a fan of people; when it was skyrocketing, I was a sunspot, and many people came to face; later I became a prophecy of God; and then, no one wanted to see this thing, because the people who smoked the coins in the winter had already left.
Seeking truth from facts, at that time, my understanding of Bitcoin was very superficial. More precisely, I knew almost all the technical details of Bitcoin, but I didn’t know anything about the currency, but I didn’t know the price of Bitcoin. Among the factors, technology is only a small one. However, when I look at this prophecy, I find myself saying something right—for example, forks, such as regulation, such as forked coins, such as 51% of attacks against altcoins.
Therefore, I am very glad that I wrote such a thing at that time, whether it is from the perspective of each reader, whether it is a face or a prophecy, at least we can review from this, less than two years. Our previous attitude towards Bitcoin and what we expect for the future of Bitcoin. In particular, it seems that the spring is coming, and soon I guess there will be a new set of prophecies. Then, before predicting the future, I might like to revisit this article and the story that happened in the past year or so. .
- Xiaoyan follow-up: CZ, Nathan Kaiser, ten "big coffee" in the same box, market, trading, technology, all the nets
- Analysis: Three reasons why altcoin has failed to disrupt Bitcoin
- Was the plunge completely a whale? This person has completed a short sale and made a profit of $ 20 million
- The plunge was caused by Binance shorting after losing coins? Let the data on the chain tell you the truth
- Wikipedia Lightning Network Entry Critical? Bitcoin was deleted 9 years ago
- Bitcoin halving: price impact and historical correlation
– written on April 8, 2019
The following is the text, the original publication time: August 2017
(I didn’t write TI in the previous paragraph, sorry.)
- Bitcoin will replace all legal currency as the future common currency.
- Bitcoin will be worth a house in the future.
- Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and will soon collapse.
- Bitcoin has no other value than black market transactions.
- Bitcoin will not be safe if there is no mine in the future.
- BTC (mining company) is destroying bitcoin.
There are many versions of Bitcoin's future predictions that can be seen online. However, as with more than half of the articles on bitcoin and science, since many authors are also ignorant of the concept of bitcoin, the predictions or predictions made are naturally very different.
Well, I guess a lot of people will say:
"proceed if you can!"
Then, after writing a lot of introductory things, here I will express my views on what the future of bitcoin and bitcoin will look like.
Talking about the future, no time limit is also a rogue behavior, so I put the future on two scales – bitcoin one year later, and bitcoin ten years later.
However, before talking about the future of Bitcoin, we still have to combine the previous articles to summarize what Bitcoin looks like today.
Today's Bitcoin is a non-mainstream trading system with a very limited central trading volume.
and many more! Say good decentralization?
Um, indeed, Nakamoto said that the Bitcoin is a decentralized system.
However, everyone is an adult, and you can't always say what you believe, right.
Nakamoto Satoshi, whether it is a person or a group of people, he is a person who is not a god. Those who blow Nakamoto to God all day are not stupid or have ulterior motives. As I mentioned in the first part of this column, Bitcoin is a "most successful attempt to copy the most primitive currency (that is, the decentralized currency) into the virtual world, but even In this way, it is just an attempt.
This attempt by Satoshi Nakamoto is indeed a breakthrough. but,
1, it does not appear out of thin air, it is based on countless failures of predecessors, and many technologies, such as asymmetric encryption and the maturity of the p2p network.
2, it is not technically perfect, even if it was at the time, it is impossible to be impeccable today after nearly 10 years. Those who see the white paper as the Bible and the proof of work as the only truth are not _____, or ______.
3, it does not get rid of the limitations of history. To put it simply, as a pioneer, it is not, and it is impossible to predict the problems that this system will face in the future.
The above comments actually apply to any groundbreaking new technology. Deifying the pioneer and deifying this technique has no benefit in understanding it and developing it.
Bitcoin is also the same, and Nakamoto has proposed to use work proof to reach a consensus, so as to achieve the decentralization of the system through the decentralization of computing power. This idea is groundbreaking, and in the environment at the time, it is also correct. .
However, Nakamoto could not expect Bitcoin to develop into what it is now (not just the price) ten years ago, and no one in the world can. Some people still remember what the network looked like ten years ago? Has anyone predicted how the network is now ten years ago? If Satoshi Satoshi invented Bitcoin, he guessed that Bitcoin now has many centralizations such as power calculations, such as expansion, such as the segregation of witnesses, etc. This is also the behavior of deifying Satoshi Nakamoto.
Therefore, since Nakamoto did not predict the way Bitcoin is now, in his original intention, he only succeeded in "establishing a decentralized monetary system." However, he did not say "to build a world-wide decentralized monetary system", everything is changing, and technological innovation in the IT field is faster. I admit that Nakamoto’s most sensible method is not to deify him. He believes that “Nakamoto has long anticipated this and has arranged for it”, but should acknowledge the wisdom of Nakamoto, and think that he is as smart as him. It is impossible to think that "bitcoin should always be what I design." Microsoft has changed, Apple has changed, Nokia has even been completely annihilated in the tide of technological innovation after the change. Therefore, Bitcoin will also change. As for whether or not it violates the original intention of Nakamoto, I will take it for myself. I think that Nakamoto did not feel that the experiment he had done would still exist after ten years.
Therefore, what is the "miner's (BTC) behavior against the original intention of Nakamoto?" The miners said that btc is "bitcoin technology centralization", btc said that miners are "computing power centralization", but if everything is to follow the meaning of Nakamoto, isn't it "Zhongben Cong centralization"? What's more, the word "Nakamoto" is almost the same as every rebellion or uprising in history. Everyone says that they conform to God's will. As for what "day" means, no one knows.
Therefore, speculating on the "day" meaning, under the banner of Nakamoto Satoshi, the user said that he is the orthodox gimmick can really rest.
No one said what Bitcoin should look like, only rules can dictate what it looks like. Therefore, the past of Bitcoin should be what it used to be. The current bitcoin is what it is now.
Is Bitcoin centralized?
Centralized, I have written before, with the temporary dust of segwit2x settled, the risk of forking is avoided, and the expansion seems to have a definite solution, which is a central victory.
So, does this process violate the rules of Bitcoin?
No. In fact, there is no such thing as "centralization of computing power". Bitcoin has only one kind of centralization, which is the centralization of computing power. And btc protests the "centralization of the power" behavior, in my opinion and the sun to spend a nature – the legitimate way to obtain the rights, we can achieve through public opinion, through street politics. However, the miners are not a party, and the mining company does not have a legislature.
As for the word "technology centralization", it is even more nonsense. The method of stigmatizing opponents has different stigma in different contexts. In ancient China, "anti-thief" is most useful in the United States. "Racism" is most useful in a country, "dog Poor human dregs, vicious prostitutes and daughter-in-laws may be the most useful, so the most useful stigma in Bitcoin is "centralization." Therefore, regardless of the three seven seventy-one, it is right for the two sides to put a "centralized" hat on the other side.
So, is the centralization of Bitcoin contrary to the original intention of Nakamoto?
No. As I said before, Nakamoto has no original intentions. His original intention is only to establish. He never imagined the development of Bitcoin until now. Whether it is the expansion of the chain or the lightning network, it is just a banner that "follows the will of God".
The above is off topic, the point is that all the predictions and discourses in the following are based on the following premise:
Today's Bitcoin is a non-mainstream trading system with a very limited central trading volume.
Based on this, let me talk about the future of Bitcoin.
In the normal order, you should talk about bitcoin one year later, but I want to talk about the vision first, that is, bitcoin ten years later.
More precisely, if Bitcoin evolves to ten years after the current plan, what it will look like.
Bitcoin after ten years
The first problem was the amount of Bitcoin at that time.
Here, please recall the formula for the value of Bitcoin in the fourth chapter –
A is the value of the guarantee system, C is the upper limit of the safe transaction volume, and kN is the transaction volume.
For Bitcoin, the first two will grow with the number N of users.
That is to say, the value of Bitcoin is not subject to A and C compared to the general trading system. That is, it seems that if the number of users can grow indefinitely, the value of Bitcoin will increase indefinitely.
However, as mentioned in the two expansions, the trading volume of Bitcoin, which is C, is actually capped.
This is the famous 7 transactions per second.
In the expansion of the article I have explained that many people who know little about Bitcoin technology say that this cap is only subject to the rules of Bitcoin, and there is no technical difficulty in expansion. A block of 100MB is not a problem, BTC (miners) are not willing This is just a confusing, half-barrel of water that does not understand technology.
This upper limit is because the block size of 1MB and the block frequency of 10 minutes are correct, but in the end, it is subject to the weak synchronization of the whole network subject to the security of work proof, and then the block size cannot be too large.
Therefore, this upper limit is ultimately subject to the speed of the network and the response speed of the computer, as well as the number of nodes.
Even if the expansion increases the block size, it is impossible to add the block size to 100MB.
Currently segwit2x and bcc both add blocks to a size of about 8MB, which is basically the limit that Bitcoin can currently reach (the specific paper I gave in the fifth article). In other words, the transaction volume will probably be doubled.
But the speed of the network will increase – recall the speed of the network 10 years ago, and then look at the current speed increase of about 100-1000 times. However, the past decade has been precisely the decade of rapid advances in communications technology, and it has now reached a bottleneck.
The most optimistic estimate is that the network speed can be increased by 100 times in the next ten years. Therefore, if expansion is carried out at that time, a block can be turned into 800MB (10 minutes).
Thus, from this perspective, according to the current calculation of a bitcoin of 4000 US dollars, after ten years, bitcoin theoretically rose to a maximum of 3.2 million US dollars. Indeed, one coin can buy a suite in Beijing –
The premise is that Beijing's housing prices will not rise in the past decade.
The limit of the bitcoin price is not only the upper limit C of the safe trading volume, but also the actual trading volume kN.
And this thing is harder to predict.
Because the actual transaction volume can not reach 1000 times now, it has nothing to do with the safe transaction volume limit, but only depends on whether there is such a large transaction demand, and this depends on whether the future can enter the mainstream to become the mainstream payment. One way.
At this point, we can only judge by comparing with other mainstream payment systems.
Let's look at a few key indicators:
1, the trading volume: 5600 pens per second, more than paypal, and Visa, AMEX and other magnitudes, although not comparable to Alipay, but has reached the mainstream level.
2, trading delay: the most optimistic estimate can be reduced to 1 minute level, because the method of increasing the volume of trading can increase the block frequency in addition to increasing the block size. If the network speed is increased by 100 times, the block frequency can indeed be increased by 100 times. However, it is difficult for the network to increase the transaction delay to the second level, because the machine's response delay will not be ignored at that time. However, minute-level trading delays are already an acceptable level in online payments or large cash transactions.
3, transaction fee: currently less than 1%, compared to the mainstream trading system is an advantage. The advantage of transaction fees, ultimately from the mining company's operating costs and structure is much simpler than the average payment company.
Wait, is there no transaction fee for Bitcoin?
Then you are obviously deceived by false propaganda. There are two sources of income for miners, 1 for mining awards and 2 for transaction fees (see Section 5 for details). At present, the ratio of transaction fees to income is about 10%. In other words, the actual transaction fee is now about 0.1%, and the remaining 0.9% is spread to everyone as inflation. However, the transaction fee was halved in four years, and the last halving was more than a year ago. In other words, the transaction fee after ten years is now 1/8. That is to say, if the miner still wants to maintain the current income, the transaction fee will account for 90% of the income, that is, the actual transaction fee is 0.9%, and the remaining 0.1% is the newly mined mine. Partly distributed to everyone as inflation.
There is a huge misunderstanding about Bitcoin, "What to do when Bitcoin is dug up," and then someone replied, "No, no, Bitcoin will not be dug until 22xx, don't worry."
This kind of answer is very nonsense, because we have already seen it. In fact, it is not necessary to wait until 22xx. In the next 10 years, the main source of income for miners is already a transaction fee rather than a mining award.
4. Security: First of all, as I argued in the fourth chapter, decentralized systems have no natural, security advantages compared to centralized systems, but make the risk of security easier. Quantified only. However, as an already centralized system, Bitcoin, a company that guarantees bitcoin security, that is, mining companies, has no more advantages than mainstream payment companies except for company operating expenses. Their advantage is that, compared to mainstream payment companies, such as AMEX, which handles complex systems such as credit, customer service, global payments, etc., mining companies only need to consider providing higher computing power – because of higher computing power. Representing a safer, more unbreakable transaction.
Therefore, transaction fees and security are simplified to the following relationship:
“The transaction fee paid to the miners for each of your transactions is used by the miners to buy/maintain the mining machine, thus ensuring greater safety. So, how much are you willing to pay?”
So, this became a game between mining companies and users –
Suppose there are two types of users: Class A is not willing to pay high transaction fees, and does not care about security; B is willing to pay high transaction fees, but wants high security. However, Bitcoin does not allow miners to provide differentiated services. We assume that there are three kinds of mining machines, A, B, and the power and price are from low to high. The more powerful the mining machine, the safer it is because the attacker also needs to buy the miner at a higher price – if both A and B are in, the miner can buy the B-Mine. However, it is clear that B provides a high transaction fee but buys a class A user, so Class B users will eventually quit.
Therefore, miners can only decide to set a threshold for transaction fees based on the proportion of A and B transactions – either, lower transaction fees, leaving only Class A users, buying a mining machine; or, raising the threshold for transaction fees. , leaving only Class B users, buy a C mine machine.
In other words, the first four decisions determine that Bitcoin has two possible directions:
- Low transaction fees (<2-3%, ie transaction fees for mainstream trading systems) are low security routes.
- High transaction fee and high security route.
Sounds good – the first two indicators are not bad, while the latter two indicators can be adjusted and then compete with other mainstream payment systems.
In this way, Bitcoin does not seem to be the possibility of becoming a mainstream payment system.
However, the biggest obstacle to preventing Bitcoin from becoming a mainstream trading system is not any of the above, but…
5, ease of use: Bitcoin's ease of use can be said to be negative, and it is not too much to describe it with anti-humanity. The easiest point – key loss = money lost can not be recovered.
(Don't mention the wallet, any features provided by any wallet can't change this basic property of Bitcoin)
Therefore, the status quo of Bitcoin should actually be changed to:
A very difficult non-mainstream trading system with a very limited amount of centralized trading.
This can basically be considered as Bitcoin's simplification of the center into the cost of power and mining. Yes, the cost of operation and maintenance is saved, and the cost of manual customer service is also saved. Serviceable.
In fact, the issue of ease of use is the biggest problem with Bitcoin.
Some people may have questions about this – ease of use is really the biggest problem? A thing is very safe, fast, and very cheap. Is it really someone who will use it just because it is not easy to use? !
Humans have never invented tools to simplify problems, not to confuse them.
Google, Baidu, Tencent and other big companies collect a lot of user information and say something, if they want, they can always know where you are and what you are doing. Even they can control what you are going to do next.
However, even with such risks, even many people, including those in the industry, are aware of such risks. However, they are still using this. Why?
Very simple, because it is really convenient.
A technology, or a thing, if it doesn't work well, then no matter how many other advantages it has, it will probably not become mainstream. There are too many such examples, such as linux to windows, such as Alipay to Apple. Pay, for example, dota to lol…
Some people may ask: "Can that bitcoin not be upgraded?"
Yes – but is the upgraded bitcoin or bitcoin?
Bitcoin is called cryptocurrency because its security is completely guaranteed by cryptography.
The security of cryptography is based entirely on the premise of "private key owner = owner".
If you upgrade, the owner of the private key has others, such as a mining company. Or, the private key is generated by other means, then what is the difference between this system and other centralized systems?
This is why I always say:
The future currency may be any currency, even digital currency, but it will never be bitcoin.
Bitcoin can't be a unified currency system in the future, and it can't even get into the mainstream because the purpose of money is to simplify transactions, not to make transactions more complicated. Bitcoin is a trading system in which “the money must be locked in the safe before the flower is thrown out, the key is lost or the one is lost, and we are not responsible”. Whether it is the past, the present or the future, it is doomed to be the majority. Accepted by people.
So far, we still forgot an important thing –
If Bitcoin is still alive after 10 years, this means that the entire blockchain technology has not collapsed, and it has existed for ten years.
That is to say, bitcoin is bound to have countless competitors. Moreover, technically, any cryptocurrency is superior to Bitcoin without exception. 1. Bitcoin is the most erratic technology. 2, not bitcoin will not be upgraded, but because bitcoin involves too much benefit and too much status. It is almost certain that bitcoin will always be the most conservative regardless of future blockchain technology. The one that moved the slowest.
As a result, in countless competition coins, they also go to the center. They also have low maintenance costs. They are safer and faster. What are the advantages of Bitcoin at this time?
The only advantage is the first-mover advantage of Bitcoin – it has the highest number of users and computing power. The former may not always be the case, and the latter is likely to always be the case, as more and more coins have already turned to POS, which means that the future use of mining machines may not be much.
Therefore, it can be said that even in non-mainstream systems, Bitcoin will face fierce competition from other alternative currencies, and its only advantage is computing power. So, in other words, if you want to use differentiation to compete with other blockchain trading systems, it is a natural choice to increase transaction costs and improve the security of transactions.
So, if I make a prediction about Bitcoin after 10 years, I think it would be:
A centrally traded transaction is a very difficult non-mainstream trading system.
Its transaction fee will exceed the general mainstream trading system and is used to improve security, estimated at 5%-10%.
Its trading volume, I think it is difficult to surpass another trading system that is not very mainstream – paypal.
Paypal's annual transaction volume is $1.7 trillion – currently four times that of bitcoin.
Therefore, personal predictions, the price of bitcoin will not exceed $16,000 after 10 years –
The premise is that if it still exists at that time.
Bitcoin after one year
Above, I made a prediction about Bitcoin 10 years later, but first, if Bitcoin can go after ten years, it will be said.
If you can, then the next year will be a crucial year.
- Bitcoin is among the craziest gains since its birth.
- After three months it will usher in its first substantial upgrade since its birth.
- Bitcoin is currently at a crossroads from decentralization and centralization.
- BTC may cause the biggest split.
- The regulation of bitcoin is an urgent task.
Many of the above problems may be concentrated in the concentrated outbreak of the segwit2x hard fork in November, in my opinion, there are four main risks:
Bitcoin will split, of course, if it counts BCC, it has split (see the previous section).
When it comes to splitting, we have to be clear: anyone can fork bitcoin at any time to form a altcoin that has nothing to do with bitcoin, as is the case with BCC. The value of the altcoin that is forked out is only related to its calculation power.
Before Bitcoin was not split, the bitcoin of Bitcoin also emerged endlessly.
However, the previous split did not set off such a big wave.
However, this time the BCC opened a bad head – when everyone was talking about bitcoin that might split, it split the bitcoin by the controversy of "btc wants to split bitcoin", with a more fashionable The word to describe, called "heat", "post flow". Moreover, with a number of supporters who claim to be “the purest bitcoin”, prices have soared. With a computing power of around 3%, the cost rises to almost 20% of Bitcoin.
This will almost give a hint to anyone who cares – when Bitcoin hard forks in November, we can also follow the cat to draw the tiger.
By then, it is foreseeable that Bitcoin will be divided into at least two factions – a part of the 2MB block represented by the miners, and a part of the deadly BBC or fundamentalist flicker that only recognizes the 1MB block. It is foreseeable that both parties will claim to be the most orthodox bitcoin.
However, I don't think the story will be just that. BCC Zhuyu is in the forefront, and other parties can also see it. By this Dongfeng split bitcoin, it is a business that can make a profit without losing money in the current market. Moreover, the sooner the better, the sooner the score can be fooled. The more people there are. When BTC and the mining company fight the law, an insignificant younger brother, ViaBTC, can be called the king independently. Then why can't we? Wang Hou will be interested in Xiangning?
Therefore, BTC is not afraid of forks, they are just developers, forks are just new projects, sipping a "orthodox BTC, the real heir of Nakamoto" without spending money.
Small mining companies are not afraid of forks, BCC has already pointed to the road – do not want to share your point in the BTC, when you split your own chain, you can be the boss, the money you can make doubled in minutes.
The big mining company is afraid of splitting, but it is going to rain to marry, and they can't control other powers. So, how to deal with the risk of pushing the wall down – once the price of the BTC is low, the big mining companies can't control the miners' fleeing. Even the mining company itself may find that it may fork out a new coin. It is more secure than being tied to the BTC.
And all this, the culprit is nothing else, but —
Second, the irrational market.
This is a more terrible thing than division.
Under normal logic, bitcoin splits, one is low and the other is high, but without adding new users and new computing power, the total value after splitting cannot be higher than before splitting.
Therefore, in the normal market, the small computing power will compete with the big one. If the market is optimistic about small, then the small price increase, the calculation power enters a small, and then because of the difference, the two balance according to the transaction amount. On the other hand, if the market is not optimistic, then the small price falls, then the miners have no incentive to dig small, and the result is that the small one is gradually weakening.
However, reality is this situation –
Bitcoin forked out at least 3% of the power (ViaBTC), representing a security drop of at least 3%.
However, Bitcoin has soared 50% since BCC forked.
Someone told me that this is because the risk of forking is avoided and the compensation value after the segwit2x dust has settled.
Then, after experiencing the initial plunge, BCC recently surged to nearly 20% of Bitcoin's price, although its computing power is still less than 10% of BTC until now.
Someone told me – this is because of the prospect of BCC.
Therefore, the calculation power has not changed, and the route has been split into two coins. As a result, everyone is optimistic about both currencies. I feel that both routes are correct and I think they can all rise.
The same thing was originally bought 100, now divided into two, the big one sold to 150, the small one sold to 50.
Such an irrational market, the last time I saw an Italian cockroach in the United States tells everyone that a small note can be made from Europe to the United States to buy money…
But the irrational market will eventually cause irreparable damage to Bitcoin – the BCC has already been done once, and every subsequent split is aggravated.
Because normal people know that 100 things can be bought to buy 200 is nonsense…
Split once, the price does not fall, and everyone says nothing. This is the choice of the market. Everyone is optimistic about the products after the split.
So, as mentioned above, if someone tastes the sweetness, someone will try again, split twice, and the price will rise?
Just like the emperor's new clothes, there will always be one time, there is a child standing up and saying:
"You are just splitting up 100 yuan into several pieces for sale!"
However, if all this is really broken by a small child, it may be the best result.
And the worse result is –
Third, security risks.
The biggest selling point of Bitcoin, whether it is going to the center or scarce, has a premise –
Now, everyone is saying that Bitcoin is centralized. However, this sounds too far away and has not caused panic in the market.
However, if Bitcoin is not safe one day, it will be a disaster for Bitcoin.
Someone left me to ask me, you talked about more than 50% of the power to attack Bitcoin for a long time.
Indeed, I did not speak because I think this is self-evident.
Bitcoin is an algorithm-defined system that is controlled by more than 50% of computing power. Then, it assumes that more than 50% of the computing power is credible, or simply profit-seeking (bitcoin).
If this assumption is untenable, that is, more than 50% of computing power has other purposes, then simply, they can do whatever they want. The easiest way to attack – rewrite today's chain every day and invalidate all today's transactions.
This behavior, as long as it succeeds, Bitcoin collapses.
Now, in fact, for Bitcoin, this security is already very suspicious –
1, destroying the computing power of Bitcoin, that is, the value of the guaranteed bitcoin safe mining company in the trading system, only 0.3%, far less than any centralized trading system.
2. 0.3% of the decentralized system is not naturally better than 0.3% of the centralization.
3, Bitcoin has been centralized.
This is what I said at the end of the fourth article. Bitcoin has a lot of bubbles – people think it is safe, so use it to trade, but people greatly overestimate its security, so the current trading volume, already Beyond its safe range, in a very dangerous position.
However, although this bubble is large, it is still very difficult to puncture it, because although the relative value of safety relative to the volume is small, the absolute value is still large enough, so no one has poked for the time being.
At the end of the fourth chapter, I have made predictions that there will always be financial capital staring at this bubble.
However, before the financial capital started, the BCC appeared.
BCC's computing power is only about one-tenth of Bitcoin, but its price is close to one-fifth of Bitcoin.
This is equivalent to someone blowing a smaller, but thinner bubble next to Bitcoin.
This bubble is easier to break.
Not only that, it encourages more people to blow more bubbles –
Smaller, and thinner bubbles, this is the other altcoin that forks out.
The less power these bubbles have, the worse the security, and the smaller the volume than Bitcoin.
They are far less secure than Bitcoin and, most importantly, destroying them, maybe only tens of millions of dollars is enough.
But the problem is that they all claim to be "the most orthodox bitcoin passers-by". For the outside world, it is easy to think that they are all part of Bitcoin, at least, with some connections. Despite the fact that there is no connection between the altcoins.
The rupture of any bubble will cause a chain reaction – this is more dangerous than the child's blunt words, because the bursting of any bubble, even if it is just a double payment of any altcoin, will cause panic –
"Bitcoin, it seems not so safe…"
Therefore, not only the altcoin, but also the BCC, all claiming to be "bitcoin heirs" and even bitcoin itself will be affected.
In an irrational market, the decline is also irrational. I don't think that by that time, any coin can hold the bottom line equivalent to its computing power, including bitcoin.
If this kind of chaos occurs, then what is most likely to happen next is –
Fourth, policy changes.
I believe that all those who do finance in China are aware that policy changes are the biggest variable in any financial sector.
Since Bitcoin is now occupied by Chinese capital, the central policy changes have a great impact on Bitcoin.
So far, the situation seems to be still very good, and the term blockchain has even appeared in the government's work plan.
However, the recent ICO chaos, and the US policy of including some ICOs in the scope of supervision, are predicting that –
The Chinese government's policy on virtual currency is about to be introduced, and virtual currency will certainly be incorporated into government regulation to a certain extent. It may not be in the middle of Bitcoin's fork, but it will certainly be within one year.
As for whether the policy will relax or tighten, this is not something I can predict. However, if there is a big turmoil in Bitcoin during the fork, I can hardly imagine that the government will encourage the virtual currency.
If the government really adopts a conservative attitude towards virtual currency, I think that it will be greatly affected not only for the entire virtual currency circle or the bitcoin circle, but with the entire blockchain technology.
Is it possible to avoid these?
Possibly, if most of the miners are united and united, they share the responsibility of maintaining the security of Bitcoin and operating Bitcoin in a centralized system.
Unless this is the case, I am not optimistic about the turmoil Bitcoin can withstand in the coming year – forks, upgrades, capital manipulation, new policies…
Then someone might ask:
"Are you looking at the bitcoin?"
That's right, I am looking at the bitcoin.
As a blockchain researcher, I could have been completely neutral – just pointing out the problem of bitcoin and making my own predictions without making any bias, but saying “this is just a theoretical possibility” .
Moreover, in fact, from my standpoint, I also hope that I am poisoned by milk – because according to the above analysis, if Bitcoin really collapses, then the blockchain industry will be affected. For this new technology, it basically means that the blockchain has bid farewell to the vent.
However, just as I put Bitcoin as the first theme of this column, and like the name of this series, I feel that I want to be a Chinese community, knowing both Bitcoin technology and Bitcoin. The role of direct interest relationships. Because, I think, at present, the lack of such perspectives in the field of bitcoin and blockchain requires such a perspective.
Therefore, I ended the series with my personal predictions and opinions about Bitcoin.
Bitcoin will definitely split in January and November.
2, on the issue of segwit, bitcoin 80% will split.
3. No matter how many times it splits, Bitcoin is likely to have a financial crisis within a year – there will be turmoil in the manipulation of bitcoin prices by financial capitalists. The more the number of divisions, the greater the risk.
4. If there are more than 3 bitcoins (including BCC), then at least one will disappear into our view until next year.
5. The policy on virtual currency will be introduced within one year.
6, I don't think Bitcoin can exceed $5,000 a year later.
7, after ten years, the price of bitcoin can't exceed $16,000, because it's hard to use, so it's destined not to become mainstream.
8. In any case, Bitcoin is already a centralized system. Unless Bitcoin crashes, I don't think it will be decentralized.
(The above is a statement, please be cautious as an investment reference.)