The core genes of the encrypted ecosystem

Uncovering the Key Genes at the Heart of the Encrypted Ecosystem

Author: Blockchain Talks

In the end of yesterday’s article, a reader raised an interesting question:

If a true blockchain game is open and permissionless, where anyone can login and play with just a wallet, then how do we solve the problem of the Sybil attack?

This question can be generalized as:

• Fidelity Digital Assets Befriends EY’s Blockchain Analyzer; Becomes Their First Corporate Client!
• Decoding Consensys Research Paper Is Ethereum Becoming Increasingly Centralized?
• Helius CEO SVM and MoveVM are better technologies than EVM

If we want to keep this so-called “value internet” of blockchain as permissionless, where anyone can access it, then how do we solve the problem of the Sybil attack?

This is actually a question I have been pondering for a long time. Coincidentally, I recently discussed this with a friend.

I think the answer to this question is probably already given by our predecessors, and it is in Satoshi Nakamoto’s whitepaper: solving the Sybil attack problem through proof of work.

Of course, this “work” in the context of this generalized question can be understood as resource consumption, and not necessarily limited to using computers for POW mining.

We all know a simple truth: there are no perfect solutions in this world. Any solution that pursues a goal will inevitably have to give up other goals, or compromise between multiple goals in order to be realistic.

Since the inception of blockchain technology (with the birth of the Bitcoin genesis block), it has embodied the efforts and expectations of the predecessors of the cypherpunk movement: to establish a private and equal world.

Here, the so-called “equality” means that anyone can participate without the need for approval or review from any centralized institution.

In my view, this ideal implies a pursuit: this network is fair to everyone, whether good or bad. In other words, it believes that even bad people should not be deprived of their right to participate.

So, in this situation, how do we prevent malicious actions? Satoshi Nakamoto gave the most direct answer: participants must contribute computational power, so that even if malicious actors want to do evil, they have to pay a price. In other words, this network does not prohibit malicious actions, but makes them expensive, and through this cost, prevents the negative impact of malicious actions on the normal operation of the network.

I believe this is a core gene of the encrypted ecosystem.

Combining this concept with the gaming scenario, I think the solution to the Sybil attack is that users must pay with resources: the game should have a mechanism where users must expend mental effort and resources in order to receive rewards and tokens. Of course, if users just casually browse, they only need to pay the basic transaction fee on the blockchain.

Some players may worry that such games may not be conducive to user adoption in the early stages. I think that is because these blockchain games have not yet appeared in our real world, so we cannot be sure how many of the masses who are accustomed to free gaming will be willing to pay to play an unfamiliar game.

But I believe that the ideal “on-chain world” will have unlimited imagination and give users unlimited creative space. At that time, we will consider that world as our second home, and we will each try to recreate our identity, persona, and status in that home. It will be compelling enough for us to pay to join, while also being able to control malicious intent within certain boundaries due to this payment.

In fact, I even believe that similar methods can be used to prevent malicious behavior and filter out “witches” in many other blockchain applications, such as the encrypted social media application of my dreams.

Just imagine, if we had to pay for posting articles and comments on social media, wouldn’t many meaningless articles and comments be consciously filtered out?

Since the birth of blockchain applications (such as Bitcoin), they have inherently included encrypted assets. They are a value network with built-in assets, and this value network is also permissionless. In my opinion, these factors determine that this network should have a certain barrier to entry.

So, I don’t really think that the traditional free-to-use model of the Internet is suitable for the encrypted world.

Requiring users to pay and bear a certain cost is not only an inherent requirement of the value network but also the best way to prevent witch attacks.

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!