Source: Daoshuo Blockchain

One piece of digital gold is enough. Whether there is an ecosystem or not is not that important. After so many years of blockchain development, the only thing that is truly valuable is Bitcoin. The so-called ecology is just the vision and hope we impose on ourselves. What do Web 2.0 and 3.0 really have that we need? Or is it not possible on Web 1.0?

This is a message from one of our readers.

This message is very valuable because almost every sentence in it condenses or represents the accumulated debates over the development of blockchain technology for more than ten years and the focus that I have been paying close attention to. .

“Digital gold is enough. Whether or not there is an ecosystem is not that important.”

I think that for Bitcoin, “digital gold” is indeed enough. It has No ecology is really not that important. Because even if there is no ecosystem, Bitcoin has a unique and enduring status and value in the digital age now and even in the future. No other crypto-asset based on blockchain technology can replace this.

However, if Bitcoin can have its own ecology, it will be better, because it can greatly expand its use and extend its value, and solve potential security problems.

But for blockchain technology, it cannot be said that only one "digital gold" is enough, because the potential it shows is far greater than "digital gold". Its future should carry a brilliant application ecosystem.

Bitcoin is only a very rudimentary application of blockchain technology, and it is only an application that was born when blockchain technology was in its infancy.

When Ethereum implemented a Turing-complete platform based on Bitcoin, blockchain technology has undergone a qualitative sublimation.

Every technological innovation and qualitative change in human history must be accompanied by the subsequent scale and popularization of technology. This is a universal law of historical development.

This kind of scale and popularization is either reflected in specific products or specific applications or services.

What is "scale" and "popularization"?

That is, it has an almost irrefutable consensus and identity.

Bitcoin certainly has value in the eyes of our group.

But in the eyes of other people, it is worthless, and their arguments are very straightforward: it cannot produce products, cannot generate interest, and cannot provide services. What is its value?

In fact, this argument is difficult to refute.

Of course, for us, we can naturally empower Bitcoin from another perspective and add value to it.

Not only Bitcoin, but also gold are not immune.

There is essentially no difference between Mr. Buffett’s views on gold and his views on Bitcoin.

So it is actually difficult for all mankind to form a unified consensus on whether Bitcoin is valuable.

But INone of us can deny the value of WeChat and Alipay.

Why?

Because they provide universal use value to the general public, they can gain a high degree of consensus and recognition.

At least at this point, Bitcoin and gold are incomparable---------I believe there are still many people who use WeChat and Alipay every day who don’t have gold, let alone Bitcoin. coins.

I am not saying that the value of Bitcoin must be recognized by the public or held by everyone, but I want to express:

If blockchain technology only Just giving birth to a "digital gold" would be too meaningless and not worth our exploration and struggle in this ecosystem.

Blockchain technology aims to create a world that is decentralized but allows all human beings to cooperate closely without any barriers. And this world has almost never existed in human history. Therefore, it is destined to be difficult and challenging to explore and develop forward based on such technology. Because it challenges many inherent concepts and interests of human society, the most typical ones are “censorship resistance” and “decentralization”.

Whose censorship are you trying to resist by “anti-censorship”? Whose centralization do you mean by "decentralizing" ----------- It is very inconvenient to extend such a topic.

Besides, we have been domesticated by centralized thinking for thousands of years. To this day, a considerable number of us still think of the first person for help when a problem arises, not ourselves, but Turning to authority----------This is a deep-rooted "centralized" thinking.

Look at the authors of the papers cited in Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper. If we use our customary terminology, all of them are “anti-thieves.”

Look at Vitalik, when discussing a certain war issue, he dared to say "Russians do not have to support Russia". According to our habits, this is a complete "anti-thief", right?

The real blockchain technology is led by such a small group of people, but the large number of audiences, developers and users they have to face are people who are full of centralized ideas and obey authority.

So in this ecosystem, our applications, our thinking, and our opinions can easily fall into pseudo-tracks, pseudo-applications, and pseudo-needs that have nothing to do with blockchain.

Therefore, it is understandably difficult to make any real progress in this field. Even more than ten years after the implementation of blockchain technology, we still have not found a large-scale blockchain technology like Web 2. Popular applications.

Therefore, many people will naturally come to this question:

After so many years of blockchain development, what is truly valuable?

Or to put it a little more objectively: after so many years of blockchain development, the only thing that is truly valuable is Bitcoin.

In fact, this kind of difficulty and challenge is not uncommon. Not to mention the distance, just use the InternetIn terms of its development history:

In 1969, the prototype of the Internet was born in the United States; in 1972, American colleges and universities had email, but it was only after 1990 that the development of the Internet entered the fast lane .

It took nearly 40 or 50 years of exploration for artificial intelligence to reach its current explosion.

Compared with these technologies, the progress and development of blockchain technology have been amazing.

I firmly believe that blockchain technology is epoch-making, so I firmly believe that the application prosperity of blockchain technology will definitely come.

It’s just that I don’t know when it will happen or what form it will take.

So I don’t agree that “ecology is just a vision and hope we impose on ourselves.”

“Is there anything in Web 2.0 and 3.0 that we really need? Or is it not possible on Web 1.0?”

This passage reflects the ubiquity of the current encryption ecology a question.

Regular readers who have read my past articles know that I believe that the vast majority of DePIN projects and the vast majority of so-called AI + Crypto are pseudo-demand.

Why?

The reason is what this paragraph says, or more specifically:

I think many so-called DePIN and so-called AI+Crypto do not need blockchain technology at all. It can be implemented using Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 technology.

Just in yesterday’s article, I also said: Many current chain games cannot compete with traditional games at all, because those so-called chain games do not need blockchain at all regardless of token incentives. technologies can achieve their desired user experience. So in my opinion, those so-called blockchain games are not the blockchain games in my mind at all.

There are too many pseudo-needs and pseudo-encryption projects like this in the current encryption ecosystem.

Despite this, I am still very optimistic.

Although what we see now is darkness, I believe there is real light ahead; although we are now surrounded by these fakes, I believe that there will be real applications that will be popularized on a large scale in the future of this ecosystem. Appear.

This is a view that I have never wavered in.