The term “crypto” has become a buzzword, encompassing a wide range of digital assets. Amongst Bitcoiners, it has also become a derogatory term used to refer to altcoins, as seen in the oft-repeated phrase “Bitcoin, Not Crypto.” However, not everything in the crypto world is truly “crypto,” at least not in the literal sense of the name.
ໂດຍເນື້ອແທ້ແລ້ວຂອງ cryptocurrency ແມ່ນຢູ່ໃນການເພິ່ງພາອາໄສການເຂົ້າລະຫັດລັບ, ແລະບໍ່ມີຫຍັງອີກ, ເພື່ອຮັບປະກັນເຄືອຂ່າຍຂອງມັນ. ນີ້ເຮັດໃຫ້ພວກເຮົາມີຄວາມແຕກຕ່າງກັນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ: ພຽງແຕ່ຫຼຽນຫຼັກຖານສະແດງການເຮັດວຽກທີ່ສາມາດຖືກຖືວ່າເປັນ "crypto." ຄວາມແຕກຕ່າງນີ້ບໍ່ແມ່ນພຽງແຕ່ semantic ແຕ່ມີຄວາມສໍາຄັນພື້ນຖານ, ຍ້ອນວ່າມັນເນັ້ນໃສ່ສິ່ງທີ່ສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງຂອງບັນຊີລາຍການ.
“Cryptocurrency” combines two critical components: “crypto,” referring to cryptography, and “currency,” denoting a medium of exchange and monetary unit. Cryptography is the art of communicating in code, and the logical underpinning of cryptography is a discipline of mathematics. Translating human language into ciphertext and back in a sensible and orderly fashion requires advanced math. From this discipline was born two key elements which came together to make Bitcoin work: hashing in the form of SHA-256 and asymmetric cryptography in the form of digital signatures.
ແນ່ນອນ, ສະກຸນເງິນຫມາຍເຖິງສື່ກາງຂອງການແລກປ່ຽນ. ເງິນຕາບໍ່ຮັບຜິດຊອບດອກເບ້ຍ, ແລະພວກເຂົາບໍ່ໄດ້ມອບ "ຜົນປະໂຫຍດ" ຢູ່ນອກສິດຜົນປະໂຫຍດດ້ານການເງິນແລະ "ການປົກຄອງ". ໃນຄວາມເປັນຈິງ, ຄວາມຈິງນີ້ຢ່າງດຽວຄວນສິ້ນສຸດການສົນທະນາທັນທີ, ກ່ຽວກັບສິ່ງທີ່ແນ່ນອນແມ່ນ cryptocurrency ແລະສິ່ງທີ່ບໍ່ແມ່ນ: "ການປົກຄອງ" ແລະ "ຜົນປະໂຫຍດ" tokens ບໍ່ໄດ້ນັບ.
The Cryptography in Bitcoin
PoW secures and powers true cryptocurrencies. In Bitcoin’s PoW, miners use SHA-256 to write on the ledger. Full nodes use SHA-256 to validate the accumulated work of the ledger. Merkle proofs, which also require SHA-256, are used by SPV to check whether transactions have been processed without looking at the whole ledger. Digital signatures are used by everyone to ensure non-repudiation of transactions. Newer features like Taproot have given us Schnorr Signatures and MAST to create other spending conditions, all of which are rooted in cryptography.
It’s important to note that PoW can work without computers. The decentralized ledger can still be maintained to a degree even if the math was done by hand and the proofs were carried by horseback to a public square and inscribed onto a mural for all to see. The only thing that is absolutely required by Bitcoin operators to ensure the ledger’s integrity is cryptography.
There are no shortcuts or alternative means to process and validate transactions in PoW. This purity in the application of cryptography – requiring cryptography and absolutely nothing else – is what makes Bitcoin true “crypto.”
ຫຼັກຖານຂອງສະເຕກ ແລະກົນໄກອື່ນໆ
In contrast, many of the digital assets commonly referred to as “cryptocurrencies” – the same ones Bitcoiners have derogated as “crypto” when they say “Bitcoin, Not Crypto” – operate on different mechanisms, such as proof-of-stake (PoS), proof-of-authority (PoA), or other hybrid models.
While these mechanisms also use some form of cryptography, they introduce additional elements like ownership and reputation to secure the network. These additions dilute the role of pure cryptography in maintaining the network’s integrity.
ແລະຢູ່ໃນນັ້ນແມ່ນຂໍ້ບົກພ່ອງທີ່ຮ້າຍແຮງຂອງ PoS ແລະ shenanigans ທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ.
Even to this day, 14 years after the Bitcoin genesis block, PoS is yet to resolve the long-range attack without reliance on a centralized and trusted source. A long-range attack is when PoS validators take back their stake and start creating an alternative chain of events privately. Since this phony alternative chain would have been using the same consensus rules as the “true” chain, there is no way for new users of the blockchain to tell which chain is the correct one after this phony chain is made public. Under PoW, it is trivial to tell the fakes from the real one – the arbiter is the easily verifiable metric of accumulated work. Therefore, PoS users must trust a checkpoint outside of the blockchain to let them know which one is correct.
Oh, and I lied just now. Over these 14 years, there has been one solution for PoS chains to bypass the long-range attack without a centralized and trusted source. The Babylon protocol is a Cosmos chain that helps resolve the long-range attack by aggregating the checkpoints of PoS chains by (hold your applause!) publishing these checkpoints to the truly decentralized and trustless proof-of-work Bitcoin timechain!
ມັນເປັນເລື່ອງທີ່ຫນ້າປະຫລາດໃຈທີ່ shenanigans ທີ່ເຮັດໃຫ້ຄວາມປອດໄພອັນໃຫຍ່ຫຼວງ, ຄວາມໄວ້ວາງໃຈ, ແລະການແບ່ງສ່ວນການແບ່ງຂັ້ນຄຸ້ມຄອງໂດຍປັດໃຈຕ່າງໆເຊັ່ນ: ຊື່ສຽງແລະສະເຕກໄດ້ມາເປັນວົງກົມເຕັມໄປຫາສິ່ງທີ່ສ້າງລະບົບທີ່ປອດໄພ, ບໍ່ຫນ້າເຊື່ອຖື, ແລະການແບ່ງຂັ້ນຄຸ້ມຄອງ: ການເຂົ້າລະຫັດບໍລິສຸດ.
“Cryptography” Narrows Our Focus to PoW, but “Currency” Narrows Our Focus to Bitcoin
ຄະນິດສາດແມ່ນເໜືອກວ່າຄວາມເປັນເຈົ້າຂອງ ແລະຊື່ສຽງ ເພາະຄະນິດສາດບໍ່ສາມາດປ່ຽນແປງໄດ້. ຊັບສິນທີ່ຮັບປະກັນໂດຍຄວາມເປັນເຈົ້າຂອງແລະຊື່ສຽງແມ່ນໃກ້ຊິດກັບ fiat ຫຼືຫຼັກຊັບຫຼາຍກ່ວາພວກເຂົາກັບ cryptocurrencies ຫຼືສິນຄ້າ. ແລະຕອນນີ້ຂ້ອຍຈະເອົາມັນໄປອີກບາດກ້າວຫນຶ່ງ.
If the “cryptography” part narrows the scope to PoW, then “currency” should narrow our focus to Bitcoin alone. A currency is a tangible instantiation of the abstract concept called money. Money is the most liquid good, the most saleable commodity, the good which produces the lowest diminishing marginal utility, and the asset that wins the barter system by making all barter about itself. There ultimately can only be one money.
There are a few different cryptography-backed currencies: XMR, BCH, LTC, DOGE, etc. But they are not the most liquid goods in this space by far, as their individual market caps added together aren’t anywhere near Bitcoin’s market cap alone. So, if there can only be one “most liquid good” then we should focus on that singular instantiation of money that is the most liquid.
ຄິດແນວນີ້. ມີຫຼາຍສະກຸນເງິນ fiat ອອກມາ, ແຕ່ວ່າໃນລະຫວ່າງການຄ້າລະຫວ່າງປະເທດແລະການເຮັດທຸລະກໍາທາງດ້ານການເງິນລະຫວ່າງປະເທດ, ມີພຽງແຕ່ເງິນໂດລາສະຫະລັດເທົ່ານັ້ນທີ່ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້ຢ່າງເດັ່ນຊັດ. ເມື່ອຄົນແລກປ່ຽນສິ່ງຕ່າງໆໃນສະພາບການທົ່ວໂລກ, ເຂົາເຈົ້າໃຊ້ USD ໂດຍອັດຕະໂນມັດເພື່ອໝາຍເຖິງເງື່ອນໄຂຂອງເຂົາເຈົ້າ. ທຸກໆ fiat ອື່ນໆສາມາດແລກປ່ຽນເປັນ USD, ແຕ່ບໍ່ຈໍາເປັນສໍາລັບ fiat ອື່ນໆທີ່ບໍ່ແມ່ນ USD (ໂດຍບໍ່ໄດ້ຜ່ານໂດລາກ່ອນ). ດັ່ງນັ້ນ, ໃນຂະນະທີ່ມີສະກຸນເງິນ fiat ທາງດ້ານເຕັກນິກຫຼາຍ, ໃນຄວາມເປັນຈິງ, ມີພຽງແຕ່ຫນຶ່ງທີ່ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້ຢ່າງກວ້າງຂວາງຢ່າງແທ້ຈິງ. ໃນເວລາທີ່ພວກເຮົາກ່າວເຖິງ "ເງິນສະກຸນເງິນ fiat," ຂອງພວກເຮົາຕໍ່ມາ, ການສັນລະເສີນ, ການວິເຄາະ, ຮ້ອນ, ແລະອື່ນໆ. ມັກຈະພຽງແຕ່ກ່ຽວກັບເງິນໂດລາສະຫະລັດ.
ດັ່ງນັ້ນ, ເຫັນໄດ້ຊັດເຈນວ່າມີກອບການໂຮມກັນໃນເວລາທີ່ພວກເຮົາພິຈາລະນາ fiat ໃນ abstract; fiat ຕົ້ນຕໍແມ່ນເງິນໂດລາສະຫະລັດແລະອັນທີສອງແມ່ນການລວມຕົວຂອງສິ່ງອື່ນໆ. ມັນເປັນເວລາທີ່ພວກເຮົາເລີ່ມຕົ້ນຄິດກ່ຽວກັບ crypto ໃນທາງດຽວກັນ.
ເປັນຫຍັງຄວາມແຕກຕ່າງຈຶ່ງສຳຄັນ
Reclaiming the term “crypto” to refer exclusively to Bitcoin is not a matter of pedantry; it’s a matter of principle. Labeling all digital assets as “cryptocurrencies” and using the term “crypto” as a pejorative for lesser assets is spitting in the face of the profound and significant cryptographic foundation that Satoshi laid through Bitcoin.
The strength of a true cryptocurrency lies in its reliance on the immutable laws of mathematics. There are no “what-ifs” or “buts” when it comes to the security of PoW; it is as robust as the cryptographic algorithms it employs. We ought to prefer the permanence of mathematics over the ephemerality of ownership and reputation. Not trusting in the math behind Bitcoin’s robustness is effectively as illogical as not trusting in the Pythagorean Theorem or that 2×2=4. It is the flat-earthism of the modern day.
Names have power, and the name “crypto” is no exception. True “crypto” pays homage to the fact that mathematics alone can power a system so secure and transparent that it needs no central authority or additional layers of complexity to function. Should we attach this name to things that require “stake” and “authority” to run?
ສະຫຼຸບ
As the world of digital assets continues to evolve, it’s crucial to remember the roots and original intentions behind this technology. Let’s reclaim that name and appropriately honor the mathematical robustness that only Bitcoin offers.
Instead of “Bitcoin, Not Crypto” perhaps we should say “Crypto, Meaning Bitcoin.”
ນີ້ແມ່ນຂໍ້ຄວາມຂອງແຂກ Allard Peng. ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນທີ່ສະແດງອອກແມ່ນຂອງຕົນເອງທັງຫມົດແລະບໍ່ຈໍາເປັນຕ້ອງສະທ້ອນເຖິງ BTC Inc ຫຼື Bitcoin Magazine.
Source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/reclaiming-the-crypto-title-the-primacy-of-pow-and-cryptography