The Trade billion in digital currency Bitcoin shines often on front pages.
Still, no one has realized that there is currently a power struggle raging around Bitcoin. At stake is our faith in Bitcoins
basic ideal: a coin of computer code, which prevents unnecessary and a central bank. A small technical debate late now painfully clear that the future of Bitcoin in the hands of just five people, “Bitcoin Core Developers. And while Bitcoin central management and nepotism wanted to end properly. The outcome of the power struggle will determine whether can break if Bitcoin digital currency of the future.
The dream to generate a digital currency of computer code – and thus to break free from the hierarchical financial system – has been around for decades. Yet Bitcoin is the first initiative valued by the general public. Regardless of the media hype surrounding underground market places like Silk Road, the potency of Bitcoin I only saw when I worked last year in the US. Some colleagues paid virtually anything with bitcoins.
From restaurants, supermarkets and taxis to webshops and even eBay, PayPal and the Nasdaq will participate . Nobody wants to lose the future battle crucial consumers.
Bitcoin is popular because the application software written for the most brilliant ever. With ingenious encryption, the software checks first if a payer really about Bitcoin has, then executes the transaction pass through and still guarantees anonymity for transmitter and receiver. Without the intervention of a bank. The software and transactions are open source – publicly published – so that everyone can check its integrity. For most users, Bitcoins technology abracadabra, but which provides sufficient transparency, confidence in the currency.
A small technical discussion is now flared to a heated feud. The subject of debate is the “Block chain, the brilliant public log that ensures Bitcoins remain unique and knocking transactions. This log renews itself six times per hour through a file (block) with all new Bitcoin transactions to the log chain (chain) to add. Thus, counterfeiting cryptographically excluded. The maximum size of a block is ever made just 1 megabyte. With the explosion of transactions, the log should be extended to allow more transactions per 10 minutes.
This increases the System requirements for the Bitcoin network increases exponentially. That may mean that Bitcoin to properly supply with expensive computers and fast Internet (ie, from the wealthy West). And here’s the rub: who determines the balance between more transactions, costs, equal accession and safety? To date, the five developers determined the technical direction itself. Sometimes based on input from the outside, sometimes not. Now that the outside world sees suddenly that two of the five Bitcoinbazen since 2013 in the clinch. One wants a new software create the log much larger. The other sees it as controlling ‘higher up’ and will not be in line with Bitcoins ideal base. Two years nothing the deadlock happened and threatens to cease the growth of Bitcoin.
The five holy believe that they alone check the software. They do not see that she is already doing politics since Bitcoin. You see very often in internet policy pioneers are averse to government and claim that their technology is apolitical. A basic fallacy: software is always political. Each software implements a political interests. Due to a technical debatje now come to light how Bitcoins decision is shrouded in mystery.
The decision to vote for an open encounter meanwhile on emotional resistance: no politics in Bitcoin! The five Bitcoinbazen should not obscure their power, but quickly acknowledge that they have become a political body and an open design decision. With supervision and safety valves against corrupting power. Especially when there are billions of dollars at stake. Each currency, Bitcoin also stands or falls with confidence. With popularity comes adult responsibilities. Only if the Bitcoin developers alongside their software make their decisions transparent, Bitcoin can break final.
Axel Arnbak is a researcher cybersecurity and information law at the Institute for Information Law (UvA) and the Berkman Center (Harvard). Commentsaxelarnbak
No comments:
Post a Comment