ZWS(Zhu Weisha), a Famous Chinese Entrepreneur
9.1 Bitcoin Prize
9.1.1 Reward community volunteers
Satoshi Nakamoto believes in natural evolution, and his departure led to the beginning of the era of community management. Satoshi Nakamoto has ruled past improvements, which is very contradictory. Some people who fail to achieve their goals will have foul language; Satoshi Nakamoto is humble and polite by nature, does not accept investment, and does not need to be responsible to shareholders; there is no need to argue with others; it is best to live a comfortable life. He left. It does not solve the problem of chaos; the emperor died, and the kingdom will continue. How does it go on? A great event came nine months later when Amir Taaki, an Indian-British programmer, released the bitcoin community's first proposal in September 2011: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP 001. It describes what the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal is. Luke Dash, a long-time member of the Bitcoin community who joined in January 2011, proposed Proposal BIP-002, which modifies the guidelines of BIP and replaces BIP-001. Both are proposed rules for the community to improve the Bitcoin process. The diagram below shows the general flow of the Bitcoin community proposal. The journey of community autonomy started and continues today. It is a big step in human history. Humanity needs to trust not a dictator but a self-governing mechanism.
Here's a problem. In the early years, developers could make money from mining, and customer service could volunteer to contribute to the project without making money. But when mining becomes specialized, developers remain unincentivized. If they don't leave coins behind in the early years, I believe there is no need to stay in the bitcoin community. Many late developers will emerge from the mining community; they can afford to feed development programmers. This possibility exists. Ultimately the balance will tip in favor of computing power. The checks and balances between developers and computing power would then break down, thus destroying the store of value of bitcoin. It is a very troubling problem. This problem is still Satoshi Nakamoto's solution, giving developers material and moral incentives.
The Nobel Prize and the Turing Prize both Prize the elite, and the world has no shortage of similar prizes. What Prize is the world lacking? What Prize is Bitcoin missing? Bitcoin lacks a reward for volunteers. There is a missing in the design of Bitcoin, no Foundation, and no revenue taken from fees to maintain the Bitcoin system. It's not fair to give all the fees to miners. The principle of fairness is that you get paid for your work. Writing code is labor and should be rewarded, just as providing computing power. Why should those who write code be volunteers? The winner of writing code is like a game of computing power, and the community's comment is also a game. The Ethereum Foundation is clever in that it gets a cut of the revenue from transaction fees. From a competitive standpoint, Bitcoin should have it too. t is better than the proportion of the entire fee does not exceed Ethereum.
Bitcoin was a great incentive in the early days, and perhaps Satoshi Nakamoto wanted the early participants to keep maintaining it. Unfortunately, few programmers participated in 2009, and those who participated later included relatively early participants, such as the second chief maintainer, Gavin Andresen, who did not know much about the early discussions in the community, who were just program masters, not Satoshi Nakamoto, not Hal finny, and could not have founding groups such as Satoshi Nakamoto. After no the early inculcation of faith and lack of knowledge about bitcoin, where could they hold bitcoin for the long term? Once it's high, it's sold. The average person without the coin without the benefit also has no motivation to participate actively. Later, suppose can not be evaluated the participants positively; in that case, there will be no motivation to participate in the long term only by volunteering, which weakens the original design of Satoshi Nakamoto's trinity.
The Bitcoin Prize is a recognition and spiritual encouragement for volunteers. Volunteers don't necessarily contribute only code, the community has active participants, and positive incentives for active participants are a way to make up for Bitcoin's early shortcomings. When the competitors are organized, how are the scattered soldiers an opponent? Bitcoin preaches the idea that power is not central and the consensus is not democracy, all of which is true. But there is a one-sidedness. It cannot deny the role of democracy. If communities are mechanisms of interest, democratic means are needed to address the issue of interest.
There is this one thing. When Auburn Satoshi (Craig) demanded that the Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin whitepaper on BitcoinCore.org be removed, Bitcoin's chief maintainer, Vladimir Vanderlaan, responded quickly to Craig and removed the link to the Bitcoin whitepaper on BitcoinCore.org and was widely criticized for doing so. He said he quit his position in the Bitcoin Core development group to decentralize further. It is actually a community decision issue, and his arbitrary deletion does have the problem of too much authority. They are programmers and have intellectual barriers to judging legal matters. If the community had been more active, something like this would not have happened.
9.1.2 Bitcoin Community Improvement Proposal (BCIP)
Solving these kinds of problems also requires a standardized proposal method similar to the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP), which makes it possible for anyone who owns Bitcoin to have the right to propose, and if the volume is large, it has to be reviewed. Unfortunately, the review involves a lot of specialization, far from being as simple as programming. So there must be a fee.
The community should define who has the right to review and what ideas are adopted. It may be called The Bitcoin Community Improvement Proposal (BCIP). Bitcoin is a trinity structure, where coin holders contribute the most in benefits but have the least say. Decision-making in the program's direction requires a great deal of expertise and cannot be judged by ordinary people, and it is not suitable to use voting. But when it comes to the interests of community members, it is believed that democratic decisions are more scientific. If there were democratic decision-making and discussion mechanism, I think there would not be a situation where Vladimir Vanderlan mistakenly deleted the white paper. In ecological community governance, Bitcoin is lagging, inferior to later projects such as Ethereum. Ethereum Foundation incentive eco-community, so the Ethereum ecology is better than Bitcoin. We have yet to see Bitcoin incentivize ecological communities. Falling behind happens gradually.
Gold stands out in the same environment. However, the competitive environment is different. Bitcoin is a dimensionality reduction blow to gold. In fact, gold is unbearable. Gold's position looks good now, but the future could be better.
Similarly, bitcoin faces a competitive problem. It's okay now; it's hard to say in the future. If a foundation is to be organized, it should be approved by a community vote, with developer representatives, miner representatives, and coin holder representatives, and mainly address the issue of benefit distribution. The old principle of this benefit distribution is half work and half money. From Bitcoin, 26% for developers, 25% for mining machines, and 49% for coin holders seem reasonable.
Is this method feasible? Suppose the transaction fees are partially given to the foundation. In that case, the bitcoin core development group will be worried about miners not downloading the new version. The best way to do this is to have another miner-friendly improvement that bundles out this miner-unfriendly feature. After that, there should be no problem.
My vision is simple, move the decimal point of bitcoin 5 to 6 digits to the right; which miner would dare not download it? And bitcoin will instantly skyrocket as the bitcoin consensus ranks rapidly expand. The Bitcoin project technology is already very stable, so the opinions of the coin holders become most important because they represent the vast majority of the consensus, and public companies also know to listen to minority shareholders; unfortunately, all projects in the blockchain are not aware of this, let alone how to play it. It is a problem to be solved by the user community incentive of blockchain in the future. The user community is different from the eco-community, and I answer the question of user community incentive in Chapter 3, Community Governance and Indirect Incentives of the Chainless System white paper (1).
9.2 Satoshi Nakamoto Prize encourages explorers
With transaction fee revenue, there is a possibility to set up a Prize. However, the people who most deserve the Prize are people like Satoshi Nakamoto; the latter have made innovations that benefit the progress of society as a whole and are anonymous for fear of persecution, which needs to be voiced, fought, and have a social impact. For example, Phil Zimmermann, the founder of the file encryption software PGP, fought back then and almost went to jail. Another example is the conviction of the owner of Electronic Gold(E-Gold). The reason for the prosecution was money laundering. Don't fiat currencies launder money?
The situation of the E-Gold project is rough as follows.
"In 1996, e-gold entered the public eye as a digital currency. In addition to adapting to the public demand for convenience and privacy protection, but also because of the collapse of the gold standard, some governments abused the right to issue currency, triggering hyperinflation; the voice of the gold standard supporters knocked again, Douglas Jackson is one of the staunch gold standard advocates. In 1996, Douglas Jackson founded the company e-gold."
"By anchoring the price of gold 1:1 and carrying a 100% gold reserve, the trading model of the classic gold era was made electronic. Users can exchange e-gold with fiat currency or make direct transfers of e-gold between clients with payment capabilities. "
"e-gold does not need to go through credit cards, bank accounts, and other cumbersome formalities process; it can be fast, convenient and cross-territory transactions, after its establishment soon after the rapid growth. e-gold in 2009, more than 5 million accounts in 165 countries, with more than 3.5 metric tons of gold reserves, Yahoo, Amazon, and other giant Companies have opened e-gold payment transaction methods, which shows its influence in that year."
"In the decade from 2000 to 2009, digital gold currencies had their "highlight moment," and digital gold currencies are springing up. E-Bullion and E-dinar were founded in 2000, GoldMoney and 1MDC in 2001, Pecunix, Crown Gold and Liberty Reserve in 2002. Unfortunately, the good times did not last long. In 2009, the anonymity of the e-gold system provided a criminal basis for money laundering by Eastern European hackers, and coupled with the continued hacking of the platform later, it eventually went bankrupt due to pressure from the government. And other digital gold currencies have followed in e-gold's footsteps." (2)
In the following excerpt, Douglas Jackson was interviewed by Wired Magazine after completing his six months of home confinement.
"Jackson, whose six-month house arrest ends this month, recently met with Wired.com for his first in-depth interview since pleading guilty last year to money laundering-related crimes, and to operating an unlicensed money transmitting service. His tale is one of countless upstarts and entrepreneurs who approached the internet with big dreams, only to be chastened by sobering realities. But his rise and fall also offers a unique glimpse at the web's frontier halcyon days, and the wilderness landscape that still covers much of the unregulated and un-policed web, where fraud artists prospect for riches alongside pioneers, and sometimes stake, and win, a claim on their territory." (3)
The judge ruled that Douglas had no apparent criminal intent. In fact, anchoring gold is a problem worthy of study. It is a problem that must be faced as a digital gold standard. How much difference is there between blockchain-stablecoins anchored to fiat currency in the digital currency scenario? How much innovation has been suppressed by law? Satoshi Nakamoto was inspired to get a lesson that the Bitcoin system a country's government can't shut down (and now centralized services can do the same for a country's government can't shut down). But arresting people is still possible, so Satoshi Nakamoto chose to remain anonymous. Remember the phrase: "It's socially sinful to let a grandmother steal," which is the famous Lagodia stern question. Likewise, it is a social crime to let Satoshi Nakamoto remain anonymous! The Satoshi Nakamoto Prize was created to give a voice to people who are persecuted for their innovation. Unlike the Bitcoin Prize, this Prize should be historically tested, and the nomination criteria and process should be modeled after the Nobel Prize. The scope of innovation is broad, and we return to the purpose of cypherpunk: "to advocate the widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a pathway to social and political change." (4) Later, we will describe Satoshi Nakamoto's Ctyptoeconomics, that is, it is better in the scope of Ctyptoeconomics. Having a historical test would be less controversial; for example, Phil Zimmermann, the founder of PGP, has a history of contributing to the drive to popularize crypto and should be eligible for the award. I'm not sure if Douglas Jackson should have won. If there is controversy, community discussion, which has attracted wide attention from society, also achieves the purpose.
The Bitcoin Awards have a high honor among Bitcoin holders beyond the money itself; they are awards for the little guy; anyone has a chance to win, and it's an open and transparent community process. Bitcoin already has a big pizza festival, and a celebration should look like a festival, hopefully as influential as an Oscar party. A party with millions of viewers would also be of world-class interest. The community has been running for 13 years, so many volunteers are great contributors. The list is long, long.
The purpose of the Satoshi Nakamoto Prize is very clear, and due to challenging the law and guiding the future, it is good to be very careful. It was the original purpose of the cypherpunk to change the world. There is also a long list here of people who are pathfinders despite their commercial failures. Humanity needs Nobel Prizes for great thinkers who enlighten society and heroes who die on the adventure.
Satoshi Nakamoto is a pathfinder. In addition to being bold, he also needs martial arts. And his high martial arts skills are enough to ask for the Nobel Prize. In the next section, we describe Satoshi Nakamoto's theoretical contributions. Then, find a reason for winning the Nobel Prize.
Conclusion.
Satoshi Nakamoto: male, then 33-34 years old, prodigy, American, living on the West Coast, a cypherpunk. No shortage of money. Freelancer. There is no Satoshi Nakamoto among the deceased Satoshi suspects. He has excellent programming and product design skills and an understanding of the community. Good life, with a good moneymaker and schemer. Satoshi Nakamoto has a deep knowledge of finance. Influenced by the Austrian school of economics. Philosophically inclined to natural evolution and prefers a free and easy life.
Reference
1. Web3.0 Chainless Financial Platform White Paper
Hong Kong Yuxing Technology Company (8005)
2. 数字货币30年
/30 years of digital currency
靳毅/Jin Yi
3. Bullion and Bandits: The Improbable Rise and Fall of E-Gold
Kim Zetter JUN 9, 2009 12:00 AM
4. Cypherpunk