By Bitcoin Revista - 6 meses atrás - Tempo de leitura: 6 minutos
Recuperando o título criptográfico: a primazia do PoW e da criptografia
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.
A verdadeira essência de uma criptomoeda reside na sua dependência da criptografia, e nada mais, para proteger a sua rede. Isto nos leva a uma distinção essencial: apenas moedas de prova de trabalho podem ser genuinamente consideradas “criptográficas”. Esta distinção não é apenas semântica, mas de fundamental importância, pois sublinha o que exatamente fortalece o livro-razão.
"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.
É claro que a moeda implica um meio de troca. As moedas não rendem juros, nem conferem “utilidades” fora da utilidade monetária e dos direitos de “governação”. Na verdade, este fato por si só deveria encerrar imediatamente a discussão sobre o que exatamente é uma criptomoeda e o que não é: tokens de “governança” e “utilidade” não contam.
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.”
Prova de aposta e outros mecanismos
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.
E é aí que reside a falha fatal do PoS e outras travessuras relacionadas.
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!
É divertido como as travessuras que fizeram grandes compensações em segurança, confiança e descentralização, envolvendo fatores como reputação e participação, fecharam o círculo e voltaram ao que realmente cria sistemas seguros, sem confiança e descentralizados: criptografia pura.
“Cryptography” Narrows Our Focus to PoW, but “Currency” Narrows Our Focus to Bitcoin
A matemática é superior à propriedade e à reputação porque a matemática não pode ser alterada. Os ativos garantidos pela propriedade e pela reputação estão mais próximos de títulos ou valores mobiliários do que de criptomoedas ou commodities. E agora vou dar um passo adiante.
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.
Pense desta forma. Existem várias moedas fiduciárias por aí, mas durante o comércio internacional e as transações financeiras internacionais, apenas o dólar americano é usado com mais destaque. Quando as pessoas trocam coisas num contexto global, utilizam automaticamente dólares americanos para marcar os seus termos. Todos os outros decretos podem ser trocados por dólares americanos, mas não necessariamente por outros decretos que não sejam dólares americanos (sem passar primeiro pelos dólares). Assim, embora existam tecnicamente muitas moedas fiduciárias, na verdade existe apenas uma que é verdadeiramente amplamente utilizada. Quando mencionamos “moeda fiduciária”, nossas queixas, elogios, análises, críticas, etc. subsequentes são muitas vezes simplesmente sobre o dólar americano.
Portanto, existe evidentemente um quadro unificador quando consideramos o decreto em abstrato; o decreto é principalmente o dólar americano e, secundariamente, um amálgama de outras coisas. É hora de começarmos a pensar sobre criptografia da mesma maneira.
Por que a distinção é importante
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 2x2=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?
Conclusão
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 oferece.
Ao invés de "Bitcoin, Not Crypto” perhaps we should say “Crypto, Meaning Bitcoin. "
Este é um post convidado por Allard Peng. As opiniões expressas são inteiramente próprias e não refletem necessariamente as da BTC Inc ou Bitcoin Revista.
Fonte original: Bitcoin Magazine