By Bitcoin Majalah - 1 year ago - Waktos maca: 6 menit
Ngabongkar Bitcoin Misconceptions: Ieu Henteu Disimpen Waktos, Énergi Atawa Kekerasan
Metaphors and analogies are critical for helping newbies understand Bitcoin, but they are dangerous when taken too far.
Ieu mangrupikeun redaksi opini ku Stephan Livera, host tina "Stephan Livera Podcast" sareng diréktur Swan. Bitcoin Internasional.
There are metaphors and analogies for Bitcoin that you may have heard on podcasts or read from various articles or books — and this is not meant to criticize the entire practice of using metaphors or analogies to pique people’s interest in Bitcoin — but having a bad framework for understanding Bitcoin can cause errors in how we reason about it from there. If people take the metaphors too literally, they inevitably make mistakes in their reasoning about Bitcoin.
Kahiji, hayu urang nganggap cutatan ieu naha sakabéh metaphors anu salah:
"Kanggo éta bakal janten usaha anu absurd pikeun ngaleungitkeun tina basa téori ékonomi unggal cara nyarios anu henteu leres-leres leres; Ieu bakal jadi pedantry sheer mun proscribe unggal inohong ucapan, utamana saprak urang teu bisa nyebutkeun saratus bagian tina naon urang kudu ngomong, lamun urang nampik kantos nyandak recourse kana métafora. Hiji sarat penting, yén téori ékonomi nyingkahan kasalahan ngabingungkeun kabiasaan praktis, indulged di demi expedency, kalawan bebeneran ilmiah.. "
Janten, jelas, henteu sadayana analogi ngabahayakeun. Tapi nalika narékahan pikeun akurasi, métafora teu tiasa disaruakeun sareng bebeneran ilmiah anu nyata.
'Bitcoin Is Stored Time’
The popular notion that bitcoin can “store our time” is an overly loose and imprecise metaphor. It typically comes up when Bitcoiners are talking about the injustice of fiat currency (this part is correct), but then it goes awry when the metaphor is stretched too far into suggesting that we should “store our time” in bitcoin instead of fiat currency.
The “store of value” concept can arguably apply to Bitcoin if we consider longer time frames, but it’s really not storing waktu. Sakumaha paribasa, waktos ngantosan teu aya lalaki. Urang nyarios dina istilah anu santai sapertos ngahémat waktos atanapi "ngirit waktos," tapi leres-leres, waktos éta sanés anu urang ngahémat, éta kumaha urang méakkeun waktu urang. Karesep aya dina lakukeun. Atanapi, salaku tamu podcast kuring Conza dicaritakeun tina paguneman jeung Konrad Graf, "Teruskeun, coba ulah nyéépkeun waktos sareng simpen kanggo engké."
Even when equivocating bitcoin as purchasing power which may be the sumanget of the analogy, it is important to remember that there are no guarantees here. Bitcoin’s purchasing power has gone down over selected time frames, which is where thinking of bitcoin as stored time can really lead a person astray if taken too literally.
Ayeuna, ngagorowok ka sobat Gigi, anu geus ditulis dina konsép Bitcoin as building out an arrow of time. This concept does make sense and it helps to explain why Bitcoin is designed the way it is — by keeping time using blocks instead of seconds and not relying on a centralized time keeper. This is distinct from the incorrect metaphor of “bitcoin as storing your time.” So, a more accurate framing would be that bitcoin ngajaga waktos (ngagunakeun blok, teu detik), tapi teu nyimpen waktos Anjeun.
Bitcoin As Energy/Battery
Some people speak of Bitcoin as digital energy or as though it is a battery. But remember, while Bitcoin miners use energy, Bitcoin still does not allow anyone to store or transport energy. There is not some central counter that we can go take our bitcoin to and redeem it for a set amount of energy. Yes, energy could be priced and sold for bitcoin, but that’s not the same thing. The price of energy will fluctuate and bitcoin will not even metaphorically store the same amount of energy over time.
Kasalahan naon anu tiasa nyababkeun ieu? Éta tiasa nyasabkeun jalma-jalma ngeunaan ti mana nilaina asalna. métafora ieu ngabalukarkeun jalma ka arah jenis harga téori nilai, éféktif nempatkeun kuda saméméh karanjang. Gantina, urang kedah alesan tina téori subjektif ngeunaan nilai:
"Nilai hiji barang henteu ditangtukeun ku naon waé harta bawaan tina barang éta, atanapi ku jumlah tenaga kerja anu diperyogikeun pikeun ngahasilkeun barang, tapi nilaina ditangtukeun ku pentingna individu ngalaksanakeun hiji barang pikeun ngahontal anu dipikahoyong. tamat.”
A related cousin of this is the notion that bitcoin is “backed by” energy. Typically, this comes up when a nocoiner says, “But Bitcoin isn’t backed by anything.” So, in some cases, a well intentioned but wrong Bitcoiner may say, “No, Bitcoin is backed by energy!” But this is wrong.
Generally, when something is “backed by” something else, it implies that it somehow has the support of some other entity, like a government. Historically, people say the U.S. dollar was “backed by” gold, and people could historically redeem notes for gold, but no such thing exists with Bitcoin. So, perhaps a better question to ask is, “What’s gold backed by?” Only then are we getting to the truth of the matter: it was all subjective valuation all along. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Bitcoin As Violence Or A ‘Weapon’
Some people want to frame Bitcoin as a kind of “digital violence” or, more recently, frame it as a weapon and part of a “soft war protocol.” But this is a gross misrepresentation of what Bitcoin nyaéta. Bitcoin is more like cryptographic messages being passed around and validated on a network. Surely that is closer to “speech” than a “weapon.” Or, more accurately, bitcoin can be thought of as a rivalrous digital commodity (the first of its kind), operating on an open-source monetary network.
If the pen is mightier than the sword, would it be appropriate to call a pen a weapon? Not really. Also, this whole line of argument is clearly blurring a line between what’s voluntary, and what is initiating aggression (which is the part that’s wrong). How is running a node, adopting bitcoin as a rivalrous digital commodity and participating in the network a form of “weaponry”? This is just gross mischaracterisation. Words mean things.
Some of the analogies and metaphors used in relation to “bitcoin as soft war protocol” relate to miners competing to secure the “chain of custody.” But do they? Or is it really more like Bitcoin nodes are what secure Bitcoin? Miners can’t make invalid transactions appear valid to those who are running and verifying transactions with their own Bitcoin node. So, isn’t it more relevant to think of it like tempat ngumpulna aman Bitcoin? The job of miners is important, but their job is more related to finality tina transaksi, teu kaamanan.
Janten, Naon Kaleresan Saleresna Lajeng?
So, as mentioned earlier, economically speaking, bitcoin is more accurately characterized as a rivalrous digital commodity. Bitcoin is komoditi sorangan - éta lain klaim hiji hal, éta komoditi sorangan. Nalika jalma naroskeun naon anu didukung, ieu nunjukkeun yén aranjeunna henteu acan ngartos naon éta.
If an analogy helps a new person get into Bitcoin and start going down the rabbit hole, that’s great! But as that person advances their knowledge about Bitcoin, additional precision about what Bitcoin is will help us all.
Hatur nuhun ka sobat Conza pikeun mere ilham artikel ieu sarta nyadiakeun eupan balik.
Ieu pos tamu ku Stephan Livera. Pamadegan dikedalkeun sagemblengna sorangan sarta teu merta ngagambarkeun pamadegan BTC Inc atanapi Bitcoin Majalah.
sumber aslina: Bitcoin majalah