We continue with one of the most prominent Bitcoin events in Las Vegas, leaving the Blockchain behind, being Unconfiscatable 2020. This time they discuss a fundamental issue in the evolution of cryptocurrencies, being the privacy they provide. To be able to present on this topic we have the experience of Adam Back, Jack mallers, Peter todd Y Jimmy Song.
Scalability vs. Privacy
Song begins the Unconfiscatable panel with a question that the crypto world has been asking since the appearance of Ethereum. He raised the discussion between development with scalability parallel to privacy. It should be noted that the privacy that Song mentions is in the advances of each company. With this it refers to the improvements that each company makes in its platforms with crypto.
Todd claims that at the moment they are inverse issues, given that in order to achieve sustainable scalability certain privacy must be sacrificed. The reason for this lies in the way the platform code is written. Therefore, companies must share their progress, allowing others to copy it.
This idea is supported by Mallers, arguing that the way to solve these problems is with external protocols to cryptocurrencies, as is Lighning with Bitcoin. This reduces the cost of research and development of companies.
Back changes the trend of the discussion by posing a position that favors sacrificing privacy. His idea is based on the fact that in the end the contribution of each one allows the community, platforms and Bitcoin to improve rapidly. In this way, it can be seen that it places a greater weight on the scalability of crypto, compared to individual development.
Using the last idea of Back, and the exchange of words between the panelists, Song takes the opportunity to ask a question that we are all interested in. He asked experts to comment on the future of Bitcoin scalability, focused on the privacy that each developer wants.
Using the same order as before, Todd begins by stating that it is a difficult issue to answer, since it exists from the same Bitcoin. It is a fact that our favorite cryptocurrency suffers a scalability problem.
Mallers complements this idea by saying that it is indeed a complicated issue, since the reality is that the world moves for money. Therefore, companies have the incentives to maintain their privacy and their progress. Adding that currently the only profitable thing of Bitcoin is the asset as such, not the works that derive from it.
However, Back remains firm in its previously stated position, stating that Bitcoin’s scalability is essential for the development of the currency.
What to do?
To end the debate that arose between the panelists, Song directly asks them what are the actions to be taken regarding the balance between privacy and scalability.
In this part, Todd and Back intervened mainly, taking up the main points of their positions. Starting with Todd when he raised that Bitcoin should be used for what it is, a digital asset. Therefore, like their peers, this struggle for the development of the currency must be like other technologies. In this way, the relationship between the individuality of companies and the scalability of Bitcoin is like any other.
Meanwhile, Back argues that the interest of the Bitcoin community must be the prosperity of the currency, thus including the companies that form the market. This implies that there really is no debate in these areas, since privacy does not exist for Back. It can be seen that Back has a biased stance towards radical decentralization.
Finally, we invite you to leave in the comments your opinion on this dilemma between privacy and scalability. Also, read the other articles of our special Unconfiscatable coverage.
I am an economics student, interested in innovation and technological development, always faithful that tomorrow will be a better day.