福布斯撰稿人：BTC比BCH的价值更大

wsu25318mkk

我的观点是：BTC比BCH的价值更大

我认为比特币（BTC）方法强调比特币作为一个公共的，不受许可的，高度审查的网络的价值主张将是最有价值的。这是比特币带给世界的惊人的创新。

比如说，互联网能够建立一个公开的，无许可的，高度审查的信息网络，比特币是新颖的，因为它向全世界推出了一个公开的，不受许可的审查抵制网络。

相比之下，世界有许多选择快速，廉价的支付。人们很少抱怨信用卡或手机钱包的速度或交易成本 - 这在今天的发达国家并不是什么大问题。

在我看来，比特币作为一个公众（任何人都可以使用它），没有权限（任何人都可以建立在它之上），高度审查抵制（没有人可以阻止你的交易），以及不可分割的形式分散的架构。如果比特币失去分权，那么这只是中央机构的劣势。

一个傻瓜的差事：与PayPal竞争的快速，廉价的上链支付

Bitcoin Cash社区希望与PayPal等中央机构竞争，以提供更快，更便宜的付款。最终，我认为这是一条注定要失败的道路，原因如下。

建筑

首先，也是最重要的一点，我们需要考虑像Bitcoin Cash这样的分散式网络的基础架构，以及像PayPal这样的集中式网络。两者本质上都是数据库。

当Bob向Carol付款时，PayPal只需更新其数据库 - PayPal快速而便宜地进行数据库更新。相比之下，比特币现金必须通知成千上万的交易世界的节点（“数据库”），等待它们全部同步，然后要求所有这些节点永远存储交易记录。

从基础架构的角度来看，很显然，PayPal在处理支付方面具有快速和便宜的优势 - 简单地说，更新一个数据库（PayPal）总是比更新世界上数以千计的不同数据库（Bitcoin Cash ）并要求每个人永远存储交易。

对廉价块空间的无限需求

其次，真正便宜的块空间（廉价交易）的需求是无限的。对于比特币现金（和比特币）来处理上链支付，支付必须包含在一个块中。每个交易块的空间都是有限的，所以每笔交易都需要付费。作为交换费用，交易永远存储在世界上数千个节点上。

处理和存储这些交易的真实成本，希望他们的交易被成千上万的节点处理和存储的人应该准备好为这个功能付费 - 毕竟，没有免费的午餐这样的事情。但这正是Bitcoin Cash希望提供的：免费（或人为便宜）的午餐。

比特币现金社区想要人为压制处理交易的价格（尽管它支持网络的每个人都有实际的成本）。

我对这种方法的担忧是便宜的块空间将被消耗得尽可能快，所以，总之，最终我们会以更高的交易成本结束。更糟糕的是，在这个过程中，网络将无法通过运行节点和处理事务来适当地补偿支持网络的人员。

如果这些政党没有得到适当的补偿，他们将不会在网络上运行节点，比特币将失去作为一个公共的，不受许可的审查网络的分散和基本特征。

相反，在这种情况下，比特币现金变成了一个集中的网络，只有几个巨型节点处理和存储所有的交易 - 如果是的话，我们只是回到贝宝或任何集中的金融机构，我们已经失去了新颖关于比特币。

而不是一个公开的，无权限的网络，使得审查抵制交易和不可抵扣的资金，我们回到了守门人的模式，决定谁参与何时，以什么形式参与。这似乎并不新颖，有趣，也没有赋权，这是我们目前银行体系已经有的。


My view: I see more value in Bitcoin’s approach than Bitcoin Cash’s

My view is that Bitcoin’s (BTC) approach which emphasizes Bitcoin’s value proposition as a public, permissionless, highly censor-resistant network will prove most valuable. This is the amazing novel innovation that Bitcoin brought into the world.

Much in the way that the internet enables a public, permissionless, and highly censor-resistant network of information, Bitcoin is novel in that it introduced to the world a public, permissionless, censor-resistant network of money.

In contrast, the world has many options for fast, cheap payments. People rarely complain about the speed or transaction cost of their credit card or mobile wallet—it’s just not a big problem in the developed world today.

In my view, Bitcoin’s features as a public (anybody can use it), permissionless (anybody can build on top of it), highly censor-resistant (nobody can block your transactions), and un-seizable form of money all stem from its decentralized architecture. If Bitcoin loses its decentralization, then it’s just an inferior form of centralized institutions.

A fool’s errand: Competing with PayPal for fast, cheap on-chain payments

The Bitcoin Cash community would like to compete with centralized institutions like PayPal to offer faster and cheaper payments. Ultimately, I see this as a path destined for failure, for the reasons below.

Architecture

First, and most importantly, we need to consider the underlying architecture of a decentralized network like Bitcoin Cash vs a centralized network like PayPal’s. Both are essentially just databases.

When Bob pays Carol, PayPal simply updates its database—it is fast and cheap for PayPal to make this database update. In contrast, by design, Bitcoin Cash must notify tens of thousands of nodes (“databases”) around the world of the transaction, wait for them all to get in sync, and then ask all of these nodes to store the transaction record forever.

From a fundamental architecture standpoint, it’s clear that PayPal has an advantage for processing payments quickly and cheaply—to put it simply, it will always be easier to update one database (PayPal’s) than to update thousands of disparate databases around the world (Bitcoin Cash) and asking each to store the transaction forever.

Unbounded demand for cheap block space

Second, there’s unbounded demand for really cheap block space (cheap transactions). For Bitcoin Cash (and Bitcoin) to process an on-chain payment, the payment must be included in a block. There’s limited space in each block for transactions, so each transaction pays a fee to be included. In exchange for the fee, the transaction is stored on thousands of nodes on the world—forever.

There’s a real cost associated with processing and storing these transactions and people that want their transaction to be processed and stored by thousands of nodes should be prepared to pay for that feature—after all, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But that’s exactly what Bitcoin Cash hopes to offer: a free (or artificially cheap) lunch.

The Bitcoin cash community would like to artificially suppress the price for processing a transaction (despite the fact that it has a real cost on everyone supporting the network).

My concern about this approach is that the cheap block space will be consumed as fast as it can be created so, in short order, we eventually end up with higher transaction costs anyways. Even worse though, in the process the network will have failed to appropriately compensate the people that support the network by running nodes and processing transactions.

If those parties aren’t appropriately compensated, they will not run nodes on the network, and Bitcoin will lose its decentralization and fundamental features as a public, permissionless, censor-resistant network.

Instead, in this scenario Bitcoin Cash morphs into a centralized network with only a few mega-nodes that process and store all the transactions—if so, we’re just back to PayPal or any centralized financial institution and we’ve lost what was novel about Bitcoin.

Instead of a public, permissionless network that enables censor-resistant transactions and un-seizable money we’re back to a model of gatekeepers that decide who participates when and in what form. That doesn’t seem novel, interesting, or empowering—it’s what we already have in the current banking system.