Bitcoin (BTC) popularized the term blockchain. While blockchains, or decentralized and distributed digital ledgers used to record transactions on a computer network, have been around for more than 30 years, Bitcoin is the household name for a blockchain.
That’s despite the fact that the genesis block was mined over 14 years ago, when George W. Bush was President of the United States and the Black Eyed Peas’ “I Gotta Feeling” topped the charts. Bitcoin, however, is still the top of the blocks.
So, hopefully most blockchain advocates have used, understood, or at least experienced with Bitcoin.
No. Not so.
Here is an example. While introducing the European Blockchain Convention in February, I asked the 250 or so blockchain believers sitting across from me in the audience to raise their hands:
“Who here has used Bitcoin?”
Maybe 20 hands in the audience shot up. “Okay. Keep your hand up if you’ve used Bitcoin’s Lightning Network,” I said. The Lightning Network is a payment network built on top of Bitcoin that allows for near-instantaneous and nearly free transactions. More than half of those hands fell.
A sample of data is insufficient. So the next day, I asked the audience on stage. I was surprised to receive the same result. Four-fifths of the blockchain conference audience had never used Bitcoin.
Why is that? Why have so few people possibly touched on the only blockchain that solves what is known as the “scalability trilemma”: that of decentralization, security, and scalability?
The Bitcoin blockchain, or “time chain” as Satoshi Nakamoto called it in the Bitcoin white paper, is still relatively small. Anyone with an old laptop can download the entirety of transactions to run a node. The network can scale to reach millions and soon billions of people with layers, and the Bitcoin blockchain has never been hacked. And yet, at the blockchain conference, very few attendees said they run nodes or have transacted in Bitcoin.
However, there are not yet enough data points to draw this conclusion. I wanted to quiz the people at the conference to see if they were blockchainers or Bitcoiners, and if so, why was that the case?
I quizzed the conference attendees with a simple question. I asked about 15 people to choose Web3 or Web5, and only one person chose Web5. Ironically, the only Web5 proponent was Bitcoiner Antonia Roupell, whose job title is “Web3 Leader” for Save the Children.
Yeah @JoeNakamoto happened to give you one #Bitcoin in it @EBlockchainConWhat would you do with it? pic.twitter.com/tV3hdEIA0n
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) February 20, 2023
Most of the respondents seemed confused when presented with the choice of websites. “What is Web5?” hello consulted.
Web3 is a world of supposedly decentralized blockchains where tokens (and token sales) drive the economy, while Web5 is the Bitcoin-based decentralized internet. Naturally, Bitcoin maximalist Jack Dorsey champions Web5.
Dorsey explained in December 2021 that Web5 would allow true ownership of identity and data, unlike Web3. He highlighted that “Web3” has the “same corporate incentives (as Twitter) but hides it under ‘decentralization’”.
The Twitter founder acknowledges that Web3 will never achieve true decentralization, as beneath the marketing spiel and tokenomics, it is venture capitalists and limited partners who own the blockchains and data that underpin the systems.
Web5 already has social media apps like Zion where users can easily send BTC to each other and own their data, built on top of a decentralized blockchain. What blockchain? You guessed it, Bitcoin.
Web3 has been around since Ethereum coder Gavin Wood coined the term in 2014 and therefore has more time on its side. Furthermore, it is a catchy and general term that is often used interchangeably with blockchain, crypto, and the metaverse. It is difficult to define, underline or frame without referring to financially lucrative projects.
I finally realized that the focus of most of the attendees at the European Blockchain Convention was business on Bitcoin. Or to put it another way, and to try and be a little less naive, the attendees wanted to make money by working on a new monetary policy.
I had the same experience when I talked about Nostr, which means Notes and Other Things Transmitted by Relays. The relatively new decentralized network enables private messaging and uncensored communication, among other projects.
One of Nostr’s apps, the Damus iPhone app, helped Nostr reach nearly half a million daily users by mid-February. Its number of users has increased fivefold since its listing on Apple’s iOS store, and the protocol is full of Bitcoin advocates.
I asked conference attendees for their public key so I could follow them on Nostr. I was met with puzzled looks. Blockchain believers and decentralized protocol champions had neither tried nor heard of Damus.
Do you want one more example?
An employee of a popular Bitcoin company (whom I won’t criticize in this op-ed) approached me during the conference. “I saw you sending sats to people on stage. You sound like a maxi (Bitcoin),” he joked.
“Guilty, officer,” I joked. I only hold BTC and am passionate about bringing i to the world, especially those living in financially deficient countries.
“You would probably recognize the company I represent then. I work for Blockstream.”
“Of course!” I told. In fact, I played Jenga in the park with Blockstream CEO Adam Back recently. We immediately bonded.
Related: Regulation stole the show at the European Blockchain Convention in Barcelona
The Blockstream employee confided to me that not a single assistant had called his employer. Blockstream is a well-known Bitcoin company pioneering Lightning adoption, sidechains, affordable hardware wallets, and Liquid, and Back is one of the few names mentioned in the Bitcoin whitepaper published in 2008.
He shared his surprise with me, but it was 5:00 pm on the last day of the conference; at that moment, I understood. “It’s a Bitcoin company, mate,” I explained. And after all, “Bitcoin and blockchain don’t really mix.” “Bitcoin has a marketing problem,” I said.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
