It is not a secret that there is no love lost between enthusiastic Bitcoin
community members and financial institutions and technology companies that are
trying to build private blockchains. Bitcoin proponents are always quick to
dismiss any attempts to build distributed ledgers that are only accessible to a
few through permission grants as technologically retrogressive in, at least,
some ways. In an interview with Tatiana Moroz, who is a songwriter and a
Bitcoin entrepreneur, at one of her Crypto Media Hub online shows,
Andreas M. Antonopoulos, a leading evangelist of Bitcoin and author of Mastering
Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies, described the attempts by financial
institutions to design solutions on watered down distributed ledgers and
Blockchains as basically “bullshit.” On the other hand, the deliberate and,
often, tongue-in-cheek omissions of just the word ‘Bitcoin’ in forums by
mainstream financial institutions and technology companies, where the Blockchain
technology is discussed, can hardly be missed. Indeed, the mantra ‘Bitcoin is
bad, Blockchain is good’ has become standard byline within these circles. With
all that bad blood, therefore, taken into consideration, you would expect that
there is a clear line between public and private blockchains that ventures in
both camps cannot cross. Guess what, that is not the case. Several Bitcoin
companies are doubling up in the construction of private or permissioned
blockchains. A case in point is in the Hyperledger project. This is a
collaborative effort to build an open source blockchain that mainstream
companies and financial institutions can use to offer their services. Several
companies that are at the center of the Bitcoin ecosystem have joined hundreds
of others in seeking to be part of the Linux Foundation led permissioned
blockchain project. On 9th February 2016, Linux Foundation announced the
official list of 30 founding members. In the same press release, it also
disclosed companies that have proposed codes contribution. “Since announcing the
intent to form in December,” read part of the press release, “the Hyperledger
Project has received proposed code and technology contributions from several
companies, including Blockstream, Digital Asset, IBM and Ripple.” Of our
interest in the mentioned companies is Blockstream. The Montreal-based startup
designs solutions that can be run on the Bitcoin public Blockchain. One of its
well-known innovations is the Sidechains, small blockchains that are linkable to
the Bitcoin blockchain. That is not even the best part. The majority of the
developers working for Blockstream, including Adam Back, Matt Corallo, Gregory
Maxwel, Gregory Sanders and Pieter Wuille, are also core developers of
Bitcoin and they are currently working on a Bitcoin block size
scaling proposal of their own. Another Bitcoin company that seems to have
crossed the line between private and public blockchains is Blockchain.info,
which a leading cloud Bitcoin wallet service provider. The company is listed as
one those engaged on the Hyperledger website. With all these happening, one will
be forgiven for wondering whether it is good or bad for the public
blockchain when Bitcoin companies like Blockstream and Blockchain.info
join private Blockchain projects like Hyperledger. Perhaps the best
rationalization of this relationship is found in the same interview- mentioned
above-Tatiana Moroz had with Andreas M. Antonopoulos. Somewhere in the
interview, Andreas M. Antonopoulos states that it is great and useful for inside
corporate environment if one has an intranet where they run their private mail
servers behind a firewall. “But is the intranet as ever interesting as the
internet or Wikipedia or any of the open platforms we use?” he continues, “No,
it is not. It is never going to be as interesting, it is never going to be as
secure, is never going to be as effective. I see these private blockchains as
intranets and Bitcoin is the internet.” Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is the
internet. So, it won't harm it any much if players in it are engaged in efforts
to build intranets. In the end, the intranets will connect through the internet.
Photo by Antana via Flickr
community members and financial institutions and technology companies that are
trying to build private blockchains. Bitcoin proponents are always quick to
dismiss any attempts to build distributed ledgers that are only accessible to a
few through permission grants as technologically retrogressive in, at least,
some ways. In an interview with Tatiana Moroz, who is a songwriter and a
Bitcoin entrepreneur, at one of her Crypto Media Hub online shows,
Andreas M. Antonopoulos, a leading evangelist of Bitcoin and author of Mastering
Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies, described the attempts by financial
institutions to design solutions on watered down distributed ledgers and
Blockchains as basically “bullshit.” On the other hand, the deliberate and,
often, tongue-in-cheek omissions of just the word ‘Bitcoin’ in forums by
mainstream financial institutions and technology companies, where the Blockchain
technology is discussed, can hardly be missed. Indeed, the mantra ‘Bitcoin is
bad, Blockchain is good’ has become standard byline within these circles. With
all that bad blood, therefore, taken into consideration, you would expect that
there is a clear line between public and private blockchains that ventures in
both camps cannot cross. Guess what, that is not the case. Several Bitcoin
companies are doubling up in the construction of private or permissioned
blockchains. A case in point is in the Hyperledger project. This is a
collaborative effort to build an open source blockchain that mainstream
companies and financial institutions can use to offer their services. Several
companies that are at the center of the Bitcoin ecosystem have joined hundreds
of others in seeking to be part of the Linux Foundation led permissioned
blockchain project. On 9th February 2016, Linux Foundation announced the
official list of 30 founding members. In the same press release, it also
disclosed companies that have proposed codes contribution. “Since announcing the
intent to form in December,” read part of the press release, “the Hyperledger
Project has received proposed code and technology contributions from several
companies, including Blockstream, Digital Asset, IBM and Ripple.” Of our
interest in the mentioned companies is Blockstream. The Montreal-based startup
designs solutions that can be run on the Bitcoin public Blockchain. One of its
well-known innovations is the Sidechains, small blockchains that are linkable to
the Bitcoin blockchain. That is not even the best part. The majority of the
developers working for Blockstream, including Adam Back, Matt Corallo, Gregory
Maxwel, Gregory Sanders and Pieter Wuille, are also core developers of
Bitcoin and they are currently working on a Bitcoin block size
scaling proposal of their own. Another Bitcoin company that seems to have
crossed the line between private and public blockchains is Blockchain.info,
which a leading cloud Bitcoin wallet service provider. The company is listed as
one those engaged on the Hyperledger website. With all these happening, one will
be forgiven for wondering whether it is good or bad for the public
blockchain when Bitcoin companies like Blockstream and Blockchain.info
join private Blockchain projects like Hyperledger. Perhaps the best
rationalization of this relationship is found in the same interview- mentioned
above-Tatiana Moroz had with Andreas M. Antonopoulos. Somewhere in the
interview, Andreas M. Antonopoulos states that it is great and useful for inside
corporate environment if one has an intranet where they run their private mail
servers behind a firewall. “But is the intranet as ever interesting as the
internet or Wikipedia or any of the open platforms we use?” he continues, “No,
it is not. It is never going to be as interesting, it is never going to be as
secure, is never going to be as effective. I see these private blockchains as
intranets and Bitcoin is the internet.” Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is the
internet. So, it won't harm it any much if players in it are engaged in efforts
to build intranets. In the end, the intranets will connect through the internet.
Photo by Antana via Flickr
