[ad_1]<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
GettyGetty
"Anarchy is what the world does" – Alexander Wendt
"Chaos is a ladder" – Petyr & # 39; Littlefinger & # 39; Baelish
The big question
As we turn the page on a sober 2018 there will be many articles discussing the status of encryption and distillation & nbsp; key questions and concerns for 2019. For example, we will continue to ask ourselves when blockchain will have the throughput to handle multiple large-scale applications, and developers and enthusiasts will continue to discuss the best crypto use cases and which "blockchain is the best".
However, another key question that needs to be & nbsp; addressed is: On a structural level, will all the various participants in space find a viable model of collaboration and interaction to support development and growth in the future? Or, on the other hand, the space will turn into a series of arguments, debates and conflicting conflicts. After all, there is no arbiter or last resort in the crypto and, just like global politics, space is anarchist. Fortunately, anarchy does not have to be a four-letter word, but it can not even be ignored.
Asked how the collaboration in space will seem long-term, many respond with truisem and banality as "we are all on the same team" and "a rising wave raises all the boats". Enthusiasts also focus on the "open sourcing" code as a way of signaling the intent of "being a team player" and focusing on the "superior good". These points of discussion are further strengthened by collaborative efforts among the main actors in space, such as Hyperledger and the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance work together.
Turning the page into Crypto & # 39; Era of Good Feelings & # 39;
This atmosphere of collaboration is admirable and for the moment it has been sufficient. There was enough "blue ocean" for everyone, and the companies that collected money through ICO amassed war coffers that apparently provided the trail for years. It seemed like the "Crypto Roaring 20" would never be finished.
This generosity is probably not better represented by what emerged at ConsenSys, thanks to the goodwill of the founder Joe Lubin has reached up to 1,200 employees and has incubated more than 50 projects, despite almost no one being economically independent. However, Joe has recently announced that ConsenSys will be cut up to 13% of its workforce and will rededicate himself and ConsenSys to be financially responsible. In other words, ConsenSys and its various rays will be treated as if the real companies started in the wild.
The same could be said for everyone else in space.
This means that players in the cryptographic space will start bumping into each other and there will be a struggle for survival between companies with a limited track. As highlighted by the emergence of the initial "Blocksize" debate, the recent Bitcoin Cash and ASIC resistance movements, the world can be cold and implacable. It should be – it's an anarchist.
Using modern international relations theory to create a structural theory for Blockchain
Does this mean that the crypt is ultimately destined to chaos? No, but finding a more solid answer to this question depends on how you see the world. Fortunately, the modern theory of international relations offers a useful framework for making such determinations.
There are three main schools of thought:
Realism
Realists see the world in terms of zero-sum Hobbesians where it is in a state of perennial conflict. Under realism, what is good for one entity is negative for one another and there is no middle ground. There are opportunities for collaboration (for example, alliances like NATO), but this type of cooperation is often short-lived and has a very acute focus. A particular tension of realism that has come to the fore in recent years is known as "offensive realism", which has been theorized by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago in his book The tragedy of Great Power Politics. Mearsheimer argues that in an anarchic world without a hierarchy, states and actors will continuously seek opportunities to gain power over their rivals because they have to rely solely on themselves for security. This is certainly a pessimistic perspective.
Liberalism
On the other hand, liberal institutionalists (not to be confused with liberal / progressive parties in domestic politics), do not see the world in the same zero-sum terms. They reject the theory of large power policies and instead focus on seeking opportunities for international collaboration that provide mutual benefits. A key mechanism used to implement one's vision of the world are institutions, such as the UN or the EU. Liberals strongly believe that economic co-dependency reduces the propensity to conflict, as well as the spread of common ideals such as democracy. There is even a theory that democracies, especially mature ones, do not go to war with each other because every government is tempered by its respective constituents, known as the "Theory of Democratic Peace".
Constructivism
The last school of thought worthy of note is constructivism. Constructivism differs both from realism and liberalism in the sense that leading thinkers in space believe that all international relations are the result of created social constructs and there is no intrinsic need for a zero-sum large-scale policy or liberal institutions. who try to create transnational institutions in an attempt to contain the innate desires for the consolidation of power. The constructivists, like Alexander Wendt, hear it "that the structures of human association are determined principally by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of the finalists are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature".
So, is there a dominant theory? If so, what does it mean for crypto? Unfortunately, as might be expected, there is no single discipline of study that has proven to be above all reproach. For example, while the containment strategy used by the United States against the Soviet Union during the Cold War is deeply rooted in realism and widely credited for maintaining a tense peace during the second half of the 20thth century, it is not without criticism. For example, it can not explain the "Democratic Peace Theory" or that many countries in the early 1990s and even today (despite the current president Donald Trump) do not feel the need to protect themselves from United despite being the dominant superpower for the last 25 years.
The institutionalists indicate successes such as the fact that no major European country has entered the war with one another since 1945 as a result of European integration, something that would have been truly inconceivable 100 years earlier, but the their theories can not resist when one considers the number of conflicts that the UN (the closest thing we have to a world government) fails to prevent. Furthermore, there are too many cases to be counted when democracies go to war with one another. Finally, economic interdependence does not necessarily prevent conflict or an increase in tensions. The European economy of the twentieth century has been strongly integrated and today tensions between the United States and China are not mitigated by close economic ties.
Looking forward
So, where do we go from here? In the end, the crypt is destined for conflict and the devolution to a zero-sum game? Not necessarily, but at the same time taking actions such as building massive consortia and indiscriminately collaborating to align economic interests will not necessarily ensure a stable or prosperous future. We should not approach the space with pink glasses and expect a transition to a decentralized utopia.
Looking ahead, it is unlikely that there will be a dominant player or platform in space. If there is the most likely scenario, the whole industry will collapse because of concerns about 51% of the attacks or the fact that if there was an important platform it would probably be cumbersome. What is most likely to occur is that there will be a period of consolidation and choice of sides in space as the use cases and models become more defined. & nbsp; This will happen because companies and supporters will have to press for "going to market", to scale and to demonstrate value to the value of blockchain technology.
There will also continue to be battles between competing chains and platforms, since hashing power and network security are truly a zero-sum proposition. As a proof, just look at the scale the mining power on each side that coincided with the recent Bitcoin Cash rigid fork. These will continue to be acrimonious, many of which will be shown in public.
However, crypto has a significant advantage that the geopolitical system does not have – a shared sense of identity and purpose. This gives us reason for optimism. While defenders may differ on some specific aspects of this ideology, there is a common belief that space must be decentralized and that we all succeed or fail together. With this mentality, there is enough space for a constellation of multiple blockchains and differentiated protocols, provided they each have a clear and dedicated purpose. Space will also have a greater chance of success if and when these different platforms reach a level of maturity and scale that are truly self-sufficient. At that point it would be largely impractical to directly attack the chains on one another, and will settle in a more traditional competitive landscape based on economic terms.
So there are many reasons to hope, but the transition to crypto-maturity will not be without conflict. Fortunately, this is natural and not insurmountable.
">
"Anarchy is what the world does" – Alexander Wendt
"Chaos is a ladder" – Petyr & # 39; Littlefinger & # 39; Baelish
The big question
As we turn the page on a sober 2018, there will be many articles discussing the state of cryptography and distilling the key questions and concerns for 2019. For example, we will continue to ask ourselves when blockchains will have the throughput to handle multiple applications on a large scale. scale, and developers and enthusiasts will continue to discuss the best use cases for crypto and which "blockchain is the best".
However, another key question that needs to be addressed is: On a structural level, will all the various participants in space find a viable model of collaboration and interaction to support development and growth in the future? Or, on the other hand, the space will turn into a series of arguments, debates and conflicting conflicts. After all, there is no arbiter or last resort in the crypto and, just like global politics, space is anarchist. Fortunately, anarchy does not have to be a four-letter word, but it can not even be ignored.
Asked how the collaboration in space will seem long-term, many respond with truisem and banality as "we are all on the same team" and "a rising wave raises all the boats". Enthusiasts also focus on the "open sourcing" code as a way of signaling the intent of "being a team player" and focusing on the "superior good". These discussion points are further strengthened by collaborative efforts among key actors in space, such as Hyperledger and the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance that work together.
Turning the page into Crypto & # 39; Era of Good Feelings & # 39;
This atmosphere of collaboration is admirable and for the moment it has been sufficient. There was enough "blue ocean" for everyone, and the companies that collected money through ICO amassed war coffers that apparently provided the trail for years. It seemed like the "Crypto Roaring 20" would never be finished.
This generosity is probably not exemplified better than the one that emerged at ConsenSys, which thanks to the goodwill of the founder Joe Lubin has reached up to 1,200 employees and has incubated more than 50 projects, although almost no one is economically independent. However, Joe recently announced that ConsenSys will reduce 13% of its workforce and will rebut itself and ConsenSys to financial responsibility. In other words, ConsenSys and its various rays will be treated as if the real companies started in the wild.
The same could be said for everyone else in space.
This means that players in the cryptographic space will start bumping into each other and there will be a struggle for survival between companies with a limited track. As highlighted by the emergence of the initial "Blocksize" debate, the recent Bitcoin Cash and ASIC resistance movements, the world can be cold and implacable. It should be – it's an anarchist.
Using modern international relations theory to create a structural theory for Blockchain
Does this mean that the crypt is ultimately destined to chaos? No, but finding a more solid answer to this question depends on how you see the world. Fortunately, the modern theory of international relations offers a useful framework for making such determinations.
There are three main schools of thought:
Realism
Realists see the world in terms of zero-sum Hobbesians where it is in a state of perennial conflict. Under realism, what is good for one entity is negative for one another and there is no middle ground. There are opportunities for collaboration (for example, alliances like NATO), but this type of cooperation is often short-lived and has a very acute focus. A particular strain of realism that has come to the fore in recent years is known as "offensive realism", which was theorized by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago in his book The tragedy of Great Power Politics. Mearsheimer argues that in an anarchic world without a hierarchy, states and actors will continuously seek opportunities to gain power over their rivals because they have to rely solely on themselves for security. This is certainly a pessimistic perspective.
Liberalism
On the other hand, liberal institutionalists (not to be confused with liberal / progressive parties in domestic politics), do not see the world in the same zero-sum terms. They reject the theory of large power policies and instead focus on seeking opportunities for international collaboration that provide mutual benefits. A key mechanism used to implement one's vision of the world are institutions such as the UN or the EU. Liberals strongly believe that economic co-dependency reduces the propensity to conflict, as well as the spread of common ideals such as democracy. There is even a theory that democracies, especially mature ones, do not go to war with each other because every government is tempered by its respective constituents, known as the "Theory of Democratic Peace".
Constructivism
The last school of thought worthy of note is constructivism. Constructivism differs both from realism and liberalism in the sense that the leading thinkers in space believe that all international relations are the result of created social constructs and there is no intrinsic need for a zero-sum large-scale policy or liberal institutionalists. who try to create transnational institutions in an attempt to contain the innate desires for the consolidation of power. Constructivists, like Alexander Wendt, feel that "the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of the finalists are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by the nature".
So, is there a dominant theory? If so, what does it mean for crypto? Unfortunately, as might be expected, there is no single discipline of study that has proven to be above all reproach. For example, while the containment strategy used by the United States against the Soviet Union during the Cold War is deeply rooted in realism and widely credited for maintaining a tense peace during the second half of the 20thth century, it is not without criticism. For example, it can not explain the "Democratic Peace Theory" or that many countries in the early 1990s and even today (despite the current president Donald Trump) do not feel the need to protect themselves from United despite being the dominant superpower for the last 25 years.
The institutionalists indicate successes such as the fact that no major European country has entered the war with one another since 1945 as a result of European integration, something that would have been truly inconceivable 100 years earlier, but the their theories can not resist when one considers the number of conflicts that the UN (the closest thing we have to a world government) fails to prevent. Furthermore, there are too many cases to be counted when democracies go to war with one another. Finally, economic interdependence does not necessarily prevent conflict or an increase in tensions. The European economy of the twentieth century has been strongly integrated and today tensions between the United States and China are not mitigated by close economic ties.
Looking forward
So, where do we go from here? In the end, the crypt is destined for conflict and the devolution to a zero-sum game? Not necessarily, but at the same time taking actions such as the construction of massive consortia and the indiscriminate collaboration to align economic interests will not necessarily guarantee a stable or prosperous future. We should not approach the space with pink glasses and expect a gradual transition to a decentralized utopia.
Looking ahead, it is unlikely that there will be a dominant player or platform in space. If there is the most likely scenario, the whole industry will collapse because of concerns about 51% of the attacks or the fact that if there was an important platform it would probably be cumbersome. What is most likely to occur is that there will be a period of consolidation and choice of sides in space as the use cases and models become more defined. This will happen because companies and supporters will have to press for "going to market", to scale and to demonstrate value to the value of blockchain technology.
There will also continue to be battles between competing chains and platforms, since hashing power and network security are truly a zero-sum proposition. As a proof just look at the scale up mining power on each side that coincides with the recent Bitcoin Cash hard fork. These will continue to be acrimonious, many of which will be shown in public.
However, crypto has a significant advantage that the geopolitical system does not have – a shared sense of identity and purpose. This gives us reason for optimism. While defenders may differ on some specific aspects of this ideology, there is a common belief that space must be decentralized and that we all succeed or fail together. With this mentality, there is enough space for a constellation of multiple blockchains and differentiated protocols, provided they each have a clear and dedicated purpose. Space will also have a greater chance of success if and when these different platforms reach a level of maturity and scale that are truly self-sufficient. At that point it would be largely impractical to directly attack the chains on one another, and will settle in a more traditional competitive landscape based on economic terms.
So there are many reasons to hope, but the transition to crypto-maturity will not be without conflict. Fortunately, this is natural and not insurmountable.
