The text below is an advertorial article that was not written by Cryptonews.com journalists.
Bitcoin is today the safest and most solid cryptocurrency on the market. This is basically because it is the original project of Satoshi Nakamoto, which best fits his vision of a decentralized person-to-person economy. Likewise, several of the most influential figures in the crypto space trust and support this project’s quality, a fact that covers Bitcoin with a seal of guarantee:
“When I got into Bitcoin, I realized that the most important thing is censorship resistance. It is a new currency that cannot be controlled in any way. That’s what gave Bitcoin value (…) It was great back then, the fees were low and the transactions were very fast. But that’s not why Bitcoin is valuable.” – Charlie Lee, Founder of Litecoin.
“Every time someone is censored, boom … they become fans of Bitcoin”, “Bitcoin is for protecting their wealth, bitcoin (layer 2) is for coffee.”- Nick Szabo, a computer scientist, legal expert, and cryptographer known for his research on digital contracts and digital currency.
“Bitcoin is the most important invention in the history of the internet.” – Roger Ver, the world’s first investor in Bitcoin startups.
Find out about the Bitcoin Revolution and How it Will Shape Our Future.
However, and despite this, there is one fact that cannot be omitted. Bitcoin does not measure up to several factors, specifically when we talk about its flexibility, scalability, and economy.
These are weaknesses that Bitcoin currently has. Not even the Lightning Network represents a definitive solution, because it is in a testing phase. The inventors of Lightning Network even recommend that it should be used prudently.
Check out the article on Bitcoin’s Lightning Network, What Is it and How it Works.
This fact is so true that recently through research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, two researchers, Jona Harris and Aviv Zohar, concluded that the Lightning Network is vulnerable to attack.
The potential attack puts the funds of people using the LN at risk, taking advantage of a vulnerability in the payment channels in this network. Attackers would take advantage of the congestion of the Bitcoin network to prevent the closure of the channels and steal the compromised funds.
This investigation called “Flood and loot: a systemic attack on the Lightning Network,” was published on June 15 on the servers of Cornell University, in the United States.
Moving forward, the Bitcoiners community must continue to meet and discuss the next steps to take if they want bitcoin to be scalable, the only way for it to be the digital currency of the future.
However, immersed in this controversy that dialogue should have as a premise, it is powerfully striking that when certain personalities of the crypto-cosmo make a self-criticism the Bitcoin, a large part of this community that faithfully believes in the mother cryptocurrency as the only option, is shown on the defensive and even on the offensive, a fact that leads us to think that Bitcoin is not just an Innovation like a car model, a smartphone or PayPal would be, apparently for many, Bitcoin unconsciously or consciously is really a religion.
Proof of this is that ShapeShift CEO Erik Voorhees made a fascinating reflection through his Twitter social network account on June 17 of this year:
A statement is fair and accurate. Take a look and judge for yourself. Erik Voorhees made this reflection without offending, instead to mediate between two points of view; the Bitcoin maximalists who oppose altcoins and the minimalist who embrace altcoins. However, from the responses he received from fanatic users and Bitcoin maximalist influencers, it became clear that criticism or self-criticism is not well accepted in the Bitcoiners community. Furthermore, the aggressive attitude with which the Bitcoin maximalists responded revealed that we are not talking about innovation, but about a cult, an ideology, a religion incapable of questioning its own belief.
Many people responded against Erik Voorhees tweet. Public figures such as Peter McCormack, Yan Pritzker, and Udi Wertheimer made the harshest criticisms, but most of these can be synthesized with the response of the software engineer Vijay Boyapati, who was the most forceful:
“I am sincerely saddened that the once-great maximalist has become a multicoiner, it is almost as disheartening as if you abandoned your libertarianism and became a statist”.
To which Erik Voorhees replied:
“I used to be absolutely a maximalist. However, as I watched the ecosystem development in many directions, and thought deeply about the issue of decentralization, and became increasingly confident in the future of Bitcoin, I was able to emerge from the dark…
Read More: an Innovation or a Religion?