This blog is the first extract from our eBook, 'A Short History of Bitcoin Myths'. You can download your copy here or read other extracts over here:

Part 1: A Short History of Bitcoin Myths

Part 2: The Genesis of Bitcoin

Part 3: Myth I - Crypto Anarchy

Part 4: Myth II - Bitcoin Offers Secrecy for Criminals

Part 5: Myth III - Bitcoin is Broken, Unable to Scale On-Chain

Part 6: Myth IV - Ethereum is a New and Improved Bitcoin

Part 7: Myth V - Bitcoin is a Speculative Asset

Part 8: Myth VI - The Lightning Network Will Bail Bitcoin Out

Part 9: The Rebirth of Bitcoin

When the Bitcoin whitepaper and its Genesis block saw the light a little over ten years ago, cypherpunks and techies did a double-take trying to gain an understanding of what the technology is, how it can be applied, and what it means for society.

In the decade since the mining of its Genesis block, ‘the Bitcoin project’ has come to mean different things to different people. The matter has become so complicated that there are currently several independent (and somewhat contradictory) projects that claim to be The Original Bitcoin.

For some, the solution is to embrace all projects that lay claim to the term “cryptocurrency”. They say that an inclusive approach will push the Bitcoin project forward to the benefit of society.

The facts, however, count against this position.

The Technical Argument Against Multiple Public Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies

"Don’t focus on ticker, but on Bitcoin’s underlying technology"

- Jimmy Nguyen, nChain and Bitcoin Association

If we retrace right back to the start, we’ll see why there was only supposed to be one public blockchain. By the very nature of blockchain’s architecture and economic model, a public blockchain is only viable if there’s:

One protocol (blockchain) that supports thousands of applications to process an unlimited number of transactions.

The cryptocurrency industry has turned the core architecture of Bitcoin on its head. The structure of ‘one blockchain, many applications’ is not a nice to have - it is absolutely essential for a public blockchain to be stable and sustainable. The current scenario of thousands of blockchains competing for a limited volume of transactions, does not bode well for any cryptocurrency project.

The Philosophical Argument Against Multiple Public Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies

It didn’t take long after Satoshi left the scene before the Bitcoin narrative grew like a tall tale, from the humble suggestion of a more efficient computing mechanism to extraordinary tales of ‘interoperable blockchain ecosystems’ and ‘supercomputing mechanisms’.

Some were based on utopian desires, others on misunderstandings, while some were intentional manipulations of the Bitcoin narrative for self-enrichment. It would cost the Bitcoin movement and set it back a couple of steps each time.

How ironic that the very charlatans and scam artists that Satoshi’s project set out to expose have gained a hold of the brand name and steered the project in the opposite direction: towards anonymity and secrecy, getting rich without making any contribution, centralising and abusing power.

And we’re here to expose the lies and bust the myths that has become the Bitcoin story.

To illustrate these points, our new eBook will explore:

New call-to-action

You may also be interested in