Prisoners’ dilemma facinganti-government persons in bitcoin

in #btc7 years ago

Introduction

Is the government inherentlyantagonistic to Bitcoin?

There are many anarchists andanti-government persons in the bitcoin field, who think that the government isborn to deny bitcoin. Is this really the case?

Chapter 1 Prisoner’s dilemma

Prisoner’s dilemma is a scenerelated to the game theory. Here is a widely-cited case to explain the phrase.(The following content is cited fromhttps://www.zhihu.com/question/19955241.)

A and B, two members of a criminal group,are arrested and separated, so they are unable to exchange information witheach other. The police now lack adequate evidences, thus being unable todeclare them guilty. However, they have obtained some secondary evidences,which can sentence them to one year imprisonment, respectively. Therefore, thepolice trade with these two prisoners.

If A and B both confess theircrimes, each will be sentenced to two years of imprisonment;

If A confess but B does not, Acan be released and B will be sentenced to three years of imprisonment; (viceversa)

If A and B both refuse to confesstheir crimes, each other them will be sentenced to one year imprisonment.

The following table can make the above statements clearer:

B chooses to keep silent.

B chooses to confess.

A chooses to keep silent.

A and B are sentenced to one year in prison, respectively.

A is sentenced to three years in prison and B is released.

A chooses to confess.

A is released and B is sentenced to three years in prison.

A and B are both sentenced to two years in prison.

If you are A or B, what is your choice? Youare in darkness about the choice of your partner. Your confession might releaseyou or sentence you to two years in prison. Your refusal to confess will sentenceyou to one year or three years in prison. Obviously, confession is a moreattractive bargain. This is a choice to maximize profits and minimize losses.

The final result is that both A and B confess. The two criminals arepushed by the game to a tragic dilemma. Originally, they might be able to “achievefavorable results both,” but at the end the results “are not that satisfactoryto both.” The inevitable result is the so-called “Nash equilibrium.”

At present, the development of bitcoin is also faced with such a prisoner’sdilemma to some extent.

Chapter 2 Someone bitcoin-er thinkingtrapped in the prisoner’s dilemma

Currently, bitcoin is facedwith a choice to scaling. One path for it to achieve expansion is to directlyexpand itself onchain, that is, to enlarger the 1M block. The path is highly efficientand simple solution plan. Opponents of the path mainly think the government ishostile towards bitcoin.

Those opposing expansion think that expansion might lead to centralizationof full-nodes and hash power of bitcoin. They also think that the government isinherently against bitcoin and that the government has not yet rooted outbitcoin because of decentralization. Once centralization is realized, thegovernment will eliminate it by every means.

For example, on July 11, BTCC translated an article written by aforeigner, saying that:

Bitcoin is just like Starbucks that the government attempts to close.However, it exists safe and sound because the government cannot find a way tothe end.

Below is an analysis of the decision-making process:

If the small block of bitcoincan guarantee decentralization of bitcoin (though it is still uncertain whetherdecentralization can be achieved), bitcoin can survive despite of thegovernment’s hostility or not. However, the small block will restrict further developmentof bitcoin.

A large block will exposebitcoin to risks of losing its decentralization. If the government is againstbitcoin, bitcoin is doomed to die.

If bitcoin is expanded into alarge block and the government is not against its existence, bitcoin will farebetter and its development will be unlimited.

The government is against bitcoin.

The government is not against bitcoin.

Bitcoin with a small block

Decentralization: Survive but develop limitedly

Survive but develop limitedly

Bitcoin with a large block

Centralization: Die

Survive and develop unlimitedly

(Note: Whether the big block will result incentralization is not discussed in this article. This article is written in themind-set of opponents.)

Because we cannot know whetherthe government is against bitcoin, the safest way is to maintaindecentralization of bitcoin as much as possible no matter whether itsdevelopment is the best. This is a typical prisoner’s dilemma.

Chapter 3 The solution to theprisoner’s dilemma: Communication with the government

The crux of the prisoner’sdilemma is that two prisoners cannot communicate with each other, let aloneestablish any trust relationship. The key to resolving the prisoner’s dilemmais to send reliable information to another prisoner, thus building efficientcommunication.

Up to now, bitcoin has tens of millions of people involved in itsoperation. The market value has reached tens of billions of USD. It isimpossible for the government to turn a blind eye to bitcoin. Various links ofthe bitcoin industry have also started their interaction with the government.Even BTCC has cooperated with the government numerous times, though their COOfirmly persists in operating in a small block. The US entrepreneurs have donemore. They even canvass for support in the Capitol Hill. The US government hasestablished a full set of management bills, which, though being severe, do notaim at rooting out bitcoin. In the bitcoin field, several most important USenterprises have obtained the business license issued by the US government.

Therefore, the hypothesis about the government’s inherent hostility tobitcoin is untenable. Entrepreneurs should be more active to cooperate, whichis more beneficial for the development of the ecosphere. On the contrary, ifall hold a prisoner’s mentality, bitcoin should be prepared to fight againstany government efforts to eliminate it. Such alertness will make the governmentsuspect its existence more, and the government will turn to the principle ofpresumption of guilt. If enterprises involved in bitcoin operations keep onexpanding, the government will come to levy taxes on them, investigate them andeven make them have a difficult time. Therefore, to give up the prisoner’smentality and to build the cooperator’s mentality can keep all safe and sound.

In the bitcoin community, there are a large number of anarchicfundamentalists, who are inherently against the government, thinking that thegovernment made up of civil servants must be antagonistic to bitcoin. The groupof people is also the earliest core personnel of bitcoin. Many core developershold opinions of the kind. The bitcoin community needs them. Theircontributions and creativity form an important part of bitcoin. Now, it isimperative to efficiently communicate with them.

To tell the truth, the author is not good at establishing new contacts,let alone cooperating with the government in terms of things which are socomplex and financial like bitcoin. The author is just writing this article toexpress some ideas instead of raising some substantial, constructive andoperational methodologies. (Please forgive the “mouth cannon” of the author.)

Chapter 4 The solution to theprisoner’s dilemma: Establishment of a wider social space

In HK gangster movies, if thehead of a gang and his/her followers are both arrested, the latter dares notconfess crimes of the head considering the safety of their family members.Through intimidation, the head of a gang resolves the prisoner’s dilemma.However, we are all civilized people. The method is not for us. We should adoptsome more civilized solutions.

The legitimacy of governance in the modern society is based on public recognition.If the majority of the public are against bitcoin, the government policies willtend to eliminate bitcoin. (Pitifully, now, most people hate bitcoin, and theyare in the majority.) On the contrary, if bitcoin can include more people intoits economic scope, the government policies will tend to protect itsdevelopment.

No matter how powerful a government is, it fears the protest of itspeople. The power of people is the best way to cope with the government. On thebit.com APP, there is an article entitledTheReal Decentralization Relies on a Wider User Participation, which includesthe following though experiment:

Which of the following scenes is the most decentralized?

A million people are operatingtheir respective full-nodes at home and another one million are independentbitcoin users. (This is equal to the population of a small city.)

There are ten thousandindependent full-nodes but just 100 million people using bitcoin. (This isequal to the population of a G20 country.)

There are 10 full-nodes andall mankind is using bitcoin.

The conclusion of the above experiment is clear. It is the least possiblefor the government to be hostile to bitcoin in the third scene, and the mostlikely in the first scene.

The current development of bitcoin is most similar to the first scene.There are few people passionate about and using bitcoin. Most users are theyoung, the programmers or those with an economic mentality. The author thinksthis is not an ideal living environment for bitcoin.

To attract more users and diversify users—this is the only way toguarantee a better survival environment for bitcoin.

Once there are a large number of diversified bitcoin users, the wholesystem calls for no guards. Myriads of users will safeguard its existence anddevelopment.

Obviously, to obtain more diversified users, the direct on chain scaling isa must.

Chapter 5 Conclusions

The optimal survivalenvironment for bitcoin is to have adequate and diversified users. These userswill form the powerful protection for bitcoin.