Most blockchain advocates haven’t even used Bitcoin

Bitcoin (BTC) popularized the concept of blockchain. Blockchains, or “decentralized and distributed digital ledgers used to record transactions across a network of computers,” have been around for over thirty years, and the household name for a blockchain is Bitcoin.

That’s despite the fact that the Genesis block was mined well over 14 years ago when George W. Bush was president and “I Gotta Feeling” by the Black Eyed Peas topped the charts – Bitcoin is still at the top of the blocks.

It is therefore to be expected that most blockchain advocates would have used, understood or at least experimented with Bitcoin.

No. Not so.

Here is an example. While at the European Blockchain Conference in February, I asked the audience for a show of hands. I asked the 250 or so blockchain believers sitting in front of me:

“Who here has used Bitcoin?”

Maybe 20 audience hands shot up. “Okay. Raise your hand if you’ve used Bitcoin’s Lightning Network,” I said. The Lightning Network or (LN) is the payment network built on top of Bitcoin that allows for near-instant, near-free transactions. Over half of those hands went down.

One data selection is insufficient. So the next day I asked the audience on stage. I was surprised to get the same result. Four fifths of the blockchain conference audience had never used Bitcoin.

Why? Why have so few people touched arguably the only blockchain that solves what is known as the “scalability trilemma?” decentralization, security and scalability?

The Bitcoin blockchain, or the time chain as Satoshi Nakamoto called it in the white paper, is still relatively small. Anyone with an old laptop can download all the transactions to run a node; the network can scale to reach millions and soon billions of people with layers, while the Bitcoin blockchain has never been hacked. And yet at the blockchain conference, very few attendees run nodes or have traded Bitcoin.

However, there are not enough data points to make this conclusion yet. I wanted to ask individuals across the conference if they were blockchainers or bitcoiners – and if so, why is that the case?

I asked the conference participants a simple question. I asked about 15 conference goers to choose Web3 or Web5, and only one person out of the fifteen chose Web5. Ironically, the only Web5 advocate in the interview is Bitcoiner Antonia Roupell, whose job title is “Web3 lead” for Save the Children.

Most respondents looked confused when presented with the choice of network. “What is Web5?” They asked.

Web3 is a world of allegedly decentralized blockchains where tokens (and token sales) drive the economy forward; Web5 is the decentralized internet built on Bitcoin. Naturally, Bitcoin maximalist Jack Dorsey masters Web5.

Dorsey explained in December 2021 that Web5 will allow true ownership of identity and data, unlike Web3. Dorsey explains that “Web3” has the “same corporate incentives [as Twitter] but hides it under “decentralization.”

The Twitter founder reckons that Web3 will never achieve true decentralization, as beneath the marketing game and tokenomics, it is the venture capitalists and limited partners who own the blockchains and data underlying the systems.

Web5 already has social media applications like Zion where users can easily send Bitcoin to each other and own their data, built on top of a decentralized blockchain and. Which blockchain? You guessed it, Bitcoin.

Web3 has been around since Ethereum coder Gavin Wood coined the term in 2014 and thus has more time on its side. Plus it’s a catchy, catch-all term that’s often used interchangeably with blockchain, crypto, and the metaverse. It is difficult to define, emphasize or frame without referring to financially lucrative projects.

It finally struck me that the focus of most attendees at the European Blockchain Convention was business over Bitcoin. Or to put it another way – and to try to be a little less naive – the participants wanted to make money rather than work on a new monetary policy.

I had the same experience when discussing Nostr, which stands for Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays. The relatively new, decentralized network enables private messages and uncensorable communication – among other projects.

One of Nostr’s applications, called iPhone app Damus, helped Nostr reach nearly half a million daily users by mid-February. Number of users multiplied by 5 since entry on Apple iOS Store and the protocol is full of Bitcoin advocates.

I asked the conference participants for their public key so I could follow them on Nostr. I was met with confused looks. Blockchain believers and proponents of decentralized protocols had not tested or heard of Damus.

Want one more example?

An employee of a popular Bitcoin company—whom I will not kid about in this opinion piece—approached me during the conference. “I saw you sending bets to people on stage. You sound like one [Bitcoin] maxi,” he joked.

“Guilty, officer” I joked. I only have Bitcoin and am passionate about bringing Bitcoin to the world, especially those living in economically depressed countries.

“You will probably recognize the company I represent then. I work for Blockstream.”

Of course! I told him. I actually played Jenga in the park with Blockstream’s CEO, Adam Back, recently. We immediately bonded.

Related: Regulation stole the show at Barcelona’s European Blockchain Convention

Blockstream employees confided in me that not a single conference attendee had clocked his employer. Blockstream is a well-known Bitcoin company. Blockstream pioneered lightning adoption, sidechains, low-cost hardware wallets and liquidity, while Back was one of the few names mentioned in the Bitcoin White Paper published in 2008.

He shared his surprise with me, but it was 5pm on the last day of the conference – at this point I understood. “It’s a Bitcoin company, mate” I explained. And after all, “Bitcoin and blockchain don’t really mix.” Bitcoin has a marketing problem, I said.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.