 |
January 30, 2014, 07:27:25 PM |
|
I have been involved in open-source development since the mid-1990s and I am struck by the similarity between the adoption of Linux and Bitcoin. I was involved with a start-up which was providing hosting using Linux servers as early as 1996 and I remember clearly how the business establishment scoffed at the idea of running a business using software no one "owned." The thought of a decentralized structure was terrifying to most business people at the time - Who do I call for support? What happens if there is a bug? Who can I sue if something goes wrong? Like Bitcoin today, Linux was a disruptive force which was initially feared because it wasn't controlled.
But I also remember something else from that time: the influence of Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux. The Linux community of the time was quite fragmented and there were strong personalities pushing it in various directions (sound familiar?). Yet Linus was the de-facto leader of the Linux movement, and he was perfect for the role. He was not in it for the money and he was not a fire-brand railing on everyone who disagreed with him. This, I think, was very beneficial to the eventual mainstream acceptance of Linux. People like to put a face with a product (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc), and Linus was a trusted "face" and someone everyone in the community respected and listened to.
You probably see where this is going. With Bitcoin, we have an anonymous creator and no "face" of the movement. I think this presents a barrier to more mainstream adoption, as most will continue to look upon Bitcoin as something done in the shadows rather than a legitimate enterprise.
Note that I'm not calling for some type of election or appointment of a "leader" - Linus was freely accepted by the community as the voice for Linux in the early stages and he did his job well. And I also know that Bitcoin can eventually succeed without a public "face." But I wonder if it will be more difficult than if Satoshi had not remained anonymous...
|
