In 2014, at an event hosted by OKCoin, economists, investors, and Bitcoin industry entrepreneurs engaged in an interesting discussion: Will Bitcoin soon disappear, or is it an underdog counterattack or a transformative opportunity?


Recently popular Mai Gang also appeared at this seminar. He is an investor at OK, who brought He Yi into OK, and then He Yi introduced Chang Peng to join OK. Later, Chang Peng and He Yi went out to start their own business and established An An.


This discussion about Bitcoin gathered various viewpoints from economists, investors, and industry entrepreneurs, with heated exchanges that can be summarized into the following core camps and arguments:

I. Core Issues

The discussion revolves around three core issues:

What is the value foundation of Bitcoin? (Payment network, digital gold, or pure speculative bubble?)

What is the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin? (Government regulation, substitutability, or technical limitations?)

Is Bitcoin a disruptive innovation or a fantasy of the underdogs' counterattack?


Summary of viewpoints from all parties

I. Bitcoin supporters (theory of transformative opportunity)

This camp believes that Bitcoin represents an advanced technology and ideology with the potential to disrupt traditional finance.

1. Mai Gang (Investor) - Core argument: Advanced payment network

Source of value: The value of Bitcoin lies in its being a complete, advanced payment network. Its characteristics (such as anonymity, low cost, high efficiency) make it the most superior payment system in the current technological context.

Network effects: As the number of merchants and users increases, its network value will rise, which is a clear value support.

Historical perspective: He attempts to draw a comparison between Bitcoin and gold, believing that gold exited the historical stage not due to its own flaws, but because of the rise of national sovereign currency systems.

2. Liang Song (Media Person) - Core argument: Disruptive innovation and counter-narrative

Weasel: Represents centralized institutions (like central banks) that dilute public wealth through currency issuance.

Chicken: Represents the ordinary people.

Bitcoin: is a decentralized, encrypted mathematical system created by 'chickens' to protect their property, a resistance to centralized exploitation.

Value recognition: The first wave of supporters includes tech elites such as the founders of Apple, who identify with its 'future currency' concept.

The metaphor of 'the chicken and the weasel': This vivid metaphor is the core of his argument.

Why is it being regulated: The central bank prohibits Bitcoin settlements not because it is an ordinary bubble like garlic, but because it is a 'disruptive innovation' that directly challenges the existing financial power and interest structure.

3. Xu Mingxing (Founder of OKCoin) - Core argument: Technical non-replicability (gold-like attributes)

Response to 'substitutability': He directly rebuts the notion that 'Bitcoin is replicable software.'

Value foundation: The 'gold-like' attributes of Bitcoin (non-replicability) are based on two points: algorithm (replicable);

Total network computational power (extremely difficult to replicate).

Computational power barrier: The current Bitcoin network is maintained by immense computational power, with costs comparable to that of a small to medium-sized country's military expenditure. This makes the network extremely secure, difficult to forge or double-spend. Any new altcoin (Acoin, Bcoin) would find it nearly impossible to establish such a vast computational network in a short time to gain equivalent trust and security. Therefore, Bitcoin has a de facto 'scarcity' and 'non-replicability.'


II. Bitcoin skeptics/opponents (Bubble and disillusionment theory)

This camp believes that Bitcoin has fatal flaws, either being crushed by regulation or merely a transient speculative bubble.

1. Xie Guozhong (Economist) - Core argument: Illegal use, regulatory deadlock, and IT bubble

Actual use is in illegal activities: He sharply pointed out that Bitcoin's main payment use in reality is for illegal transactions such as those by Mexican drug cartels, due to its 'anonymity' feature. Legitimate commercial applications are merely publicity stunts, with actual transaction volumes being very small.

Regulation is insurmountable: The 'anonymity' system that confronts the government is doomed to fail. Once Bitcoin has to comply, it must accept government oversight and invest enormous costs to establish security and legal systems, eventually becoming as bloated as banks, losing all advantages.

Product of the IT bubble: He believes that Bitcoin is a manifestation of the current IT bubble. Silicon Valley's tech elites are excessively self-inflated, attempting to disrupt all industries, including finance and central banks, which is a form of excessive arrogance.

2. Hong Hao (Chief Strategist) - Core argument: Strong substitutability, harmful volatility, and zero-sum game

Essentially software: He believes that Bitcoin is essentially just software with a very high degree of substitutability. Its success will only spawn countless similar electronic currencies, thereby diluting its value.

The underdog's counterattack is a false proposition: He uses **'smart chickens and dumb chickens'** to refute the claim of 'underdog counterattack.' The myth of wealth creation by Bitcoin is essentially a zero-sum game where 'smart chickens' (early players) harvest 'dumb chickens' (later retail investors) based on the failures of others.

The government must intervene:

Infringing sovereignty: Issuing currency is a core power of the government, and Bitcoin infringes upon this power.

Harm to holders: Its drastic price volatility can cause significant losses to holders (the economic 'inflation cost'). The government can tolerate garlic being speculated, but will never tolerate a monetary system related to national economy and people's livelihood being speculated in such a manner.


Summary

This discussion clearly outlines the two main aspects of the Bitcoin controversy:

Ideological and narrative struggle: One side views it as a revolutionary tool to resist centralization and protect private property (the story of the chicken and the weasel); the other side sees it as a dangerous commodity that fosters illegal activities and will ultimately be crushed by regulation.

Technical and reality struggle: One side emphasizes its technical scarcity and security guaranteed by immense computational power (gold-like attributes); the other side believes its software's replicability and vulnerability in the face of regulation are its fatal weaknesses.

Ultimately, this debate has no conclusion, but it brilliantly showcases the profound differences that arise from examining Bitcoin from multiple dimensions, including technological ideals, financial realities, macroeconomics, and regulatory politics.

As we look back on this discussion 11 years later, everyone has their own answers.