Bitcoin as Frankenstein is a really interesting concept. Before I begin, let me humour the horror story fanatics amongst us and say yes, ‘Bitcoin as Frankenstein’ is inaccurate, we are actually referring to ‘Bitcoin as Frankenstein’s Monster’ here.

This, stems from a report in The Fintech Times that discusses how Bitcoin is slowly becoming a monster, made up of a number of different bits and pieces, a number of different ideas and a number of theories. Of course, Bitcoin isn’t a monster in a dangerous sense, it is however a sort of patchwork quilt that needs to be sharpened up in order for it to be taken seriously and have a true use value once again.

The report, by Dr. Maxim Orlovsky actually highlights some very interesting points that I want to discuss. I like theories like this as they make it easier for lay-users to understand some of the issues that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies face.

According to Orlovsky:

“Following initial interest in Bitcoin, the business and banking world decided they could somehow take some of the blockchain ‘backbone’ out of the Bitcoin ‘body’, dissect from it consensus protocol (the infamous Proof of Work, or PoW) – which will be replaced with some decades-old technology from telecommunications and distributed databases industries – kill decentralisation and free participation in the network, then remove economic incentives, and as a result create some ‘magic’ technology that will solve industrial problems. But no, instead they have created a modern Frankenstein.”

Blockchain , consensus protocol, decentralisation, value, investment , assets, they are all buzzwords associated with Bitcoin and indeed, they are all relevant and do hold significant meaning, but this in turn is problematic because it’s giving Bitcoin this Frankenstein like appearance.

Orlovsky refers to this buzzword generation as a way of giving businesses a way of ‘pretending’ to appear innovative. It’s true too, how many times have we seen companies refer to blockchain research, without actually ever actually embarking on developing a DApp, or smart contracts, or something like that?

“It’s quite clear that the original ‘blockchain’ term coined by Satoshi Nakamoto was referencing a bunch of things together – PoW, cryptography, etc. – but these days it has become so cluttered by the enterprise and hype around, that it’s time to distinguish the marketing buzz from real decentralisation.”

It’s an interesting idea isn’t it.

As Orlovsky highlights, we need to cut the business led hype from Bitcoin and strip its technology back to its roots. We need to move forward with a Bitcoin that isn’t based on a million technologies, instead, we need a Bitcoin that has a true identity, a true purpose and a real use, not as a project designed to improve businesses, but as a cryptocurrency, one that captures the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Will this actually happen, who knows. The world of Bitcoin business is growing, with ETF’s on the horizon and more institutions wanting in, it’s unlikely that Bitcoin will ever get the chance to step back and ‘rebrand’ itself, perhaps it’s too late. Or, perhaps we’re wrong and actually, this will simply just come as an organic part of Bitcoins future growth.

The Fintech Times