Former Factom VP: Bitcoin May Crash Due to Serious Centralization
Wang Liren, former VP of Factom, told Caixin that Bitcoin is very likely to crash due to serious centralization issue. He was the co-founder of China Energy Blockchain Labs and Deputy Secretary General of Beijing Zhongguancun Blockchain Association. But he was better known as former VP of Factom to the cryptocurrency circle.
As a famous financial media outlet, Caixin posted the 87-second video to its 2.5 million followers on weibo, which soon sparked on hundreds of shares and comments. He also predicted that ICO would become centralized as well in the video. Below are some comments:
1. Please define crash. Is 20% drop a crash? 2. Please give a timeline for the crash. The heat death of universe is inevitable.
I am not sure which crash first, humanity or Bitcoin?
Please short Bitcoin and show us your holding.
Back in June, Wang released an op-ed article on Caixin to support his idea that Bitcoin was about to crash.
“By May 2017, there are no more than 25 miners who have access to write the public ledgers. In other words, there are no more than 25 computers that has the right to vote. The top 5 miners possess more than 51% of total hashrate and the top 3 has more than 36.82% of hashrate. The likelihood of launching 51% attack to the network has emerged inevitably, as shown in the table below.
The CPU hashrate of several top mining pools is capable of applying technical effects to the whole bitcoin system, as shown below.
Due to the high probability of a 51% attack, it is almost certain that internal or external attacks on the system are clearly imminent. In financial jargon, the market risk and moral hazard are emerging.”
Right after the release of the video, Cao Yin, founder of China Energy Blockchain Labs, stated that Wang’s relation with the Lab and denied
“We acknowledge Mr. Wang Liren’s historical contribution as a co-founder of the laboratory. But since July 2016, Mr. Wang Liren has no longer been a team member of the Energy Blockchain Laboratory because of differences in the direction of laboratory development. His statements in the past, the present and the future are completely of his own and cannot represent the Lab.”