My advocacy for Blockchain can be described as Blockchain maximalism, a term that obviously evolved from Bitcoin maximalism.
I have some Bitcoin maximalist friends who believe that there is only Bitcoin and no Blockchain. They see Blockchain as a technology adopted solely for the implementation of Bitcoin and not as something with universality. They can provide Bitcoin-related answers to all future questions.
I also have some friends in the internet technology field who consider Blockchain as a toy based on the evaluation scale of internet technology. They believe that Blockchain has low throughput and do not believe that it can construct "useful" tools.
However, since the rise of the DeFi market last year, some Bitcoin maximalist friends and friends in the internet technology field have started to change their views.
In the eyes of Blockchain maximalism, the innovative points introduced by Bitcoin, whether it is introducing economic games into software systems through PoW algorithms or constructing an open database through a chain structure, have their universal technological significance and can definitely be applied to other fields. The vision of Blockchain is very clear, but the specific evolutionary path to reach that vision requires experimentation. The most reliable way is to try all possibilities through permutation and combination.
Although this approach is often mocked as "holding a hammer and looking for nails," in reality, most new inventions in history have been promoted by holding a hammer and looking for nails. When holding a hammer and looking for nails, the scope of experimentation and search converges. If one approach doesn't work, you try another one. Future generations can continue on the shoulders of their predecessors, and conclusions can be drawn after trying.
In the eyes of Blockchain maximalism, all attempts are worthy of respect. If someone wants to refute a path they don't believe in, they should be praised as heroes.
Blockchain maximalism rarely criticizes others. They are more concerned about what combinations others have, what possibilities need to be verified, and whether there is any novelty. Currently, public chains are basically trying three major directions to solve the throughput problem: improving consensus, solving it through sharding and multi-chain systems, and solving it through layering.
Of course, the best possibility is breakthroughs in all three directions, and blockchain applications become commonplace. But even if that happens, there is no need to worry about competition. Even if all three directions develop, they would still be like small channels facing the next wave of DeFi/DApp.
PS: I'm preparing to write some articles for certification. I will gradually move some of my content about blockchain from Weibo and Twitter to a mirror site, and this article will serve as the beginning.