Monday, February 14, 2022

Decentralizing the production and consumption of money

"If Bitcoin succeeds, it may prove to be as important as the printing press (decentralized production of information), the Internet (decentralized content and communication), and three-branch democracy (decentralized government). I hope that by understanding how Bitcoin works, you’ll understand how it can turn out to be a force for good in the world. Bitcoin will decentralize the production and consumption of money, which is the key to unlocking new ways for humanity to collaborate on a scale that was previously unimaginable."
- Yan Pritzker

Saturday, February 5, 2022

Channeling energy through time and space

 "Bitcoin is the most efficient system in the history of mankind for channeling energy through time and space." - Michael Saylor

Saturday, October 2, 2021

Letter from Aniello Zampella to the NY DFS

Date: 12-11-19
Received from:
Aniello Zampella <aniello@coinbtm.com>

Hello all,

Commenting
on: https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/virtual_currency_businesses/pr_guidance_regarding_listing_of_vc

Speaking as the 14th Licens
ee here.

Hope this email finds you all well and in good health. I feel honor
-bound to comment on this proposal based on my license.

With respect to & considering the documented and reported transgressions of other licensees which I've
sent over via email in the past, I feel this new proposal for "self-regulation" in this field is preposterous and riddled with flaws given people's tendencies to shirk responsibility whenever the rules are not enforced. Ironically, that means I'm arguing this proposal is not being strict enough... it's far too lax.

Down to business:

As mentioned in person during my first annual exam, I fervently believe seven simple words are enough
to protect the average consumer from many problems faced today. Those words are explicitly stated here: "If it ain't bitcoin, it's a shitcoin". Meaning: all "digital assets" or "convertible virtual currencies" or whatever you want to call them EXCEPT bitcoin are, in my humble opinion, an anathema to the overall financial system and merely serve as vehicles for charlatans to sell dreams to the uninitiated and unwashed masses. They all exist because someone somewhere said "I want to ride the next unicorn! it's too late to get bitcoin." (failing to understand that no, it's not too late and it breaks down into 8 decimal points) Each and every one has a centralized development and governance structure which is much more closely related to a security (like stock equity in a company) than to a commodity or land, or anything that remotely stores value for a prolonged amount of time. They depend heavily on marketing to generate interest and stay relevant. They solve nothing which a well-built application couldn't do better.

The only real solid point of a blockchain is to 100% verifiably send value from point A to point B without being forced to rely on any type of custody or third party.... and bitcoin does this and has done this flawlessly for just about a full decade. Bitcoin has no "creator" (anymore) that can decide to just change the consensus or rules on a whim. It is the closest thing to "a tangible thing" in the digital asset space. That "thing" of scarcity is able to then soak up wealth / value, and is best used as a hedge against inflationary currencies the world uses on a daily basis. Think of it as a time capsule for your wealth... Can be even as little as $1 or much more.... but the point is you take X wealth from the inflationary world, place it into a disinflationary asset (bitcoin) and then on a rainy day some time in the future (2+ years) when you look back in that disinflationary time capsule the USD value of the asset will invariably be greater than when you first put it there. The expectation being that on that rainy day you would need to tap into the wealth you have stored in BTC to "get something done" like buy a house or pay for a child's college, etc. Whether that value appreciation occurs in the future is always a lively debate, however the past decade of bitcoin history and my expertise in the industry has led me to these conclusions.....

Frankly speaking, the technical underpinnings for many of these "blockchains" is laughable, and no company would be able to always protect its users from protocol malfunction or the dreaded "51% attack" which is present on all Proof of Work blockchains. As an example and from a high level: it would right now only take a nefarious entity approx $75k per hour to attack the "Bitcoin Cash" blockchain and place oneself in control of block generation and transaction mining. This has happened before, and it will happen again. Anyone engaging in financial activity with such a blockchain risks having their transactions reversed completely by said bad actor. This means an attacker can defraud others by sending the asset to an exchange to trade or directly converting it with another party into a different asset, and then re-organizing the blockchain with new & different versions of the same transaction where the attacker never sent the coins to the (now-defrauded) exchange or other party. Since the attacker was 51% in control of the network, they can re-write the chain's history with impunity. For Ethereum Classic, this amount is a paltry 10k per hour. Right now. Anyone can attack Ethereum Classic and re-write the history of transactions for only about $10k per hour... This in my humble opinion, does not sound like something that the general public should ever be exposed to. We are in the business of protecting consumers, are we not? By comparison, bitcoin would be costing well over half a million dollars per hour to even attempt the attack - and if the attack was successful on bitcoin, there would be no way to spend those defrauded coins because the value of the market would plummet as soon as people realized what happened rendering the attacker's efforts into a Pyrrhic victory. Kind of a catch-22 protection at the end of a very expensive road that a potential attacker would be faced with.

Let's take the exact wording, for instance:

"A proposed DFS web-
page that will contain a list of all coins that are permitted for the Virtual Currency Business Activities of the VC licensees, without the prior approval of DFS, which list may be updated from time to time, as long as such listed coins have not been subject to any modification, division, or change after their listing on the DFS web-page"

The list is: Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ether, Ether Classic, Litecoin, Ripple, Paxos Standard, and Gemini Dollar.


There's much wrong to unpack in the end of that paragraph & this list of "coins"... I know you guys mean
well here, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about.... These software protocols / code repositories all go through such frequent updates & modifications as to render this list moot before the period at the end of this sentence. Bitcoin updates approx every 6-8 months based on community-driven code reviews. Ethereum updates almost every 2 months as per the schedule of the Ethereum Foundation and Vitalik's whims. Bitcoin Cash updates every month or two, desperately trying to shove in features that other blockchains discuss or implement first, as if that somehow mattered.  Etcetera...

There are things in each of the code updates that change at any given time that can force a blockchain/currency to become completely "different" from what it was, and yield a completely separate blockchain (hard fork) resulting in two separate and incompatible things.....

This can happen intentionally or unintentionally. Then there are other things which are benign to network consensus and are as simple as typo fixes in the readme files.  And there is everything in between. So, this begs the question: where does one draw the line?  The ultimate problematic answer is, you simply cannot: it is a binary all-or-nothing choice. You either certify "the thing" (and its main advertiser/hype man/development team) is ok to trade with, or you don't. You cannot say the entity will "self certify" the code because it can and will evolve beyond your control and purview.... In the recent hard fork that happened on Ethereum not even a week ago, we noticed our beloved Gemini's own exchange Ethereum hot wallet ran "out of gas" when processing withdrawals! This was because the ETH developers did not properly disclose the code changes and their impacts to the wider community, and Gemini was obviously not sufficiently made aware of, nor prepared properly, for a production change like that to happen.... This behavior puts customer funds at risk!  Luckily for Gemini and Ethereum as a whole, I don't believe any customers lost tokens, they just had their time wasted... But it goes to show the slap-dash nature of "alt-coin" development. Don't fall for that marketing term.  Again, remember: if it ain't bitcoin, it's a shitcoin.

Also with regards to Ethereum, there still exists a very real possibility that the "bloat" of its blockchain/state quickly becomes so massive that software clients become unable to sync and connect with other peers....  Attempting to sync up new nodes to this behemoth history tree is..... troublesome.... to put it nicely. On most servers it is flat out impossible.  Ethereum's main "killer app" is and has always been "minting your own coin" .... which is ridiculous in and of itself.

Bitcoin Cash - is a complete fraud masquerading as "the real bitcoin" and was perpetrated by Roger Ver to try and capture the development roadmap and "brand" of bitcoin. It is constantly marketed to digital asset newcomers AS bitcoin itself, which is fraud. But there is no Bitcoin Company to press charges for false advertisement since bitcoin is just an open source software protocol and this "thing" is marketed as something it is not...  While I don't have very nice things to say about any alt-coin, this particular one is extra bad specifically due to this insidious underlying bait-and-switch foundation.

As for Ethereum Classic, really? is this a joke? That made the short list? Real quick: The difference between ETH and ETC is that when the first DAO's "smart" contract got hacked and was drained/locked of all user funds, the community decided to re-write the Ethereum chain history to "fix" that event in a contentious hard fork. Vitalik Buterin, who is effectively the issuer of Ethereum, pretty much decides the path of the development and that was his call to make... Plenty of people were (in my mind, rightfully) arguing that the "smart contract" which was exploited was the fault of the programmer who wrote it poorly, and that blockchain transactions *should be* immutable when confirmed in blocks, therefore people needed to learn a hard lesson to not blindly throw their money into things they didn't do research on.....  This chain with the hacked coins still exists, was somehow included in the short list, and no one really uses it for any kind of daily activity.... as mentioned earlier you can 51% attack it for pretty cheap overhead.

These kinds of smart contract "bugs" have occurred again since that birth/split of ETC, too... See Ethereum Improvement Proposal 999 for one big example -> https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-999.md which is basically a "bailout" for the crappy Ethereum developers, which has so far been completely rejected by the community - leaving the affected ~530k ETH still unspendable. Any persons who had some ETH in that hosed contract will never have access to it again unless an Act of God (Vitalik) changes the ETH codebase and sneaks it into the repository.

Litecoin - as with all the others, there's no real use for litecoin... this coin has persisted based solely on marketing: "it's the digital silver to bitcoin's gold"   But, again this is glossing over the simple fact so many uninformed people miss..... you get 8 decimals of precision with bitcoin, so you don't necessarily need to have 1 full bitcoin, you can send 0.00000001 bitcoin even to cover whatever debt or move value.... this was before people were comfortable with decimals and thought you needed to send full coins to be worth something. 

Then we have Ripple - it's a pre-mined security, vast majority of the tokens are held by Ripple Labs. They control the entire supply of XRP and periodically sell it, similar to securities, to raise "real" capital for their own purposes.  So, if we can sell securities like XRP, does that mean I can start selling fractional shares of AAPL and MSFT or AMZN from my kiosks?   Walks like a duck........

Paxos Standard and Gemini Dollar are not actually crypto currencies. Any "stablecoins" are not crypto currencies at all. Those two in particular are supposedly the type where they are digital representations of real US Dollars held in custody bank accounts somewhere domestically. When you think about it, there is no discernable difference in those "dollars" and the dollars in your PayPal account balance. The issuers can freeze accounts and restrict movement of funds. How and why these are things that exist is still beyond me, aside from wanting to move fiat for 24/7 arbitrage.

The Federal Gov't can cleverly obsolete them, instantly, by allowing, or rather by mandating, normal ACH and wires to happen 24/7.  Signature Bank and Silvergate Banks both have their own internal fiat-transfer networks for this very purpose.  There would then be no need for any stablecoin if it worked bank to bank instead of just internally.... Think like venmo, but by default for everyone and every bank account.   They really should hurry up, too. Because stablecoins, not crypto, are by far the best way to launder large sums of money. As a quick example from today's news feed.... this kiosk operator in Canada is now going to offer all manner of stablecoins in their kiosks.
https://www.cryptoninjas.net/2019/12/11/canadian-crypto-atm-network-instacoin-adds-support-for-7-stablecoins/
Why?  With any stablecoin, there's no price volatility and it's tied to the value of the fiat analog (usually USD), which all familiar goods and services are priced in. Again, how these things exist is beyond me. If it was known that stablecoins were going to be around long term, a criminal enterprise would be wise to convert their illicit finances into stablecoins, since they are readily transmitted across any jurisdictional borders and do not suffer value volatility day after day (aside from typical central-bank induced inflation)

This system of "digital dollars" was tried before with LibertyReserve and the Feds shut that down after awhile, too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve Fun Fact: LR is likely what gave rise to the first stablecoins back in 2014.....  They are easy to convert between themselves too, so you can trade GUSD for USDT or PAX etc.... try following some funds there to get a freeze on some GUSD after it's been traded or converted into USDT. Good luck.

So now, there are these "regulated" stablecoins which have actual dollars in banks, that can be traded amongst regular people all across the world for other stablecoins of "equal value" that may or may not have dollars backed in bank accounts or used to more easily pay for goods & services, because it's straight fiat without the govt, bank, or processors..... what could possibly go wrong with that?  Do you think anyone can be 100% sure that the issuers of these stablecoins know the true identities of the bearers of these tokens when they later get used to do some shady stuff after having been traded back and forth a bunch of times? Ha! Good luck... Ever really ask them to prove it en masse?

It is my belief that when offering a financial service to the public, it should be with a very long term forecast outlook, similar to a traditional bank. The entity should be required to secure its own assets and provide a time-idempotent interface for the public to trade with the entity. That means running one's own independent blockchain node software and not third-partying it with a custody wallet provider. Too much systemic risk, if something happens to that third party, you are dead in the water.

This notion of wanting to provide "more coins" feeds into a broader consumer-based gambler mentality... and that's kinda weird. We are not trying to push penny stocks on people and call it the next revolution in finance are we? Seems rather disingenuous... The ones who make out the most in this endeavor are the exchanges which facilitate the trades... since they take a commission fee on the trading activity. The ones who lose out the most are the average consumers who arguably don't do enough proper research before FOMO takes hold and they throw money at any ticker on the screen.

Without going into the technical details on these things, it is easy to succumb to marketing buzzwords, the "razzle dazzle" and slick talking / promises of grandeur for what is ultimately a powerful but complex technology / system.

It's bad form to offer a token and then de-list it because of poor volume/performance/etc  ... so if you are going to offer XYZ coin, in my opinion, you better be prepared to provide support and updates for that blockchain for the life of your company.  Token de-listings generally mean the tokens become worthless for anyone who holds them, as they immediately suffer from even less liquidity and the inability to exit positions or utilize said tokens in any fashion. That means you ultimately helped those people lose money by initially facilitating that nonsense. No bueno.

I  do not believe it to be wise for the fox to be allowed to guard the hen-house. Even though I am the fox in this analogy and it is in my personal interest to lobby for less restrictions, not more. I feel it is in everyone's interest to limit the types of "tokens" traded.  Not everyone is as frank and honest as that assessment, however....

It smells like this proposal is the result of lobbying efforts from Coinbase/Gemini/itBit to rubber stamp more coins for trading, so they can accumulate more fees from said trading....   Curiously though, my company never receives customer inquiries for supporting anything besides bitcoin. Hence, why I believe this to be a biased proposal request that does not fully analyze the scope of effects which would likely promulgate as result of this change..

Therefore, in conclusion, and with the utmost respect, I humbly suggest that NYDFS continues to evaluate, case-by-case, each entity and perform rigorous checks on their controls and procedures.

That's my 2 satoshis. If you made it this far, thank you very much for reading through my thoughts.

Best Regards,

--Aniello Zampella
Founder / CEO
Cottonwood Vending LLC
BitLicensee #0000014

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Responding to Krugman's article

Paul Krugman recently published an opinion piece in the NYT (original article here) and a good friend forwarded it to me. Below, find his article (in italics) and my responses.


The story so far: Bitcoin, the first and biggest cryptocurrency, was introduced in 2009. It uses an encryption key, similar to those used in hard-to-break codes — hence the “crypto” — to establish chains of ownership in tokens that entitle their current holders to … well, ownership of those tokens. And nowadays we use Bitcoin to buy houses and cars, pay our bills, make business investments, and more.

So far, right on!

Oh, wait. We don’t do any of those things. Twelve years on, cryptocurrencies play almost no role in normal economic activity. Almost the only time we hear about them being used as a means of payment — as opposed to speculative trading — is in association with illegal activity, like money laundering or the Bitcoin ransom Colonial Pipeline paid to hackers who shut it down.

Wait! That doesn't sound correct at all. People have been buying houses, cars, paying bills, making business investments, and more, with bitcoin, for years already. For example, bitcars has been accepting bitcoin for cars since their launch in 2016. A significant portion of BMW dealerships have begun accepting bitcoin payments this year.

Twelve years is an eon in information technology time. Venmo, which I can use to share restaurant bills, buy fresh fruit at sidewalk kiosks, and much more, was also introduced in 2009. Apple unveiled its first-generation iPad in 2010. Zoom came into use in 2012. By the time a technology gets as old as cryptocurrency, we expect it either to have become part of the fabric of everyday life or to have been given up as a nonstarter.

If normal, law-abiding people don’t use cryptocurrency, it’s not for lack of effort on the part of crypto boosters. Many highly paid person-hours have been spent trying to find the killer app, the thing that will finally get the masses using Bitcoin, Ethereum or some other brand daily.

Microsoft accepts bitcoin. Overstock (an amazon-like online retailer with a huge selection) has been accepting bitcoin for several years. While Amazon does not accept bitcoin directly (yet), for years you have been able to purchase anything they sell on Amazon, and pay with bitcoin, by using a service like Purse.io -- their escrow & matching service usually will allow you to get a discounted price, just for paying with bitcoin. AT&T accepts bitcoin. Etsy (ebay-like marketplace for home-made products) allows individual vendors to easily accept bitcoin. Shopify, a leading e-commerce platform with thousands of merchants, also allows any of their merchants to easily accept bitcoin. Bitcoin.travel allows travelers to book their trip and pay for flights, hotels, and other accommodations with bitcoin.

Rakuten, the largest Japanese online retailer, often called “the Amazon of Japan”, has recently added Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in their payment option. eGifter sells popular retailer gift cards for bitcoin, so if the place you want to shop doesn't accept it directly, they've been an option since their launch in 2013. There are lists all over the internet helping you find places that accept bitcoin as payment -- see a few hundred more here. Cheap Air is an American online travel agency, based in California, who accepts cryptocurrency as a payment method. Since 2013, CheapAir has processed crypto payments totalling more than $5,000,000.

Dozens of charities and nonprofits accept bitcoin for donations, including The Water Project, Internet Archive, Red Cross (since 2014!), Save the Children (since 2013!), United Way (since 2014).

For years, you've been able to order food from GrubHub or DoorDash and pay with bitcoin, and more recently, Uber Eats, Deliveroo, and Just Eat have all begun accepting bitcoin. This video shows a Subway shop accepting bitcoin as payment in November 2013 (around the same time that Romp Family Christmas Trees began accepting the payment method).

But I’ve been in numerous meetings with enthusiasts for cryptocurrency and/or blockchain, the concept that underlies it. In such meetings I and others always ask, as politely as we can: “What problem does this technology solve? What does it do that other, much cheaper and easier-to-use technologies can’t do just as well or better?” I still haven’t heard a clear answer.


Krugman doesn't see the problem, but it's plain as day to every bitcoin enthusiast I've ever spoken with. Government having control of the issuance of currency (and issuing too much of it, devaluing it over time) is the problem. Bitcoin could undermine that system and replace it entirely. Even if it never reaches that full potential, already it is allowing citizens around the world to opt out of the forcible-taxation model and reclaim ownership and control over their finances, and enabling them to save money and create generational wealth that will not be subject to the blatant theft-in-broad-daylight of inflation.

In the USA, for example, the dollar has been "losing value" for years. I put "losing value" in quotes because the value isn't simply lost, it is stolen. The money in your pocket loses value when they issue more currency. It's a very sneaky theft, stealing right out of the pockets of every person who holds even a single US dollar. Right under our noses.



Yet investors continue to pay huge sums for digital tokens. The values of major cryptocurrencies fluctuate wildly — Bitcoin fell 30 percent Wednesday morning, then made up most of the losses that afternoon. Their collective value has, however, at times exceeded $2 trillion, more than half the value of all the intellectual property owned by U.S. business.

Why are people willing to pay large sums for assets that don’t seem to do anything? The answer, obviously, is that the prices of these assets keep going up, so that early investors made a lot of money, and their success keeps drawing in new investors.

Back in 2013 I wrote a long forum post on a bitcoin enthusiast forum, arguing that the fools with dollar signs in their eyes didn't see the true value of bitcoin. To this day, there are many of us that are buying bitcoin because we believe that it will replace all government issued currencies and become the primary system for holding and transferring value.

This may sound to you like a speculative bubble, or maybe a Ponzi scheme — and speculative bubbles are, in effect, natural Ponzi schemes. But could a Ponzi scheme really go on for this long? Actually, yes: Bernie Madoff ran his scam for almost two decades, and might have gone even longer if the financial crisis hadn’t intervened.

Did you see that chart above? The US dollar is the scam. Bitcoin is the solution. The financial crisis demonstrated that governments are not fit to manage economies set the stage for a replacement to the current paradigm.

Now, a long-running Ponzi scheme requires a narrative — and the narrative is where crypto really excels.

First, crypto boosters are very good at technobabble — using arcane terminology to convince themselves and others that they’re offering a revolutionary new technology, even though blockchain is actually pretty elderly by infotech standards and has yet to find any compelling uses.


Well, the compelling use is "to replace government issued currencies and prevent governments from surveilling and controlling all commerce and exchange."

Bitcoin solved the byzantine general's problem which had prevented every previous attempt at creating a replacement for government-issued currency. Bitcoin is a revolutionary new technology, for the first time ever allowing a decentralized consensus, which allows us a ledger of title that answers to nobody. Those words are clearly defined and are not technobabble.

Second, there’s a strong element of libertarian derp — assertions that fiat currencies, government-issued money without any tangible backing, will collapse any day now. True, Britain, whose currency was still standing last time I looked, went off the gold standard 90 years ago. But who’s counting?

I'm counting. Every government-issued currency in history has a chart similar to the one shown above for the US dollar. You can see the one for the GBP here. It's not that they "will collapse any day now," rather it's that they have been steadily losing value since their creation and will likely continue to do so.

Purchasing power of the GBP from 1900 to present (source):



Given all this, are cryptocurrencies headed for a crash sometime soon? Not necessarily. One fact that gives even crypto skeptics like me pause is the durability of gold as a highly valued asset. Gold, after all, suffers from pretty much the same problems as Bitcoin. People may think of it as money, but it lacks any attributes of a useful currency: You can’t actually use it to make transactions — try buying a new car with gold ingots — and its purchasing power has been extremely unstable.

Gold and bitcoin are very similar, but, as Krugman says, try buying a new car with gold ingots. Also, compare bitcoin to gold on any of the various attributes that make for "sound money" -- the properties that a currency has that make it useful as money -- and bitcoin wins. It's a lot easier to transfer, it's a lot easier to store, it's a lot harder to counterfeit. Scarcity? Nobody knows how much gold there is still left in the earth to be found tomorrow, but we can easily know with certainty precisely how many bitcoin currently exist and how many will exist on a specific date in the future.

Try sending $90,000 of gold from here to to your friend in South Africa. The transfer would only cost around $20 and take around 15 minutes, with bitcoin. Compare that with shipping costs for gold (which is both heavy and requires armored transport vehicles) and bitcoin is the clear winner. But, if you try a similar transfer using modern methods like say, Western Union, you're also going to find bitcoin is the cheapest, fastest, safest way.

So when John Maynard Keynes called the gold standard a “barbarous relic” way back in 1924, he wasn’t wrong. But the metal’s mystique, and its valuation, live on. It’s conceivable that one or two cryptocurrencies will somehow achieve similar longevity.

Keynes is well known for his awful economic theory. The Keynesian economic policies currently in place in most of the countries in the world are "the problem" that we are trying to fix with bitcoin. Most bitcoin enthusiasts (or at least this one) believe that the Austrian school of economics, which contrasts sharply with the Keynesian theories, is grounded in reality and provides a strong foundation to build a sound economic system.

Or maybe not. For one thing, governments are well aware that cryptocurrencies are being used by bad actors, and may well crack down in a way they never did on gold trading. Also, the proliferation of cryptocurrencies may prevent any one of them from achieving the semi-sacred status gold holds in some people’s minds.

If they could stop people from using bitcoin, they would have done so long ago. Bitcoin poses an existential threat to governments. As Erik Vorhees once said so well, "Instead of trying to change governments with a useless vote, or pathetic pleading, we merely abandon the government's powerbase - the power derived from control of exchange and currency."

The good news is that none of this matters very much. Because Bitcoin and its relatives haven’t managed to achieve any meaningful economic role, what happens to their value is basically irrelevant to those of us not playing the crypto game.

“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller

One great thing about bitcoin is that it has "lifted itself up by the bootstraps" in a sense. The very people who are most enthusiastic about bitcoin and want to help realize a future where it has replaced government-issued currency and completely fills the role of "storing and exchanging value" worldwide, are the same people who would of course buy and hold bitcoin -- and doing so has taken many of them from poverty to comfort, or from middle class to wealthy. Those people have had their beliefs about the utility and future of bitcoin reinforced, as many take the price increase as an indication that other people, too, see value in bitcoin and believe it will succeed. With their newfound wealth, many of these people have reinvested in the bitcoin community and economy, building businesses that provide infrastructure (like kiosks where you can exchange your bitcoin for local currency) that help realize bitcoin's success.

The existing paradigm of government-issued currency and centralized control over exchange might be just fine for Krugman, but the new model of digital tokens on decentralized ledgers of consensus will make it obsolete, and for those of us that choose to use this new model, the benefits are already paying off.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

The Hitch

"The hitch is that the payment systems we have today are not available to just anyone. In fact, a vast majority of humanity does not have access to such tools, which is a major reason for poverty in the world. The financially disenfranchised are confined to only local trade and cannot extend their trading relationships with the world.
A major, if not a primary, purpose of developing Bitcoin was to solve this problem. The protocol set out to weave together the currency feature with a payment system. The two are utterly interlinked in the structure of the code itself. This connection is what makes bitcoin different from any existing national currency, and, really, any currency in history." -- https://fee.org/articles/what-gave-bitcoin-its-value/

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Basics

Q. What is Bitcoin? A. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer currency. Peer-to-peer means that no central authority issues new money or tracks transactions. These tasks are managed collectively by the network. Q. How does Bitcoin work? A. Bitcoin uses public-key cryptography, peer-to-peer networking, and proof-of-work to process and verify payments. Bitcoins are sent (or signed over) from one address to another with each user potentially having many, many addresses. Each payment transaction is broadcast to the network and included in the blockchain so that the included bitcoins cannot be spent twice. After an hour or two, each transaction is locked in time by the massive amount of processing power that continues to extend the blockchain. Using these techniques, Bitcoin provides a fast and extremely reliable payment network that anyone can use. -- From the Bitcoin Wiki FAQ

Dominoes

"The final domino to fall, of course, is the power which governments wield over their flock via their ability to print, regulate, and control the nation's money. When a state currency is challenged, the state itself is challenged, and market forces move swiftly around sickly, depreciating inhibitors. The press conferences of someone like Bernanke would become less and less important, because the currency he printed would be used in narrower and narrower circles. Instead of fighting the government, Bitcoin enables individuals to sidestep it - to ignore it to a large degree. Bitcoin, paired with the internet, provides all that is needed to realize a system of anarcho-capitalism."