So much to say I don’t even know where to start. As a security engineer by training and part of the Bitcoin community since the early days I’ve lived through this. It’s not as simple as it’s painted here.
Bitcoin is a neutral technology. What Satoshi proposed is an incredibly elegant solution to a problem people had been scratching their heads on for nearly two decades.
How this technology is to be used and evolve has always been a discussion point that has divided the community over the years. This is why the longest (block)chain is one of the best ways to resolve community divisions. I’m not saying there’s no corruption in Bitcoin but at least we have an objective, technical way of voting; with hashing power (I’ll spare the miner debate here).
“Network where transaction volumes could rival Visa’s”
Nowhere in the whitepaper does it say this. Bitcoin was designed to create trust through cryptography instead of a trusted third party. That was the primary objective. It was not designed be a high throughput network but instead designed to be resilient (ie decentralized), accessible, and permisonless. The term “cash” in the title has remained a debate since the early days; some argue for technical scalability (a la Roger Ver) others for social scalability (a la Nick Szabo). Personally Nick Szabo carries way more Bitcoin wisdom than Roger Ver, just read his blog and come to your own conclusions.
If you look at the draft whitepaper of BitGold from 2006 (on which Bitcoin builds), originally there was intention to create a simple secure underlying network ontop of which “digital banking”’ infrastructure could be built for day to day transactions. One could argue that’s the Bitcoin (L1) / lightening (L2) network combo today.
The 21 m BTC cap is not mentioned in the whitepaper and seems to have been added later on in the code prior to the Jan 3 2009 launch. Having studied the technical history of Bitcoin and its predecessors, it seems this was done, along with adjusting the hashing difficulty, as a way to ensure a that all minted Bitcoins would retain equal value as computing power increased over the years. The scarcity, Austrian economics, and store of value stories only came later and were fueled by the community.
Anyway, so much more to say but will stop here. Really understanding Bitcoin takes time. Worth exercising discernement in what others say when it comes to Bitcoin. The story is more nuanced than we are led to believe.
Until the concept and functioning of cryptocurrencies can be made comprehensible to the average person, the whole thing is a gigantic fraud and waste of time and energy. Also, any financial system based entirely on computers is inherently unstable and usable only by experts--again, susceptible to manipulation and fraud; not to mention system failure and dependent on unreliable and constantly changing infrastructure.
Hijacking Bitcoin was a "technical inevitability" in a capitalist economic system where the rule of profit ("economic incentives") makes the market free for those who own it. The inevitability of corporate power from monopolization of markets and the creeping fascism of the corporate state have been built on hijacking, as with most major industries developed at public expense through the Pentagod, then transferred to private interests at bargain basement prices (just one the many public subsidies without which the 'efficiency' (theft) of bizzness could not be maintained).
We the people are 'externalities', to speak in the technical jargon of the dismal science, when it comes to the essential class rule stealing the wealth we create, then selling it back to us to add more injury to insult of lies like freedom, democracy, progress, blah, blah, blah. Charades of regulation and reform from foxes guarding the hen house are inevitable means to keep the inherent corruption and criminality intact under rule of law by organized crime.
Until the economy is our economy in which we participate as free and equal cocreators of an open society without the technical apparatus that makes for tyranny, money will remain at the root of evil.
I would be interested to hear a rebuttal from the Bitcoin Maximalist camp, as there are many (perhaps misguided?) minds there that believe they are countering centralized control. Ver's version of events is Ver's version, and despite of Fitt's endorsements, I'm unconvinced Ver is an unbiased voice in the battle to control the trajectory of Bitcoin.
“while retail investors are left holding speculative digital tokens”
That’s more-or-less the goal of ALL retail financial instruments: fleece those with the least power.
As warm and cuddly as Wall Street tries to appear, what with their publicity images of obese, mixed-race couples and their gender-ambiguous children frolicking carefree in the sunshine, their goal is, and by definition must be, to extract economic rents from you.
By and large, anyone who asks (or coerces) you to hand over your money would prefer to just keep it with no strings attached. Remember that.
So much to say I don’t even know where to start. As a security engineer by training and part of the Bitcoin community since the early days I’ve lived through this. It’s not as simple as it’s painted here.
Bitcoin is a neutral technology. What Satoshi proposed is an incredibly elegant solution to a problem people had been scratching their heads on for nearly two decades.
How this technology is to be used and evolve has always been a discussion point that has divided the community over the years. This is why the longest (block)chain is one of the best ways to resolve community divisions. I’m not saying there’s no corruption in Bitcoin but at least we have an objective, technical way of voting; with hashing power (I’ll spare the miner debate here).
“Network where transaction volumes could rival Visa’s”
Nowhere in the whitepaper does it say this. Bitcoin was designed to create trust through cryptography instead of a trusted third party. That was the primary objective. It was not designed be a high throughput network but instead designed to be resilient (ie decentralized), accessible, and permisonless. The term “cash” in the title has remained a debate since the early days; some argue for technical scalability (a la Roger Ver) others for social scalability (a la Nick Szabo). Personally Nick Szabo carries way more Bitcoin wisdom than Roger Ver, just read his blog and come to your own conclusions.
If you look at the draft whitepaper of BitGold from 2006 (on which Bitcoin builds), originally there was intention to create a simple secure underlying network ontop of which “digital banking”’ infrastructure could be built for day to day transactions. One could argue that’s the Bitcoin (L1) / lightening (L2) network combo today.
The 21 m BTC cap is not mentioned in the whitepaper and seems to have been added later on in the code prior to the Jan 3 2009 launch. Having studied the technical history of Bitcoin and its predecessors, it seems this was done, along with adjusting the hashing difficulty, as a way to ensure a that all minted Bitcoins would retain equal value as computing power increased over the years. The scarcity, Austrian economics, and store of value stories only came later and were fueled by the community.
Anyway, so much more to say but will stop here. Really understanding Bitcoin takes time. Worth exercising discernement in what others say when it comes to Bitcoin. The story is more nuanced than we are led to believe.
Until the concept and functioning of cryptocurrencies can be made comprehensible to the average person, the whole thing is a gigantic fraud and waste of time and energy. Also, any financial system based entirely on computers is inherently unstable and usable only by experts--again, susceptible to manipulation and fraud; not to mention system failure and dependent on unreliable and constantly changing infrastructure.
Hijacking Bitcoin was a "technical inevitability" in a capitalist economic system where the rule of profit ("economic incentives") makes the market free for those who own it. The inevitability of corporate power from monopolization of markets and the creeping fascism of the corporate state have been built on hijacking, as with most major industries developed at public expense through the Pentagod, then transferred to private interests at bargain basement prices (just one the many public subsidies without which the 'efficiency' (theft) of bizzness could not be maintained).
We the people are 'externalities', to speak in the technical jargon of the dismal science, when it comes to the essential class rule stealing the wealth we create, then selling it back to us to add more injury to insult of lies like freedom, democracy, progress, blah, blah, blah. Charades of regulation and reform from foxes guarding the hen house are inevitable means to keep the inherent corruption and criminality intact under rule of law by organized crime.
Until the economy is our economy in which we participate as free and equal cocreators of an open society without the technical apparatus that makes for tyranny, money will remain at the root of evil.
I would be interested to hear a rebuttal from the Bitcoin Maximalist camp, as there are many (perhaps misguided?) minds there that believe they are countering centralized control. Ver's version of events is Ver's version, and despite of Fitt's endorsements, I'm unconvinced Ver is an unbiased voice in the battle to control the trajectory of Bitcoin.
Thanks for the synopsis. I read it in December but I don’t think I fully understood it. This was difficult for me to get through for some reason.
“while retail investors are left holding speculative digital tokens”
That’s more-or-less the goal of ALL retail financial instruments: fleece those with the least power.
As warm and cuddly as Wall Street tries to appear, what with their publicity images of obese, mixed-race couples and their gender-ambiguous children frolicking carefree in the sunshine, their goal is, and by definition must be, to extract economic rents from you.
By and large, anyone who asks (or coerces) you to hand over your money would prefer to just keep it with no strings attached. Remember that.
No. Bitcoin is the old SETI @ Home. It's not "solving puzzles". It's a giant hacking network. It uses all your excess free energy, excess and overcapacity and burns it into a ficticious coin. Electro Coin vs Fiat $$ & 33 Ways to Power Earth 15 June 2021 https://nurembergtrials.net/nuremberg-2-0/f/electrocoinus---earth-powered-bitcoin-vs-fiat-dollars-33-ways