The Cypherpunk Dream: Protecting Data and Dismantling the Dossier Society

AI specialist Dr. Rand Hindi conducted a presentation on cypherpunk history and data privacy in St. Moritz, Switzerland, at the Crypto Finance conference. At the beginning of the talk, he asked the audience to unlock their smartphones and pass them to their neighbors. The audience responded with a gasp. Someone in the crowd even vocalized their disdain for the idea. Naturally, people feel guarded when it comes to protecting their digital content and private data. This is why the cypherpunks believed protecting personal info was of paramount importance.

Also Read: Governmental Overreach in Developing Nations Will Hasten Hyperbitcoinization

The Cypherpunks, Data Privacy, and the Dossier Society

Protecting data is not only about preventing hackers and thieves from gaining access to personal credentials. According to the cypherpunks, it is also about denying governments access to large troves of information and surveilling the population. In this sense, data privacy represents the sine qua non of personal sovereignty in cyberspace.

The cypherpunk creator of digital cash David Chaum once lamented that internet technologies would create a dossier society. This dossier society means government would catalog information on each individual, and they would possess piecemeal documentation regarding people’s identity and history. They would also track every person and keep tabs on their comings and goings. In its final incarnation, the dossier society would equate to a horror show worse than the dystopia depicted in George Orwell’s 1984.

In a way, this has already transpired. The U.S. government in partnership with large companies like Google and AT&T constantly collects “metadata.” This metadata allows governments to piece together a picture of an individual, allowing the state to gain more accessibility to their private affairs. It’s essentially a Gestalt panopticon of digital control wound tightly around the neck of each person.

Curtailing the Dossier Society With Encrypted Protocols

In order to fight back, cypherpunks and white hat hackers have been developing and deploying encryption schemes to protect sensitive digital materials. One example is Phil Zimmermann‘s PGP or Pretty Good Privacy. Zimmerman created PGP in 1991 as a method to protect emails through public-private key encryption and symmetric-key cryptography.

This method allows people to secure their communication channels with cryptographic privacy. It keeps snoops and government agents from reading the contents of email information. Governments can still determine the header info on emails to collect metadata, but it at least provides a degree of privacy for any sensitive material contained inside the digital package. Its major flaw is it’s not easy to use, and it requires users to share a private key database.

Homomorphic Encryption

A more recent scheme for protecting credentials, including some header materials, involves the use of homomorphic encryption. In his presentation, Dr. Hindi said new developments in this field will allow users to protect data at entry points and even leverage homomorphically encrypted smart contracts. This type of encryption allows sophisticated computation on ciphertexts, or encrypted messages. However, homomorphic encryption has heretofore been too cumbersome and slow for users to reliably deploy on commercial platforms. Dr. Hindi mentioned it is about a trillion times slower than non-encrypted communications.

With that said, new developments emerge everyday and a new kind of homomorphic encryption is making headway. It’s called TFHE encryption. TFHE encryption leverages machine learning to help process the encryption scheme in real time. Nonetheless, Dr. Hindi pointed out that only one known company presently uses this type of encryption.

The Future of Cypherpunk Tools and Crypto Anarchism

The future is still bright for the cypherpunk movement. It is true the dossier society is in full, disturbing effect. However, cypherpunks work relentlessly to create, build and deploy all the necessary tools to protect individuals and their data. At its core, the cypherpunks are in a battle to undermine the dossier society. But they wish to take their mission a step further. The cypherpunks are crypto-anarchists. They would eventually like to see the abolition of government and all dominance-based power structures.

Many people in the cryptocurrency and technology spheres sometimes forget this original mission. The reason why encrypted protocols were more highly developed after the government initially spawned them was to fight back against the surveillance state. The cypherpunks realized if government gains full control of the internet, it will mean that people’s lives will be totally transparent to the bureaucrat and policeman. It will also mean that digital totalitarianism will reign supreme.

True Names

Timothy May, the creator of crypto-anarchism, compared this dystopian nightmare to a science fiction story written by Vernor Vinge called True Names. In this story, the protagonist hackers had to protect their actual identity, or “true names,” from the United States government. If government acquired their true names, the hackers would die at the hands of government in the form of a “true death.” The story illustrates the power of identity and the potency of digital privacy. It illustrates the deep reasoning behind why the cypherpunks expanded on encrypted protocols and consistently wrote about the horrors of government control.

Do you believe in the cypherpunk mission of protecting data? Can we prevent the dossier society from emerging and compromising our privacy? Could we build a crypto-anarchistic future? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

The post The Cypherpunk Dream: Protecting Data and Dismantling the Dossier Society appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

Following the Crypto-Anarchist Dream: 3 Reasons to Reject KYC and AML

Last year, crypto KYC and AML requirements came bursting onto the scene with thunderous applause and approbation. Many traders felt like the ICO sector was rife with scammers and con artists. In this sense, they believed there would be redemption through government. The scammers and hucksters would go to prison for defrauding investors and all would be well. After all, many people believed government regulations were necessary to curb people’s appetite for ethereum-based shitcoins. “All financial markets need regulations!” was their lodestone.

Also read: Chatter Report: Antonopoulos Criticizes KYC, Kasireddy Claims Decentralization Not Always Better

Letting Go of the Crypto-Anarchist Dream

The emergence of more government into the cryptocurrency space reflected a sentiment antithetical to the crypto-anarchist dream. This is the dream of being financially independent and removed from the state apparatus. Bitcoin emerged on the heels of the 2007 and 2008 financial collapse as a way to stop onerous regulations and crush the banking elite under the weight of financial sovereignty. And yet many players in the cryptocurrency ecosystem seem to have forgotten the purpose of Bitcoin’s evolution.

As a reminder, there are three powerful reasons why the cryptocurrency industry as a whole should reject KYC and AML regulations and the governments that issue them. These are the same reasons why the industry should not uphold the broken, parasitical system that has caused the suffering of millions.

Regulations Are Threats of Violence

Right out of the gate, a regulation is a de facto threat of violence. When a government issues any kind of regulation, they are effectively saying, “Do what we want or we will put you in jail or kill you.” A lot of people try to avoid or dance around this truth. They say regulations protect consumers, investors and businesses

However, these threats of violence do not protect anyone. KYC and AML regulations are the most obvious examples. When government forces people to comply with “know your customer” regulations, they force people to provide personal, sensitive information. They are likewise coercing financial institutions into demanding this information from their customers. It creates a predatory, unnatural environment.

In a free market, companies would not issue these threats or they would simply lose business. It’s economically insane. Government is thus an artificial player in the market that also harms people via its regulatory requirements. Governments create misaligned incentives. In this regard, regulations are a miasma pervading the financial life of humankind. What is worse is these coercive regulations also have serious collateral consequences.

Regulations Cause Financial Exclusion

The most talked about consequence of regulation is the financial exclusion it promotes. There are millions of unbanked people across the world. These people do not have access to financial institutions or a way to adopt electronic banking. This is primarily due to KYC and AML requirements. If people do not have the proper documentation and identifying materials, there is no way they can adopt modern financial services. This makes the industry a walled garden of fascist-like control that only accepts witting participants from first would countries.

The system effectively removes people living in sub-Saharan Africa, Venezuela, the Middle East, and other technologically bereft places from the equation. This is what happens when compliance trumps the need to modernize isolated locales across the globe. An article titled “There’s a Bigger Scam Than Anything in Crypto, It’s Called KYC/AML,” further explores this issue:

An entire country, Somalia, began to starve because U.K. banks decided it was not worth the bother to bank remittance services. Forty percent of the country’s population relied on these remittances – people sending their hard-earned savings home to feed their families. The U.K. banks’ excuse: payments to Somalia were “high-risk,” a euphemism for not worth the compliance cost of dealing with people with poor documentation. Invariably, those who pay the highest cost are society’s weakest.

Hackers Prey on Data Honeypots

KYC and AML regulations also bring out the hackers and opportunists. If government forces a company to adopt KYC, they naturally store customer data on a centralized server. This unwise play creates an attractive honey pot for thieves on the dark web. A Daily Hodl article elaborated:

“According to Reddit user Gamm86, a hacker can circumvent the 2FA by posing as a user who lost their 2FA access (which can happen to anyone who loses a phone). The crypto exchange will then ask for proof of identity from the user, which the hacker can access via the dark web. Once a hacker sends in the requested documents, the exchange either resets or removes the 2FA codes. The hacker can then gain access and effectively drain a crypto account.”

In the absence of KYC regulations, the industry would not have to worry about this kind of collateral damage. Unfortunately, this is what happens when people who do not understand the industry get involved with “regulating” it. They create scenarios that make market actors vulnerable to malevolent forces.

A Return to Crypto-Anarchy: Self-Governance

The crypto community should work to mitigate government regulation. It is factual and clear that government mandates are acts that harm individuals as well as whole communities. A regulation is just scribbling on a sheet of paper that doubles as a thinly-veiled threat of violence, causing a cascade of harm to befall the ecosystem.

The solution is to embrace a state of crypto-anarchism. This means all the iconoclasts, entrepreneurs, developers, and philosophers in the space should work to produce more freedom and educate neophytes about the purpose of the tech. There is a seductive element of government regulation mixed with ample pressure, but the reality is self-government — or free market solutions — is more effective. It reduces coercion and violence, and creates natural remedies to any seemingly intractable problem.

The last thing the ecosystem needs is for AML and KYC regulations to grow so unwieldy and confusing that it induces corporate fascism and regulatory capture through an extensive and confusing array of impossible rules no one can navigate. Crypto-anarchy is the only answer to the Gordian knot of statist politicking.

Do you support KYC and AML? Or are regulations naturally bad? What are market alternatives to government-mandated regulations?

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

The post Following the Crypto-Anarchist Dream: 3 Reasons to Reject KYC and AML appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

Crypto Schisms and Fork Psychology

Forking within the crypto ecosystem is often controversial subject. Many crypto-enthusiasts loathe it, taking particular exception to the so-called “contentious hard fork.” They believe hard-forking damages a cryptocurrency, and say it should be avoided at all costs. They also believe forking is detrimental to the market and represents a financial burden. However, this view is limited and narrow-minded.

Also read: Lawyers to Help the Russian Crypto Industry Deal With Inadequate Laws

Forking for Good, Forking for Bad

Contentious hard-forking is how the community manages its systemic health, prevents bad actors from gumming up the infrastructure, and aligns the protocol in accordance with group principles. Forking is thus more than a way to upgrade a protocol. In reality, forking is a way to maintain self-care in governance without resorting to violence. It is about group dynamics and cooperating to discover peaceful solutions. It is as much psychological as technological.

Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum’s creator, agrees. In a cogent article called “Hard Forks, Soft Forks, Defaults and Coercion,” he said:

“Proponents of hard forks are often derided as trying to effect a “hostile take over” of a network, and “force” users to go along with them. Additionally, the risk of chain splits is often used to bill hard forks as “unsafe”. It is my personal viewpoint that these criticisms are wrong, and furthermore in many cases completely backwards.”

 Definition of a Cryptocurrency Fork

A cryptocurrency hard fork equates to a network chain split. It means stakeholders decide to divide a preexisting cryptocurrency into two competing chains. Both chains share the same transactional history, but become two unique coins that follow different paths.

In essence, these splits are how decentralized communities resolve disputes and come to terms with technological and philosophical differences. This is different from a soft fork, which is a coercive protocol change that is backwards compatible, but forces users to comply with its rule set.

In a Medium article called Blockchain Forks Explained, Nate Maddrey said, “A blockchain fork is essentially a collectively agreed upon software update.”

Maddrey’s definition concisely explains the technological fact of a fork, but as everyone knows, a blockchain “upgrade” is not always necessarily agreed upon. These “contentious hard forks” often cause disputes. Matter of a fact, sometimes “upgrades” in the cryptocurrency space are seen as attacks or political maneuvers by others. This causes natural schisms to crop up.

Bitcoin Schisms and Reason for Division

Some of these individuals go so far to suggest these “attacks” are an attempt to undermine bitcoin or usurp the protocol, as Vitalik suggested. The original Bitcoin fork, which split off in Aug. 1st, 2017, creating bitcoin cash, is a perfect example of a contentious hard fork.

Leading up to this fork, divergent communities argued about how to effectively upgrade the protocol to meet demand. Each camp supported differing views on how to scale the cryptocurrency. On the surface, these differences were purely technological. However, at the center of these opinions rested fundamental philosophical beliefs on the nature and purpose of the cryptocurrency.

The Bitcoin Cash camp primarily supported the notion that cryptocurrency should be used as cash for the world. This was also the view shared by the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Conversely, the core camp mainly supported Bitcoin as a digital commodity, something akin to gold. These perspectives ultimately mold popular thinking on the economics and purpose of the technology. If it is cash for the world, it’s a paradigmatic-shifting technology. If it is just “digital gold,” it’s a money-making — or money-destroying — speculative asset.

Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV

Fast forward another year to the recent Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV split. This split was even more political and less technological. For instance, the Bitcoin SV camp raised the block size immediately to 128MB and rejected the option to add much smart contracting functionality.

The differences were basically superficial. The Bitcoin Cash ABC camp has always intended to raise the blockchain size to meet market demand. It just wasn’t necessary at this time. Adding the smart contracting implementation via new op-codes was the largest difference, but it makes sense from a market perspective. The fact that Bitcoin ABC sought to enable certain op-code functionality speaks to the idea that the more utility a crypto project has, the more value it will accrue. And this does not take away from its utility as a cryptocurrency at all.

At the end of the day, the Bitcoin SV camp pivoted to fork Bitcoin Cash for political reasons, for the purposes of control and power. The beautiful thing about this split was it helped align incongruous ideologies, incentives, and personalities with their proper camps.

Cooperation Versus Forking Government

When a cryptocurrency forks it means competing groups effectively cooperated to move in divergent directions. “Cooperation” in this context may sound odd, seeing as how a lot of badmouthing and bickering ensued prior to the fork, but it was still a form of capitulation without violence. In my mind, this is synonymous with “cooperation.”

At conferences, I always ask the audience what would happen if they tried to fork the federal government. I usually hear crickets, then I respond: if someone disagrees with the U.S. government, they can’t easily fork off. If they try, they would likely end up in a cage or shot in back of the head.

In this regard, it is impossible to disagree on fundamentals and create a coexisting but radically different government structure in society. Cryptocurrency blockchains, however, provide a novel remedy for that problem. They allow people to opt in or opt out. They also allow developers to change a given cryptocurrency’s rule set at its core code, and then move it a different direction. This is a massive transformation in the way humankind has traditionally conducted governance affairs. Previously, people settled differences with the truncheon and gun.

The Psychology of Forks

The psychology of forking is straightforward. If groups have the ability to cooperate and disassociate via a hard fork, they can create nonviolent harmony in the system through exercising the ability to choose a particular blockchain.

This functions as a form of ventilation and release. It mitigates the necessity of violence. It lessens the charge of psychic activity that could lead to hostile escalations. At first, the bickering and badmouthing appears as a form of hostility, but it is just words. It’s not akin to physically harming another person.

This move also limits the amount of corruption in the space. It allows bad actors to congeal around a certain set of ideals, effectively weeding them out. This never happens via traditional government, because all the players remain in power for years, compounding the corruption and exacerbating misaligned incentives. This is why being attentive to the utility and beauty of forking is of utmost importance.

Rejecting Government Violence

If the cryptocurrency community internalizes the psychological benefits of forking, all the actors involved will vie to fork when necessary. It’s only when these actors turn to government — in the form of lawsuits and other litigation — that the sacred contract of peaceful forking is rejected and replaced with violence.

Forking is an amazing innovation not only in technology, but in human social affairs. It should not be taken lightly, but when initiated for the right reasons, be it due to opposing visions or irreconcilable differences, forking is a welcome divide that can leave both communities stronger and more focused once the dust has settled.

Do you think crypto schisms and divisions are a good or bad thing? Does the psychology of forking make sense? Is it healthy to fork off peacefully rather than violently? 

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

The post Crypto Schisms and Fork Psychology appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

Eight Reasons to Use Cryptocurrency Payments in 2019

This article on cryptocurrency payments was written by Thomas Highwater, who is an avid fan of all things crypto-related. Mr. Highwater teaches high-school level robotics and programming.

***

While there is a growing number of fiat based-payment processors with a variety of practical tools and methods of payment, adding cryptocurrency payments into the mix provides consumers and merchants with unparalleled benefits. Some of these benefits include simplicity, lower overall cost, security, privacy and a greater level of control over one’s funds. 

Reasons to Use Crypto Next Year

Also read: Wendy McElroy: Avoiding Fraud by Going Crypto-Anarchist

Cryptocurrencies are numerous and versatile and can be utilized as entirely private bank accounts and payment cards for almost any occasion. They offer a multitude of ways to earn a form of interest with little or no effort and help users protect sensitive data and holdings on the go 24/7.

1. Fees

There was a time, not that long ago, when cash was king and financial institutions gave generous incentives to people who chose to put their cold hard cash into institutional coffers. Today, bank accounts of all sorts, as well as debit and credit cards, have fees associated with them — money that goes down the drain and provides no benefit, never mind interest earned. There are debit and credit card fees, ATM fees, merchant fees, checking account fees, overdraft fees, paper fees, check fees, transfer fees, change fees, charge-back fees, foreign transaction fees, minimum balance fees, inactivity fees, false decline fees, et cetera, et cetera.

In comparison, popular cryptocurrency payment gateways like Bitpay and Coinpayments charge between 0.5 perecent and 1 percent per transaction. In most cases, a cryptocurrency account in the form of a digital wallet is entirely free and unless one chooses to invest in cryptocurrency hardware wallets or prepaid cards, other than the transaction fee, using cryptocurrency as money costs absolutely nothing.

2. Sensitive Data

Banks and credit institutions, as well as retailers and service providers, obtain and retain too much of their customers’ personal and financial information. Details including our name, address, employers, social security number, net worth, assets, investments, account balances, credit score, credit line, and transaction history, along with everything we do and buy, who we associate with, when, where, etc. comprise our personal, professional and financial data sets. With traditional financial institutions and traditional fiat currency, we can no longer preserve our privacy. 

Cryptocurrency transactions provide an alternative by limiting the amount of transaction data to mere numbers also known as cryptocurrency wallet addresses and transaction IDs confirming that a wallet-to-wallet transaction took place. A cryptocurrency payment processor acting as a third party will typically require your name (and shipping address for the delivery of physical goods), but the rest of your information will remain private as long as you don’t connect your bank or credit card account and transact solely in BTC and altcoins.

3. International Use

Cryptocurrencies are a borderless means of exchange allowing for instant and cost-effective transactions across the world. There is no waiting, no international fees and no limitations as to who can or cannot send funds to whom or when and where those funds can be accessed. All that is needed is an internet-enabled device like a cellphone and someone without access to a banking institution is given an alternative solution with which they can pay bills, earn income, safe-keep their funds, make purchases and conduct business.

Using cryptocurrencies while traveling adds an extra layer of security and can be used as a remote source of emergency funds that can be accessed without an ID, a bank account, credit cards, a wire transfer or even a personal computer device.

4. Ecommerce

Accepting cryptocurrency online has never been easier. Shopify and Etsy merchants can select to accept BTC, BCH, and altcoins. Woocommerce and Easy Digital Downloads vendors can use WordPress plugins like Mycryptocheckout for the purpose. And then there’s Shapeshift which gives customers the choice to pay with dozens of cryptocurrencies. Shapeshift is integrated with cryptocurrency payment processors like Bitpay and Coingate, and cryptocurrency wallets like Coinomi and Keepkey.

Moreover, there is Purse.io, an online platform where users can buy items from Amazon with cryptocurrency and it is also integrated with Shapeshift, as are Magento and Openbazaar. Setting up cryptocurrency payments is super simple and quick and merchant transaction fees are 60-70 percent lower compared to fiat transaction fees.

5. No Charge Backs

Unfortunately, there are customers who make a purchase, receive the items they ordered and, perhaps, even use them only to cancel their payment. They can do this because fiat payments are not instant.

With cryptocurrencies, things are quite different. Once a transaction has occurred, there is no turning back. Funds ‘travel’ from one wallet to another, the transaction is recorded and it cannot be reversed. This is not to say that a customer cannot return an item and request a refund by communicating directly with the vendor. Of course they can. What they cannot do is place an order, pay for it, receive it and then get the sum they paid back on their account because of money back policies overseen by online payment processors and credit card companies.

Charge backs are meant to prevent fraud and yet they often accomplish the very opposite. In this instance, cryptocurrency works the same way as cash. After you’ve taken the item you paid for with cash, you can’t go back to the store with a damaged or used item, never mind empty-handed, and demand your money back.

6. Mobility

Mobile payments have become all the rage. Being able to use a smartphone in place of a credit card is awfully convenient.

From Paypal and Apple Pay to Mastercard’s Paypass and Visa’s Paywave with near-field communication (NFC) technology and modern POS terminals, getting the check has never been easier. And yet the same privacy and security issues arise as with the rest of traditional, fiat-based financial transactions, namely too much data in one place. All currently available mobile fiat payment processors store credit card information which include all of our financial information and more. Not to mention that all that data is online and on our mobile devices everywhere we go.

Cryptocurrencies are a safer digital cash option and are ideal for mobile payments by default due to their virtual, decentralized nature.

7. A Growing Market

Bitpay, one of the most successful crypto payment gateways, is processing $1 billion worth of transactions annually at a rate of a quarter million transactions per month. Coinpayments already serves millions of vendors in 200 countries and has just integrated with Bittorrent to give its 100 million users the option to pay with BTC and altcoins. Coingate serves 50,000 merchants and has processed hundreds of thousands of cryptocurrency payments, and Utrust just partnered with Payrexx and its 10,000 European merchants.

More integrations and partnerships between cryptocurrency payment processors and fiat payment processors are in the works and the market is expected to grow by 50 percent in the next two years. In particular, Foton announced plans to attract 100 million users by 2020 and offer competitive features including its own stablecoin, fiat pairs, atomic swaps, a loan and escrow service, and a payment card with loyalty rewards and cash back. 

So there is no doubt: millions of merchants all over the world accept cryptocurrencies, as do tens of thousands of websites.

8. Commercial Use

It has been estimated that some 20 million people worldwide own cryptocurrency. Most others have heard of bitcoin and many plan on adding it to their portfolio.

Square, a credit card payment processor serving merchants, employers and mobile payment users, is gradually out-competing Paypal while also increasing its profits through BTC sales. The majority of Square’s merchant customers have expressed interest in accepting bitcoin core and a 2017 Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance study confirmed that 40 percent of consumers would, indeed, like to be able to make purchases with BTC.

Countries with weaker than average fiat currencies tend to favor the use of cryptos. Turkey, Venezuela, Brazil, Australia and South Africa appear to have large numbers of cryptocurrency users. In fact, a whopping 80 percent of Australians would like to use cryptocurrencies for daily purchases. Merchants in Eastern Europe and small western European towns seem more open toward adding bitcoin as a method of payment. Even before the 2017 cryptocurrency bull market, more than 10 percent of Eastern Europeans reported using cryptocurrency in place of fiat for everyday purchases.

Crypto as Money

Nowadays, almost anything can be paid directly with cryptocurrencies: homes, condos, boats, cars, clothing, electronics, health and pet products, food, wine, accessories, plane tickets, vacations, tools, musical instruments, as well as dating services, professional services, internet services, and, of course crypto gear.

Without pointing out the obvious, let’s look at the most interesting things digital currencies can buy you:

•  Enjoy a Thai or Indian restaurant in Montreal or have Dutch pancakes in Aruba
•  Buy vintage furniture in Massachusetts or rent an office in Miami
•  See the Cerro Negro volcano in Nicaragua or charter a yacht in South Florida
•  Buy a Benz or a Beamer in California or a Rolex in Europe

The Market According to Experts

In January, a company called Bakkt, owned by the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) which also owns the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), will launch bitcoin futures which will be settled in BTC, not cash. Its partners include Microsoft, Starbucks and Pantera Capital. There will be no leverage trading, meaning that actual bitcoin will have to be bought and owned for the duration of the contract. Given that these are institutional investors, BTC’s volume is expected to reach new heights. The CEO of ICE and NYSE chairman Jeff Sprecher stated that digital assets are here to stay and that they “have a future in regulated markets.”

It is evident that the cryptocurrency industry has grown by leaps and bounds in the past 10 years since Bitcoin was born. Fintech is transforming the financial industry and more and more people are getting onboard. Shopping in-store and online is going fully digital but raising cyber security fears, which can be drastically reduced with a broader acceptance of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment.

Do you think payments in crypto will continue to trend? Is this the route to mass adoption? 

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

 

The post Eight Reasons to Use Cryptocurrency Payments in 2019 appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

Honoring Satoshi’s Vision: Toward a Better Crypto User Experience

This post about better crypto UX was written by venture capitalist David Gold. He is the CEO of Dapix, Inc, which launched the Foundation for Interwallet Operability (FIO) and FIO Protocol.

***

Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin whitepaper laid out an intoxicating vision for a “purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash” — free of involvement and interference from third-party intermediaries.

Also read: Outrage Over Union Bank of Nigeria’s Threat to Close Crypto-Related Accounts

Ten years later — despite much growth, shrinkage, excitement and hype — Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies in general, have yet to be put to any significant use in commerce, which is a key reason why crypto markets continue to face such extreme volatility.

Crypto is currently too difficult and risky to use. This why it has not achieved mainstream adoption. Many other cryptocurrency and token-utility protocols have been launched to create variations that are faster, cheaper and more able to handle complex transactions. But very few have focused on how to make them easier, safer and more comfortable for people to actually use.

Bad Utility Equates to Bad UX

Imagine stopping people in the street to show them what it is like to use cryptocurrency with the incoherent crypto addresses, the lack of obvious route to learn the progress of payments, and the irreversible transactions — even in the event of payment errors.

It seems reasonable to assume few would be comfortable using cryptocurrency to conduct an exchange of value.

Praising third-party intermediaries is considered heretical in the blockchain world. But from the everyday users’ perspective, they at least can provide greater confidence that a transaction of value proceeds as intended. Checks can minimize errors, and errors often have the opportunity to be corrected.

For Satoshi’s vision of a “purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash” to become a broad reality, the user experience of sending/receiving crypto must be greatly improved.

In fact, the user experience needs to be better than that of sending/receiving value in the fiat world because transactions are irreversible. Users need near certainty on the accuracy of their transaction details — including where funds are being sent, the amount of funds, the type of funds, and the purpose for which they are being sent.

But all this needs to be achieved without a trusted third-party intermediary.

Poor Attempt

Efforts to address blockchain usability in a decentralized manner to date have almost exclusively focused on solving only one piece of the problem — the concept of human-readable “wallet names” to eliminate the need to deal with incoherent public addresses.

Those attempts have failed to make any meaningful impact on usability for a number of reasons. First, many of the attempts at wallet names are as complex as the usability problem they attempt to solve. Next, some attempts have been blockchain-specific, meaning that a user would be faced with a wallet name for one token but not for other tokens in their wallet.

Others have created “walled gardens” requiring all users to utilize specific browser plugins or wallets to obtain greater usability, but solving nothing for the multitude of users interacting with different wallets. Even if any of these efforts were successful, wallet names themselves are an insufficient piece of the usability solution, as they do nothing to provide confidence about the accuracy of transaction details, nor shared context for the purpose of the payment.

Here We Go

It’s time for wallets and exchanges to change the paradigm and enable dramatic improvements in usability across all blockchains. By uniting around a decentralized Paypal-like protocol, we can finally break through the barriers on blockchain usability.

This protocol should be open sourced and available to all. In other words, every wallet and exchange should be able to participate. We need a protocol that works with existing blockchains rather than competes with them. We need a protocol that doesn’t require them to change in any way, and won’t sit in the middle of transactions. Rather, it should augment blockchains by enabling all wallets and exchanges to provide a decentralized suite of information and workflow not previously possible.

A protocol like this would enable the first wallet names that work across every token and coin. Crypto users would be able to send a request for payment from within one wallet to another wallet — virtually eliminating the possibility of errors in sending tokens or coins. Cross-chain metadata could work identically for every token or coin so that transfers of value, regardless of token or coin utilized, could include secure details on the purpose.

And these capabilities would only be the beginning. A raft of other usability solutions could be built if everyone gets involved.

Calm After the Storm

The volatility experienced by cryptocurrencies over the past year would greatly diminish if crypto just became more consumer-friendly.  As long as blockchain tokens and coins are limited to being primarily an alternative investment asset class, market adoption will be constrained.

The vision of a decentralized, peer-to-peer system for exchange of value is not only about accuracy in the ledger of transactions, it’s about the comfort and confidence of the user in the process of moving the value represented.

I’m optimistic that the whole industry is about to come together to solve these usability issues. Soon the average person on the street will not only be comfortable using cryptocurrency, but will finally find it superior to fiat currency for a variety of transactions.

Do you think a single protocol for interoperability between blockchains is the way to go? Will the industry unite to solve these pressing issues? 

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

The post Honoring Satoshi’s Vision: Toward a Better Crypto User Experience appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

A Brief Introduction to Voluntaryism for Crypto Neophytes

The blockchain space appeals to freethinkers, entrepreneurs, and visionaries. Many of these iconoclasts practice voluntaryism, although a philosophy which new entrants may have not heard about. This is because they entered into the ecosystem from the financial realm, and their sole focus has been on accumulating more wealth. This is a shame. The impetus for cypherpunks to build encrypted technologies arose from a spirit of sovereignty – not just moneymaking schemes. 

Also read: Nvidia Misses Q3 Revenue Target as Cryptocurrency Slump Weighs on Business

What Is Voluntaryism?

Sovereignty denotes a yearning for absolute individual independence. It means many people involved in crypto prefer to live freely, without having to genuflect before someone who claims to rule them; before some king, politician, or governing apparatus. This is the crux of voluntaryism.

Voluntaryists believe all human relationships and interactions should be as consensual as far as possible. They place the notion of “consent” as the North Star of reasoning within the conduit of ethical thinking.

Consent means no human has the moral right to coerce or force another human being into acting against their volition. If someone uses force to sate their whims, that action would be considered immoral and unjust.

In some ways, this philosophy marches in perfect lockstep with the golden rule to treat others the way you wish to be treated. No one wants to be forced into behaving a certain way. No one wants to be harmed or mistreated. Everyone wants to act on their own will, without having to capitulate to others while under duress.

The Barbarian’s Paradigm

By virtue of their philosophy, voluntaryists do not believe government is a moral institution. The organization is at odds with voluntaryist philosophy. Government is non-consensual by nature. Every law, edict, and regulation is effectively a threat of violence against peaceful people. No one automatically consents to government laws. A law is an enforced mandate.

For instance, if someone disobeys a law, a costumed officer will attempt to issue them a ticket or arrest them. If that person moves to defend themselves from that act of aggression, the officer will murder them if necessary.

All government officials disregard consent. They issue or enforce laws regardless if everyone agrees. Therefore, coercive government is the barbarian’s paradigm for social order; it is uncivilized, violent, hysterical, and revels in cultism. It’s sadistic to the extent people are indoctrinated from birth to believe this paradigm of violence is synonymous with “civilization.” In reality, it is uncivilized barbarism writ large on the soul of men.

Logical Conclusion: Anarchism

Without doubt, this means the voluntaryist is an anarchist. Since governments operate without consent, they can never be an acceptable organization within the context of voluntaryist philosophy. Anarchism is thus the logical conclusion of voluntaryism. 

However, most people hear the word “anarchy” and they lose their cool. Images of picturesque horror scenes rife with explosions, corpses and gore galore erupt in colorful crescendo via their mind’s eye.

They panic and reject the term ‘anarchy’ as a synonym of disorder. They view anarchy as a form of Lovecraftian madness palatable only to fringe academics, disillusioned teenagers, and bohemian punk rockers with cockney accents.

In reality, anarchy just means “without rulers.” It means no person or group has the right to rule over the rest of humanity. It does not imply bloodshed, bazookas, and bombs.

Edward Abbey said, “Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”

Bedfellows: Voluntaryism and Blockchain

It is no surprise the first technologists to think about using ciphers to ensure privacy and anonymity were voluntaryists. They were anarchists: crypto-anarchists. They built the architecture of technological anarchism, and they were heavily influenced by voluntaryist philosophy. From day one, they sought to use computational tools to generate more freedom.

Timothy May, the godfather of decentralized-encrypted technology, wrote his Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto while under the influence of Rothbardian thinking. May genuinely believed the ethics of voluntaryism. He set the tone for all future developments, including the creation of Bitcoin and all its anarchic features.

Rekindling the Flame of Freedom

To this day, charlatans with dollar signs in their eyes have eroded the voluntaryist vision of the crypto-anarchists. Instead of seeking to erase the barbarian’s paradigm, they focus on the sexual magnetism of “moon” and “Lambo.”

This is why internalizing the voluntaryist-anarchist roots of the crypto ecosystem is essential. Understanding this history will pave a path to a beautiful new world, and encourage people to embrace the purpose of the technology. It will help abolish government and put an end to the insanity of this uncivilized world. The voluntaryist mindset will act as a compass toward mass adoption and inspire true love of blockchain. In the process, it will rekindle the flame of freedom.

Are you familiar with voluntaryism? Do you still believe voluntaryism is important for the creation of novel technologies? 

---

Images courtesy of Twitter and Shutterstock

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

 

 

 

 

The post A Brief Introduction to Voluntaryism for Crypto Neophytes appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

Beyond Government: Embracing Self-Governance and Rejecting Mainstream Erotica

There are many new entrants in the crypto ecosystem yearning for regulations and praising government. More folks with these notions emerge regularly. They believe regulatory oversight is necessary to provide crypto with a sense of “respectability.”

Also read: Latest Release of Badger Wallet Supports SLP and Wormhole Tokens

For these individuals, political involvement in crypto is a foregone conclusion. However, they forget that regulation is a threat of harm concealed by fancy rhetoric.

Regulation stifles innovation and chokes the entrepreneurial spirit. It is antithetical to the technological imagination and it is wholly uncivilized. The crypto industry must ultimately reject regulations and work toward embracing self-governance models. They must begin paving the path toward freedom. That is true “respectability.”

Mainstream Erotica at Crypto Conferences

I attend a lot of cryptocurrency conferences. As the communications ambassador for bitcoin.com, I speak on many panels with other professionals. I have had the opportunity to witness our ecosystem evolve and change and suffer. I have seen the crypto-anarchist dream eroded by mainstream erotica; the erotica of violence and barbarism. These sycophants have brought their love of politics and worship of government into a traditionally anti-government space.

Some of this infiltration is expected. As a technology and community grows, it tends to absorb the most deeply embedded aspects of the dominant culture. This means people from the legacy financial system and various political sectors will begin to influence the space with their antiquated, violent ideas. It is already happening.

Trust in Regulations!

At the most recent event I attended in Las Vegas, called World Crypto Con, I was on a panel about crypto adoption. At one point of the discussion, the moderator asked the gentleman next to me if he trusted government to issue currency and handle the economy.

Without missing a beat, he said, “yes, I trust them.”

He went on to explain the importance of having more government in our space to provide it with more respectability and allow cryptocurrency to continue growing and spreading. He made this non-argument just after I explained how governments devalue currency and use inflation to initiate silent theft on the population.

Government Stablecoins

Another member of the panel works for a company called Stronghold that tried to put the U.S. dollar on the blockchain in the form of a stablecoin. She made the case that crypto must be attached to the dollar to gain respectability and be ready for mass adoption.

However, that is not the purpose of cryptocurrency. Connecting it to the legacy system is backwards. It is akin to throwing away a decade of innovation in order to capitulate to the broken system. It is delirium and madness. I call it selling out, and it takes a certain lack of courage to travel down this route.

Keeping the Ecosystem on Track

What I have experienced is still just my personal experience. It is not absolute evidence of what’s happening in our space, but I believe a glance at the common language used across our industry provides evidence of devolution into mainstream politicking. In this sense, the industry needs two things to happen in order to get the ecosystem back on track:

• Anarchist and libertarian leaders and role models. The cryptocurrency space needs more entrepreneurs who are willing to work in the space on principle rather than just for the purpose of earning a fortune. Making money is great, as I have said elsewhere, but in order to truly better our way of life and move blockchain tech forward, the values of freedom must be promoted regularly. This will help keep the detritus from congealing within the industry and engineering a poisonous environment.
• Mass Adoption. Speaking on liberty an freedom is not enough, though. More importantly, everyone in the space should also be racing to spread cryptocurrency far and wide. It’s not some random and sketchy blockchain product that is the killer application for the technology. Cryptocurrency is the killer app. And it is the conduit through which people will realize their freedom. If the technology is not massively accepted across society, it is likely the ecosystem will continue to breed pseudo-entrepreneurs who loathe freedom. They will be the ones interested in perpetuating Ponzi schemes and selling multilevel marketing gimmicks. This is why also I spend a lot of my time setting up crypto wallets and giving away free bitcoin cash. 

Embracing Self-Governance

The truth is the tech is just a tool. The cypherpunks created it to provide the individual with more freedom, privacy and autonomy. That is true. However, people can still wield it to hurt others. That is not what the industry wants or needs. In order to push the community forward, everyone must embrace self-governance.

Self-governance is the realization that the community possesses the tools to govern itself. It does not needs gods or masters. Bureaucrats do not have the acumen or integrity to make decisions for blockchain participants. Members of the community now have the technology to weed out bad actors and promote a healthy, thriving ecosystem.

The crypto community must be diligent, though. Mainstream erotica is all-pervasive. The political mentality pulses with life in all the streets and alleys of modern culture; and like a spreading plague, it will exploit weaknesses in the body of society in order to thoroughly infect it.

Rigidly maintaining the self-governance mentality is thus the only way to combat politics and create a truly peaceful and civilized world.

Do you believe we can oust government and create an ecosystem of self-governance? Is government necessary at all? 

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

 

The post Beyond Government: Embracing Self-Governance and Rejecting Mainstream Erotica appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

Weaponized Money: Thoughts on the Creation and Control of Bitcoin

Some tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists believe government devised and built bitcoin as weaponized money to enslave the people. They think Big Brother made the technology to subjugate everyone, and that politicians are somehow benefiting from the technology. In an odd twist of logic, these people believe bitcoin represents a state-sponsored tool for control.

Also read: Regulations Roundup: Shenzhen Court Recognizes Bitcoin, Coinbase Lawsuit Dismissed

Bitcoin Was Built by Crypto-Anarchists

Government did not create bitcoin as weaponized money. The opposite is true. Crypto-anarchists constructed bitcoin to undermine and destabilize governments. The exact creator of bitcoin is unknown. The individual’s pseudonym is Satoshi Nakamoto but it could also be a group of people. No one knows.

However, we are intimately acquainted with the people who fleshed out the original blueprint for bitcoin. Cypherpunks like David Chaum, Timothy May, Eric Hughes, and Whitfield Diffie are responsible for declaring the vision for crypto. None of these people cared for governments. They were mainly anarchists who wanted to use dissident tech to uphold freedom, privacy, and anonymity.

In A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto, written in 1993, Eric Hughes said, “We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.”

Hughes continued: “Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can’t be shut down.”

Characteristics of Bitcoin

The characteristics of bitcoin are imbued with the aforesaid cypherpunk features.

The fact governments cannot manipulate the circulating supply of bitcoin means they can’t defraud people through arbitrary hyperinflation. The fact bitcoin is peer-to-peer and censorship-resistant implies governments can’t freeze accounts, halt transactions, or steal money. These features attest to the purpose of the tech.

Bitcoin’s characteristics are not something governments would purposely build into a currency to control people. Its features are antithetical to control. Why would government make a decentralized currency that does not support its agenda?

Governments Could Be Co-Opting Bitcoin

However, there is a major caveat. Governments did not build bitcoin or develop its features, but they may be trying to co-opt it. For instance, Bitcoin Core developers have neutered many of bitcoin’s anti-government features. They have striped away bitcoin’s digital signature architecture, and failed to scale the block size of bitcoin, turning it into a milquetoast technology.

The Core development team and the company Blockstream initiated this questionable maneuver. Some people believe they are being funded by “globalists” and other big government cronies.

One article claimed, “Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group – seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream’s $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group – whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.”

Jeff Berwick also commented on this issue in an older Dollar Vigilante article called “Bitcoin War Begins – Bitcoin Cash Rises 50% While Bitcoin Drops $1,000 In 24 Hours,” writing:

Who owns Blockstream? Well, one of the main shareholders is insurance giant AXA. CEO and Chairman of both the Bilderberg Group and AXA are the same person, Henri de Castries. Yes, essentially, the person most in control of bitcoin development is the Chairman of Bilderberg; the place that I have gone for the last three years to expose from the outside! And, even one time, briefly, from the inside.

I am not making any statements regarding the veracity of the above claims, as they hint at conspiracy themselves. What matters is that bitcoin’s cypherpunk features have been eroded for the purpose of control. Fact: central bankers put money into bitcoin. Then the code began to change, making transaction fees soar and confirmation times slow to a snail’s pace in late 2017.

Satoshi’s Vision: Bitcoin Cash to the Rescue

I still believe freedom-lovers can win. No one can stop the signal. The genie is out of the bottle and there is now a competing market of alternative coins. People can choose the money they love. This means Fedcoin is just another token in a vast market of currencies, and no one will consciously use coins that are inefficient or engender slavery.

The more honest version of bitcoin — bitcoin cash — is now widely available for use. It is Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision. It has expanded block size and super low fees. If cryptocurrency connoisseurs are going to succeed in their mission to thwart government, tools like bitcoin cash are going to be what they use to win. These are the crypto-anarchist tools that the early cypherpunks envisioned.

So no. Government certainly did not build bitcoin. But if the community forgets its cypherpunk origins, politicians may subvert the tech and use it against us. Eternal vigilance in this ecosystem is mandatory for the preservation of privacy and freedom.

Who do you think created bitcoin? Did the cypherpunks or government build it?

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

The post Weaponized Money: Thoughts on the Creation and Control of Bitcoin appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More

The Death of Hype, Amara’s Law and the Crypto-Anarchist Dream

The hype surrounding blockchain and cryptocurrency has simmered to a dull roar. Last December, the markets spiked as traders drooled over the thought of lining their pockets. They believed they would be billionaires. They had erotic dreams of lambos, mansions, hookers and blow. Many of them embraced a get-rich-quick, shit-brained mentality. They put speculation over philosophy. The majority of them got financially destroyed for their greed. In their fragilista-like thinking, they either forgot the purpose of the technology or came into the space without acknowledging the crypto-anarchism that created it. 

Also read: Markets Update: Stable Cryptocurrencies and Unstable Pegged Coins

Novel Technology Is Fueled by Hype

Anyone who has studied technological trends could have predicted what happened. Any novel technology is originally fueled by hype. When the technology emerges, new entrants see dollar signs. They want to exploit the technology to get rich. These people are pseudo-entrepreneurs or unprincipled traders. They don’t give a damn about changing the world, much less simplifying life for the average person.

There is nothing wrong with earning money or getting rich. That is what the capitalist spirit and entrepreneurial drive are all about. However, if people’s sole focus is to just to make money, they are doomed to failure. There has to be an underlying drive or motivating purpose. Without that fundamental principle guiding the entrepreneur, people are likely to go broke, fall prey to scams, or simply get rich but be unhappy.

Amara’s Law

There is an explanation for why early technologies succumb to bad actors and people with unwholesome motivations. Amara’s Law provides an apt summation. The law states: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”

This overestimation of technology’s effect is accompanied by the fraudsters, pseudo-entrepreneurs, and other unsavory types. When technologies emerge, people take advantage of the newness; they take advantage of the newbies. In this timeframe, there is a swirl of misunderstanding surrounding the tech, and this is fertile ground for the creation of victims. Scam victims. The victims of hype. And victims of greed. In this regard, “overestimation” is a synonym for “hype,” which leads to bad behavior and avarice within the industry.

Consolidation: Weeding out the Bad Actors and Scam Artists

However, in the long term, the ecosystem naturally weeds out the bad actors. Many of them get thrown in government cages. The projects that aren’t scams simply fail, and much of the greed begins to dissipate as reality sets in. This is a consolidation phase. In the cryptocurrency environment, this consolidation phase is propped up by self-governance.

Currently, the crypto ecosystem is trying to discover ways to promote self-governance, rather than locking people in cages. This means developers are considering platforms to help vet companies within the space. Indeed, the community must fashion an environment of self-governance to stymie politicians and bureaucrats.

Many in the ecosystem pontificate on the evil nature of scams and money grubbers, but then they vie for government to come solve all the problems. This is muddy thinking, and it verges on hypocrisy. If a person loathes fraudsters, the last thing they are going to do is invite government goons into the melee. Government is one of the largest criminal organizations and conduits of fraud to ever exist. Summoning them would be like calling a murderer to prevent murder. It makes zero sense.

Reawakening to the Purpose of Cryptocurrency

People must acknowledge where cryptocurrency came from. They must recall the past in order to make decisions for the future. If they want to get lost in the hype, they should at least do some research on the cypherpunks and crypto-anarchists. Crypto-anarchy was the underlying motivating factor. It’s the reason for this technology.

In the long term, I don’t believe people will underestimate the technology via Amara’s law. The fact crypto was built to undermine the state apparatus is an idea that can never be underestimated, and thus people will begin embracing it. The beautiful thing about cryptocurrency is it changes people’s psychology. It teaches them about sound money, by rewiring their brain. It also reminds them they own themselves, and that no one deserves to extort the fruits of their labor. The crypto-anarchist dream, then, is the real source of hype – not all the speculation and ramblings about getting rich.

Do you agree that crypto-anarchism should be the real driving force of cryptocurrency adoption? Let us know in the comments section below.

---

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

---

OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

The post The Death of Hype, Amara’s Law and the Crypto-Anarchist Dream appeared first on Bitcoin News.

via Sterlin Lujan

Read More