Rick Falkvinge: Imminent Financial Crisis Perfect Opportunity to Convert the Masses to Crypto

Rick Falkvinge: Imminent Financial Crisis Perfect Opportunity to Convert the Masses to Crypto

Warnings of an imminent financial crisis are in the media more than ever before. But could such an event be the tipping point that puts Bitcoin and cryptocurrency firmly into the mainstream? Politician and tech entrepreneur Rick Falkvinge says it would be the perfect time to finally convert people to crypto. 

Also read: Billions Living Under Authoritarian Regimes Need Bitcoin Says Human Rights Activist

“Storm Clouds Building”

A global financial crisis is imminent – and we’re not prepared, experts have warned. The deputy head of the International Monetary Fund, David Lipton, said in December that he sees “storm clouds building” and fears “the work on crisis prevention is incomplete.” While Janet Yellen, the former chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, has said the loss of authority by banking regulators and a move toward deregulation are also warning signs of another economic disaster. Rick Falkvinge: Imminent Financial Crisis Perfect Opportunity to Convert the Masses to Crypto

A sustained trade war between the U.S. and China could damage the global economy, it has been warned, and the level of global debt has reached record levels. Combined with the risk of leveraged loans and a lack of tools available to deal with a future crisis, it would seem the warning signs are everywhere.

But what would this mean for the crypto-world? Could a crash do the crypto-market any good – as has been seen in Venezuela – or could it see people trying to cash out as quickly by selling their digital assets at the highest possible price?

Make Or Break Opportunity

The founder of Sweden’s libertarian Pirate Party, Rick Falkvinge, told news.Bitcoin.com that not only is a future financial crisis on the horizon, it will be the “make or break” opportunity to convert the masses to using cryptocurrency. “It’s like watching a mountainside full of wet snow, you can’t tell what’s going to set off the avalanche but you know for sure the avalanche is coming,” he said of the current warning signs.Rick Falkvinge: Imminent Financial Crisis Perfect Opportunity to Convert the Masses to Crypto

Since august 15, 1971 [the date of the Nixon shock] the bubble has been inflating. The situation is what we call metastable, it’s kind of like when we have one of the spinning tops. It stays stable for a little while but it can’t stay stable forever.” 

But Mr. Falkvinge, a proponent of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and an evangelist for digital rights, went on to say that the future crash will be the ultimate opportunity to convert the masses to cryptocurrency.

And the crypto world would have to prove that digital currency is of use and a better option than fiat, Mr. Falkvinge added. “We will have to make the case,” he said. “We have to provide the value for it to be a better offering. At the end of the day it’s got to deliver. That’s the point I’m coming to full circle here. At the end of the day a crunch – credit crunch, stock market crunch, housing market crunch – is when we really have an excellent shot at introducing the world to crypto and using it to break free of this nickel-and-diming that’s so prevalent in existing markets.”

He added: “We have to make the case. We have to provide the value for it to be a better offering. That’s a once in a lifetime opportunity and it’s not coming back. That’s the make or break.”

Do you think a financial crisis could do the crypto world good? Tell us in the comments below.


Images courtesy of: Shutterstock and The Pirate Party. 


Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post Rick Falkvinge: Imminent Financial Crisis Perfect Opportunity to Convert the Masses to Crypto appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Bitfinex Introduces Top Secret Banking System

Bitfinex Introduces Top Secret Banking System

Bitfinex has restored the ability of customers to make fiat currency deposits. Details of its new deposit system remain shrouded in secrecy, however, with the exchange going to extraordinary lengths to conceal the identity of the bank(s) in question. Its “distributed” system, designed to circumvent censorship, has brought the critics out in full force.

Also read: The Daily: Tether Regains Ground, Coinbase Does Dublin

Convoluted Fiat Deposit Process

The Daily: Bitfinex Building Decentralized Exchange, Bitpanda Adding ZcashAfter being forced to suspend fiat currency deposits last week, when HSBC terminated its proxy banking relationship, Bitfinex assured customers that an alternative would soon be in place. And the exchange, the world’s second largest by trading volume, has been as good as its word, confirming its new banking relationship earlier today (Oct. 16). However, the opaque nature of the statement, and the odd language it was couched in, have raised more questions than they have answered.

“Today we are introducing a new, improved and increasingly resilient fiat depositing system for sending fiat currencies to Bitfinex,” began the blog post. “This new process will once again allow KYC-verified users from around the world to initiate deposits across USD, GBP, JPY and EUR.”

The exchange then proceeded to describe a complex process by which customers must deposit a minimum of $10,000 of fiat currency from now on. This involves creating a deposit request to signal interest, waiting up to 48 hours for Bitfinex to approve it, sending money to the bank account, and then waiting six to 10 days for the funds to clear. Coinbase, by way of comparison, takes an average of three to five days to clear bank transfers.

Customers Sworn to Secrecy

Bitfinex Introduces Top Secret Banking SystemBitfinex’s statement ends on a defiant note, with the exchange asserting: “We believe this system to be significantly more durable in the face of sustained attacks by our competition and their supporters. Ongoing campaigns against us will only result in our company becoming stronger and better.”

While Bitfinex undoubtedly has its share of haters who would like to see the platform toppled, most traders simply seek clarity. The inability of the exchange’s operators to publish a full audit of Tether, exacerbated by its own nebulous banking arrangements, has not helped matters. Still mindful of what happened to Mt. Gox, the crypto community would like reassurance that funds are safe.

There may be serious negative effects with this information becoming public.

The Block has revealed that Tether has obtained a new Caribbean bank, after recently severing ties with Nobles. It’s now believed to have shacked up with the Bahamas-based Deltec Bank. However, it is unclear whether the same bank will also handle Bitfinex’s customer deposits.

Anyone attempting to initiate the new fiat deposit process on the exchange is greeted by a disclaimer that warns in almost apocalyptic terms: “Divulging this info could damage not just yourself and Bitfinex but the entire digital token ecosystem … you are cautioned that there may be serious negative effects with this information becoming public.”

Bitfinex Introduces Top Secret Banking System

The status of Bitfinex/Tether is becoming a new battleground in the cryptocurrency community, with lines drawn and both tribes seemingly incapable of backing down. On the one hand, there are those who are certain of impropriety of some kind and are waiting to be vindicated when the house of cards topples. On the other hand, there are the defenders of Bitfinex, who are weary of fighting what they deem to be endless FUD. Today’s statement has done nothing to resolve the impasse.

What are your thoughts on Bitfinex’s latest banking arrangements? Let us know in the comments section below.


Images courtesy of Shutterstock.


Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post Bitfinex Introduces Top Secret Banking System appeared first on Bitcoin News.

“Negative Interest” Is the Latest Government Scheme to Deter Saving

“Negative Interest” Is The Latest Government Scheme to Deter Saving

Sweden’s central bank has introduced a controversial new measure that will deter its citizens from saving. The oxymoronic “negative interest” now paid out on tax accounts is technically designed to stimulate the economy. In reality, all it will do is encourage people to spend rather than save, boosting government figures for economic growth while disadvantaging society. It’s merely the latest example of governments debasing their citizens’ savings in favor of debt-fueled consumerism.

Also read: Norway Establishes New Rules for Crypto Service Providers

Swedes Kiss Goodbye to Saving Incentives Thanks to Negative Interest

“Negative Interest” Is The Latest Government Scheme to Deter SavingOnline tax accounts are a popular saving scheme in Sweden that up until now has benefited people and politicians alike. The national saving program enables fiat savings to be placed in online accounts, which the government maintains on behalf of the people. To date, the initiative has been extraordinarily successful, encouraging Swedes to put away around 100 billion Swedish kronor (~$11 billion USD) while earning interest, and serving as a cheap source of capital for the government.

The introduction of negative interest, set at -0.5%, will give Swedes zero incentive to place their savings in the scheme, knowing that their wealth will be diminishing with each passing year. The official reasoning for the new policy is to stimulate the economy and encourage consumer spending. Born out of a global obsession with growth at all costs, this mindset has left billions with no real savings to speak of, and conditioned an entire generation to “spend now, pay back later”, racking up vast debt in the process.

Spend Now, Regret Later

“Negative Interest” Is The Latest Government Scheme to Deter SavingGovernments are meant to enact fiscal policies that will benefit their citizens and serve as a net good for the economy. But in a world which favors short-term gains over sustainable growth, saving money for tomorrow has become almost taboo. One of the factors behind Bitcoin’s rise is a collective weariness with debased national currencies from a populace given little incentive to accrue them. The growth of the property market can be interpreted as another example of people seeking refuge in one of the few stores of value available to them.

The extraordinary financial stimulus measure enacted in Sweden has actually been blessed by the International Monetary Fund, which in a recent statement opined that “clearer signs that inflation is on a sustained uptrend are needed before unwinding monetary accommodation [in Sweden]…at this stage an accommodative monetary stance remains appropriate.” As the FT reports, however, the country’s central Riksbank “has been accused of shirking responsibility to maintain financial stability, encouraging spiralling house prices and consumer debt.”

“Negative Interest” Is The Latest Government Scheme to Deter SavingLudwig von Mises, founder of the neo-Austrian School of Economics, first called this trend back in the early 20th century, writing of “The popularity of inflation and credit expansion, the ultimate source of the repeated attempts to render people prosperous by credit expansion…The boom is called good business, prosperity, and upswing. Its unavoidable aftermath, the readjustment of conditions to the real data of the market, is called crisis, slump, bad business, depression.” He continued:

People rebel against the insight that the disturbing element is to be seen in the malinvestment and the overconsumption of the boom period and that such an artificially induced boom is doomed.

This “malinvestment” – uneconomic decisions made due to perverse incentives – can be seen playing out in supposedly advanced economies, from Sweden to Japan, the UK to the US. Growth at all costs is the narrative of our time that must be relentlessly pursued. For so long as governments maintain a monopoly on money, they will be free to weaponize it to suit their own narrow agendas, no matter how much their self-serving policies may disadvantage the people. Should a mass exodus from fiat currencies to decentralized digital money ultimately occur, governments will only have themselves to blame.

Do you think governments deliberately discourage saving in their quest to stimulate consumer spending? Let us know in the comments section below.


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, and Wikipedia.


Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post “Negative Interest” Is the Latest Government Scheme to Deter Saving appeared first on Bitcoin News.

PR: Crypto Exchange Bleutrade Confirms Its Presence In Malta

Crypto Exchange Bleutrade Confirms Its Presence In Malta

This is a paid press release, which contains forward looking statements, and should be treated as advertising or promotional material. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support this product/service. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the press release.

The company, founded in Brazil, emerged in 2014 in the digital currency market as an innovative Exchange, working with a platform focused to simplify trades among cryptocurrencies. It is also the first Exchange in Latin America and has announced the opening of an office in Malta which takes with it almost 300 thousand users.

“We have spent some time immersed in studies of national legislation, articulated partnerships were selected and established plus we have attended some events herewith the government. Now the Island of Malta will be the scene of a new beginning full of news, “said Marlos Jennis, responsible for Bleutrade’s International Relationships.

Access the site

According to Felipe Melo, CEO, this transition arises at a time when the Mediterranean region presents true forms of becoming one of the first centers of world reference for blockchain and cryptocurrencies companies: “We went through a few countries and chose Malta mainly for legal security, which will give us more freedom when starting new services, besides in the island we find human resources with great potential.”

Regulators, in general, have been cracking down on cryptocurrency exchanges since the beginning of 2017, leading to several difficulties in such operations. Following the release of the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, announcing that Malta ‘aims to be the global trailblazers in the regulation of blockchain-based businesses and jurisdiction of quality and choice for world class fintech companies’, Bleutrade is committed to being a part of this progressive world that will enable the writing of new history for its users.

Bleutrade also plans to add fiat currency ,like Dollar and Euro, to its platform once it is installed in the Mediterranean. The exchange today does not work with the Real currency, but seems to have partnered with the new exchange BitRecife, placed in Brazil, in order to enable crypto transfers without mining fees.

Marcos Vinicius, Bleutrade’s Advisor, affirms that the scenario seeks to a friendly jurisdiction place for the cryptocurrency sector, the key point that led Bleutrade to extend to the island. As Malta presented itself a step ahead of the market trend, it attracted major exchanges from the market such as Binance, Okex and now Bleutrade.

Contat email Address
wanessarossiter@bleu.com.br

Supporting Link
https://bleutrade.com

This is a paid press release. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the promoted company or any of its affiliates or services. 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 content, goods or services mentioned in the press release.

The post PR: Crypto Exchange Bleutrade Confirms Its Presence In Malta appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Raising the Dead: Is Bitcoin Cash Fiat Currency?

Raising the Dead: Is Bitcoin Cash Fiat Currency?

Since the inception of cryptocurrency, some critics have dubbed it “just another fiat money.” This has been the wail of anti-crypto combatants. They have succumbed to grasping at straws in order to manufacture any rebuttal against the thing they loathe. It doesn’t matter how valid the argument is so long as it satisfies their desire to smear crypto. 

Also read: A Third of Humanity Remains Financially Excluded

Non-Argument

Using this kind of non-argument is akin to raising the dead. When one cannot count on truth to win the day, they reach back in time to deploy old, tired bromides. Jimmy Song performed his own ritual for the dead during a debate with Roger Ver at the Coinsbank Cruise on September 10th.

Instead of articulating a legitimate problem with bitcoin cash, Jimmy claimed it is a “centralized fiat money.” This is virtually the same broken premise crypto-antagonists have trotted out ever since Satoshi penned the white paper, including naysayers like Peter Schiff. It was a tragedy to witness, because fiat currency means something entirely different than what Jimmy believed.

What is Fiat Currency?

Fiat currency is money that is issued by decree or formal authorization. To be more specific, by decree means it is backed by a government’s alleged authority, and then enforced on the population by law — at the barrel of a gun. Generally, when a money is decreed by government, using other kinds of competing paper money is considered a criminal act.

For example, when Bernard Von Nothaus created the Liberty Dollar and attempted to put it into circulation, thugs in costumes raided his company headquarters. They put him in jail and charged him with counterfeiting and fraud.

Raising the Dead: Is Bitcoin Cash Fiat Currency?
Roger Ver

No one is forcing anyone to use bitcoin cash. No men in costumes are coming to arrest those who use bitcoin cash. It is an opt-in, voluntary cryptocurrency.

Here is the definition of “fiat” according to Investopedia:

“Fiat money is currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity.”

Why Bitcoin Cash is not Fiat currency

This is why bitcoin cash, or any other crypto, is not fiat. It is not decreed or authorized by government. It is not “legal tender.” It is possible that a digital currency can eventually be decreed, but then it is likely the “cryptocurrency” in question will not be cryptocurrency in the traditional sense.

For example, the Russian government has talked about creating the “Crypto Ruble,” which would act as their version of cryptocurrency. The problem is it would not be minable, and it would be manipulable by that government. A true cryptocurrency would not possess these “features.”

Jimmy’s Arguments

Jimmy claimed bitcoin cash was fiat currency, because he believed it is “authorized authoritatively.” Jimmy mentioned bitcoin cash was “paternalistic and Keynesian.” He also said it was “controlled by a central authority.”

Raising the Dead: Is Bitcoin Cash Fiat Currency?
Jimmy Song, left.

Bitcoin cash is an open-source and peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that anyone can get involved in and use. It is not “Keynesian.” The amount of cryptocurrency issued into existence cannot be arbitrarily determined. It is determined by the protocol, and is the exact same as bitcoin: 21 million units will be minted by year 2140.

Keynesian economists believe the economy should be controlled and stabilized by government printing of money to prevent economic catastrophe. The bitcoin cash protocol functions antithetically to Keynesian ideology. No one can arbitrarily inflate or deflate the supply of bitcoin cash.

Clearly, Jimmy did not read the primary source on Keynesian economics as Roger pointed out.

Crypto Centralization

Jimmy might have only been trying to argue that bitcoin cash is centralized. However, that is a MUCH DIFFERENT argument than claiming bitcoin cash is fiat. Of course, most people who claim some crypto is “centralized” do not really define what they mean by “centralized.” Bitcoin and bitcoin cash are also both a bit centralized in terms of mining operations. However, the problem is overstated.

Mining in bitcoin and bitcoin cash is more centralized as a result of limited adoption. This means only a handful of mining pools control the networks. However, the more users that begin to adopt cryptocurrency, the more mining operations will appear. This will mitigate the problem of centralization. Regardless, what matters is cryptocurrency remains censorship resistant.

In this regard, bitcoin cash is more censorship resistant than bitcoin core, which has had transactions censored because they got stuck in the mempool when fees skyrocketed. In this sense, one can make the case that bitcoin core is less censorship resistant than bitcoin cash. Therefore, bitcoin core is more “centralized.”

Crypto Paternalism and the Case for Op-Codes

Jimmy’s claim that bitcoin cash is paternalistic was the most problematic comment of the debate. A paternalistic cryptocurrency would mean that it is controlled by an oligarchic cult of developers. In terms of the ecosystem, bitcoin cash does not fit this criteria. It is truly open source in the sense that developers have wide-ranging leeway to build protocols on top of it.

Many of the op-codes have been re-enabled on the bitcoin cash protocol. This means developers have the ability to create new tools and programs. Some have already been developed, such as the Wormhole protocol and platforms like Memo.cash. Ironically, this is impossible on the bitcoin core network because of a mixture of high fees, disabled op-codes, and developer hegemony.

If anything, bitcoin core is more “paternalistic” and strict in terms of who has the right to develop on top of the protocol in a truly open source fashion. What protocol is really the most “paternalistic”?

Raising the Dead: Is Bitcoin Cash Fiat Currency?

Conclusion: Mind your Argument, Jimmy

In the end, Jimmy could not muster a strong argument against bitcoin cash so he resurrected a long-dead one and resorted to hand-wringing and arm-waving. The tragedy is there are certainly questions that need to be addressed regarding bitcoin cash, but it being a “fiat money” is not one of them.

This suggests Jimmy did not intend on making a case against bitcoin cash, but instead wanted to incite drama during a debate. It was just surprising that he would have premised his whole position on an argument that some people make against bitcoin core itself. That alone should have signaled to him that he was reaching.

Do you bitcoin or bitcoin cash is fiat currency? Let us know in the comments section below.


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Cryptocomes, and Coinsbank Cruise


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 Raising the Dead: Is Bitcoin Cash Fiat Currency? appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Wendy McElroy: Free-Market Law Enforcement for Crypto

Free-Market Law Enforcement for Crypto

The Satoshi Revolution: A Revolution of Rising Expectations.
Section 4: State Versus Society
Chapter 9, Part 6

Government is a law factory. It passes laws in the same manner that another type of factory extrudes metal molding…But, whereas a factory which extrudes metal molding is providing a product which is useful to the citizens generally, and which certain citizens will purchase voluntarily; the government factory extrudes compulsion which is useful principally to the government, itself, but is purchased [through taxes and other ‘fees’] in advance by the people, who are never in a position to refuse to buy.

-Robert LeFevre, The Nature of Man and His Government

A key difference between state and society: the latter does not force people to buy products or services they do not want. Society does not require them to use central banks, to purchase law enforcement, or to finance military protection against foreign nations. People can decline that type of product altogether, or they can use a competing private supplier.

By contrast, the state compels the purchase of such products on the grounds that they are essential to the social good. Not only that, government claims that monopolies are needed to act as trusted third parties (TTPs).

At the core of the conflict between state and society lies antithetical views of TTPs. The state insists on a neutral or benevolent definition; that is, a TTP is an entity that facilitates the quality or honesty of interactions between people who invest it with trust. The description can be accurate. People can use a lawyer, for example, as an intermediary in a business deal. But a TTP is neutral or benevolent only if no one is forced to use or to finance it.

Both groups, like the cypherpunks, and individuals, like Satoshi Nakamoto highlighted a bitter irony in what the word “trusted” had come to mean in TTPs. The word was a mockery of itself. A state TTP could not be trusted to act on behalf of those forced to consume its products and services; it always acted in its own interests. The world badly needed alternate systems and approaches for which no trust was necessary because transactions could be verified independently.

The blockchain was designed to be a law unto itself, with transfers that anyone can verify. That’s why it is transparent, immutable, and decentralized. It is “trustless,” in the best sense of the word. The blockchain was also designed to prevent occasional acts of personal fraud by making payments irreversible and using time stamps that avoid double spending.

But fighting occasional bad actors, like people who do not deliver paid-for goods, is not the blockchain’s primary purpose. Nor should it be. Whenever human beings exchange, some fraud will occur because human nature contains a streak of dishonesty. One might say this is unfortunate, but then, one might ask:  compared to what? Peer-to-peer crypto and decentralized exchanges should not be judged against a standard of perfection. They should be judged by how effectively they accomplish their primary purpose: to fight the pervasive institutionalized crimes committed by the state against society—that is, against individuals—especially through central banking and fiat currency.

The strategic genius of making TTPs obsolete by replacing and ignoring them is underestimated because it is usually confined to the digital realm. In fact, the strategy has application across society, and crypto is part of a long political tradition of what has been called prevention. Viewing crypto through this lens offers different perspectives and insights, which are entirely compatible with personal freedom.

 

Crypto as Part of Prevention Tradition

Crypto protects individuals from the devastating institutionalized crimes of the state by allowing them to avoid central banks and to retain the private data that constitutes power over their lives.

The libertarian Robert LeFevre was one of the best theorists on how to prevent crime, especially those committed by the state against society. He asked, “how can a society best ensure private justice?” He answered: pre-emptive defenses that avoid crime before it happens. This contrasted sharply with how most libertarian theorists approached the question of private justice; they almost entirely focused on issues such as restitution versus retribution or on how justice enforcement agencies should be structured. All of these issues became dynamic, however, only after a rights violation had occurred. Like Satoshi, LeFevre wanted a system that prevented the institutionalized crimes of the state from happening in the first place.

There are striking parallels between LeFevre and Satoshi. LeFevre was trying to avoid and replace a TTP: traditional law enforcement, including the court system, which were government monopolies. The two men’s motivations were similar. LeFevre saw law enforcement as a massive failure, or far worse. Under the guise of providing justice, it oppressed individuals by regulating almost every activity short of breathing itself. Equally, Satoshi knew that central banks and fiat were massive failures, or far worse. Under the guise of providing financial stability and protection, they looted the wealth of individuals through mechanisms such as inflation and transferred it to those in authority.

Both men advocated private institutions that did not confront their state counterparts in a civil-rights context, but which prevented a need for them. LeFevre wrote, “Is government the only device we know of self-protection? No, it is not. Voluntary insurance is another device. So are private policemen, private organizations such as the American Legion, night watchmen, merchant police, the Triple A and perhaps a score of others…” (The foregoing is a very simplistic description of his approach.)

Practical advantages adhere to LeFevre’s and Satoshi’s prevention systems. For one thing, after a crime has occurred, it can be almost impossible to make a victim whole, even in non-criminal cases of contract or straightforward torts. A broken vase may be a family heirloom, for example, but it will be replaced at its market value, not at its sentimental worth. With violent crimes such as rape, assault, or murder, the harm is much more difficult to erase. Bodies can heal, medical bills can be paid, but the emotional suffering can be permanent. The problem of remedying criminal cases has long been recognized. In Ethics of Liberty, even the great advocate of restitution Murray Rothbard argued, “In the question of bodily assault, where restitution does not even apply, we can…employ…proportionate punishment; so that if A has beaten up B in a certain way, then B has the right to beat up A…to rather more than the same extent.” The prospect of public beatings seems unpalatable as a solution in civil society.

Equally, to lose one’s life savings through inflation, confiscation, mismanagement, and other criminal acts by central banks can be devastating. Restitution may be more easily made—after all, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar—but the return of funds is often unlikely. Even if it occurs, the process can take years and involve heavy legal expenses. Prevention is preferable, by far.

Government does not want prevention, of course, because the strategy breaks its monopoly over TTPs such as law enforcement and the banking system. It does not matter that law enforcement offers no real customer service; the courts in many countries have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals. But, as long as people are convinced that the police are there “to serve and protect,” then they accept the loss of freedom in the name of security. It does not matter that central banks function as arms of the state. As long as people are convinced of a need for “guarantees” such as Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protection, they will surrender freedom for a promise of safety.

The secret to maintaining the state’s control over society is for it to create fear and then to stoke it. This process is at work in crypto whenever the state appeals to the two forms of law that are its bailiwick: vice laws, such as anti-drug measures; and, regulations, such as Know Your Customer. The two forms of law that are natural to society cannot be used effectively against crypto: laws to protect person and property; and contract law. Again, state and society are incompatible. Society’s main weapon of self-defense is to demonstrate that the state’s protection and “services” are unnecessary.


A Haunting Question

The stress on prevention also captures a schism in attitude within the crypto community. Prevention and avoidance are natural companions. Confrontation is an uncomfortable one. Which approach is more effective? Or can a blanket statement be made? Satoshi seemed to think it could be.

The two attitudes are epitomized by Julian Assange and Satoshi, both whom fully understand the freedom value of crypto. Assange expressed his style in an October 2017 tweet: “My deepest thanks to the U.S. government, Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman for pushing Visa, MasterCad [sic], Paypal, AmEx, Moneybookers, et al, into erecting an illegal banking blockade against @WikiLeaks starting in 2010. It caused us to invest in Bitcoin—with > 50,000% returns.”

Satoshi’s attitude was contained in his response to an earlier 2010 tweet from Assange. “Bring it [bitcoin] on,” the latter man crowed. Satoshi objected. “No, don’t ‘bring it on.’ The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way. I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy.” Less than a week later, on 12 December 2010, Satoshi vanished from the Bitcoin community after posting the message: “WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet’s nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.” The swarm was government and, perhaps, those users who cared nothing about bitcoin as a vehicle of freedom.

It is tantalizing to speculate on which software would have been strengthened or added to the beta software: protections against bad actors? Some form of decentralized exchange for trading and cashing out? It is disturbing to realize that bitcoin may have been hindered badly by being popularized too soon.

Another interesting question is whether Satoshi’s attitude of prevention and avoidance is the most effective attack on the criminal institutions of the state. If so, then those who confront the state with taunts and challenges may be harming a primary benefit of crypto: freedom through prevention, rather than confrontation. They may be handing an advantage back to the state and away from society. Theories of non-violent resistance have a great deal to tell us about how the state and its laws react to aggressive challenges.

[To be continued next week.]

Reprints of this article should credit bitcoin.com and include a link back to the original links to all previous chapters


Wendy McElroy has agreed to ”live-publish” her new book The Satoshi Revolution exclusively with Bitcoin.com. Every Saturday you’ll find another installment in a series of posts planned to conclude after about 18 months. Altogether they’ll make up her new book ”The Satoshi Revolution”. Read it here first.

The post Wendy McElroy: Free-Market Law Enforcement for Crypto appeared first on Bitcoin News.

PR: Coinloan Opens Platform to Bridge Gap Between Lenders and Borrower

Coinloan Opens Platform to Bridge Gap Between Lenders and Borrower

This is a paid press release, which contains forward looking statements, and should be treated as advertising or promotional material. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support this product/service. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the press release.

CoinLoan, an Estonia-based startup, has launched a crypto-to-fiat lending platform where cryptocurrency is used as collateral. From now on, crypto-backed loans are available for users all over the world. On CoinLoan, everyone can become a lender or a borrower, on his or her own terms. The platform’s primary objective is to link counteroffers and ensure the safety of the deal.

“A user-centric approach has always been a priority for us. It makes us unique in comparison with other fintech startups popping up these days. At the moment, CoinLoan offers the most flexible conditions in the lending market. The main advantage of the project is that it is based on the P2P economy. It means anyone can lend or borrow controlling the terms individually.” said Alex Faliushin, Founder & CEO at CoinLoan.

“For instance, we asked our audience about their demands and saw a request in micro, medium and large loans as well. That’s why on CoinLoan every user can create a loan application according to his/her current needs, whether for a €500 short-term loan or a big deal”, he added.

CoinLoan creates a win-win situation for both parties. Crypto collateral protects lender’s fiat funds from the risks of non-repayment. Borrowers get a loan regardless of their credit history and don’t need to choose between holding their crypto and getting access to money. Every user has an opportunity to customize an amount and term of a loan, fiat currency to lend or crypto asset for a collateral, interest rate and loan-to-value ratio.

The very first loan agreements have been successfully concluded, as claimed by the company. Licenses, credit history checks or solvency proofs are not required for borrowing or providing a loan. It is enough to register and verify an account for creating a lending or borrowing application. If there is a suitable counteroffer, the applications will be matched and the user will receive fiat money almost instantly.

Learn more about CoinLoan:

• Follow the link to start lending and borrowing on CoinLoan – https://app.coinloan.io
• Join CoinLoan’s Telegram group for updates & discussions – https://t.me/coinloan
• Contact us with your questions or feedback via support@coinloan.io

Supporting Link
https://coinloan.io/

This is a paid press release. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the promoted company or any of its affiliates or services. 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 content, goods or services mentioned in the press release.

The post PR: Coinloan Opens Platform to Bridge Gap Between Lenders and Borrower appeared first on Bitcoin News.