Bitcoin

Networks vs. Hierarchies: Which Will Win? Niall Furguson Weighs In

by

Networks are not planned by a single authority; they are the main source of innovation but are relatively fragile. Hierarchies exist primarily because of economies of scale and scope, beginning with the imperative of self-defense. To that end, but for other reasons too, hierarchies seek to exploit the positive externalities of networks. States need networks, for no political hierarchy, no matter how powerful, can plan all the clever things that networks spontaneously generate. But if the hierarchy comes to control the networks so much as to compromise their benign self-organizing capacities, then innovation is bound to wane.

– From Niall Furguson’s recent article Networks and Hierarchies

I’m not always a huge fan of Niall Furguson, but his latest article in The American Interest, simply titled Networks and Hierarchies is worth reading. Readers of Liberty Blitzkrieg will be well aware that I believe the most significant battle of our era is between the forces of Decentralization vs. Centralization. Mr. Furguson takes that battle and looks at it from a historical perspective, describing it as Networks vs. Hierarchies, and posits that indeed much of our collective history has been characterized by the struggle between these two forces. In fact, he starts out the article with the following question:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

My Latest Interview with Financial Survival Network – Creating a Decentralized World

by

Creating an ever connected, yet increasingly decentralized world is no easy task. Nevertheless, it is something I believe humanity must do in order to traverse the current challenging times and come out the other side better off than before. Yesterday, I highlighted what I believe is an extremely important article on the worker co-op movement. … Read more

What is Payment Protocol “Ripple” and How Does it Allow for Physically Backed Digital Gold Currency Exchange

by

I’ve known about Ripple for close to a year now. I’ve been meaning to write a post on it for several months, but since doing so is such a difficult effort I kept putting it off. The most accurate expression I’ve seen to-date describing the daunting task of explaining Ripple to someone who has never heard of it is the following line published in a recent Bitcoin Magazine article:

If you’re ever explaining Bitcoin to someone and they’re getting it, start talking about Ripple, just to confuse them again.

That was precisely how I felt when a friend of mine first introduced me to Ripple. I had only recently really gotten behind Bitcoin, and now I had to try to understand something else? Even worse, something that seemed far more complicated. While I was interested in the idea right off the bat because I have a huge degree of trust in this person’s opinion on technology, it seemed overwhelming so I put the entire thing to the side.

My perspective changed later in the year when another friend of mine asked me if I knew about Ripple. It turns out he is friends with the head of Markets and Trading at Ripple Labs, Phil Rapoport. Since Phil is based in NYC, and I was headed there, I decided to set up a meeting and develop a more informed opinion on the subject.

By the time I met with Phil, I had put a lot more thought into Ripple in order to ask good questions by the time he showed up. I was highly skeptical for many reasons.

Ripple is not particularly embraced within many areas of the Bitcoin community, and I can understand why. Going in, I had many doubts. It is first and foremost a payment protocol, and secondly a “math based currency.” Since I couldn’t grasp the payment aspect until my meeting with Phil, I had spent all of my time thinking about the currency aspect of it, and that part was not appealing to me when compared to Bitcoin.

First off, the currency is pre-mined. This means that all the units are already in existence from day one and controlled by the creators, as opposed to Bitcoin, where the currency is mined over time by computers confirming transactions and ensuring the system runs smoothly. The distinction is important since the distribution process for Ripple is entirely opaque, while the distribution process for Bitcoin is far more transparent. While you do not know who exactly receives the bitcoins as each block is created, you do know how many are being distributed and at what pace until that moment in 2140 when the very last BTC is mined. With Ripple (the native currency of the protocol is known as XRP), the only thing we know is that there are 100 billion in existence (the most there will ever be) and that the founders kept 20 billion for themselves. The remaining 80 billion have been allocated to a company called Ripple Labs, which is in charge of distributing the remaining XRP as they deem appropriate. To-date, about 9.5% of the 80 billion have been distributed and you can track the progress here.

From a business standpoint, I can understand why this would be the case. They can sell some of it into the market to pay day-to-day expenses (Ripple already has a total valuation of about $1.4 billion), they can allocate it to employees as compensation, they can give it away via charity such as their partnership with the World Community Grid, and most importantly they can gift them to strategic “Gateways” (more on those later) in order to grow the payment system into what it needs to become in order to succeed.

One of the things that I and many others in the Bitcoin community have loved about Bitcoin is the fact that some poor computer nerd could have started mining bitcoins from his home computer several years back and now be a millionaire. It is very grassroots in that way. The people who saw its potential early on had the ability to participate in what was kind of like a decentralized IPO. All you needed was a little vision and some computer chops. There is something brilliant and beautiful in that distribution process. While mining is now a very expensive affair and out of the reach of the average person, this wasn’t the case in the beginning when there was far more risk involved in the entire experiment.

With Ripple, a somewhat equitable early distribution process was never on the table. The founders have/are allocating the currency in a highly centralized and opaque manner. There’s something about this that rubs many in the crypto-currency community the wrong way. Moreover, because Bitcoin is such a grass roots creation, it is simply much more political than Ripple is or ever will be. Buying Bitcoin and supporting it is for many of us an expression of disgust with the Federal Reserve in particular, and the legacy banking system in general. While many supporters of Ripple will most definitely harbor similar sentiments, buying XRP isn’t really a statement, while buying and spending BTC very much still is.

So those are some of the “negative” aspects of Ripple. I think they represent much of the skepticism in the Bitcoin community. They certainly reflect many of my own sentiments before I learned more about the tremendous potential of the payment system.

I will now explain how I overcame my initial skepticism on Ripple and saw the enormous power and benefit of the payment protocol itself. Earlier, I described some of the main differences between Ripple and Bitcoin. I called your attention to many of the aspect of Ripple that folks within the Bitcoin community tend to dislike. I think it is also important to understand some similarities they share.

One major similarity is that they both represent new payment systems that at their core allow for transfers of value from one person to another across the world at essentially zero cost. Both run on open source code and empower merchants and economic growth generally by eliminating the middlemen currently taking anywhere from 2%-3% for merely processing payments. The tens of billions of dollars spent on such fees can be repositioned as fuel for the global economy and put to more productive uses.

They were both released to the world for free. This represents a huge revolution not just in payments, but in potentially how some startups might choose to fund themselves in the future. Within Bitcoin, the unit of exchange, BTC, is needed in order to participate in the payment protocol. In that way, bitcoins, can be seen as the equity of the network. Early adopters bought or mined bitcoin, and as they increased tremendously in value, many of them have used their wealth and knowledge to greatly advance the protocol to where it is today.

Ripple also has a currency, called XRP, which can also be seen as the “equity” of the payment system. Here is where we start to see a major difference between the two systems. Within the Bitcoin network, you will use BTC, whereas the Ripple network is currency agnostic for the most part. The system does not discriminate between one currency or the other. Using Ripple, you can send payment to someone quickly and at essentially no cost whether it is USD, gold, XRP, or bitcoins.

That said, the currency XRP does play two major roles in the system.

1) Since it is the native currency on the protocol, it is the only currency traded or exchanged on the system that does not have any counter-party risk. Anyone with a Ripple wallet can send anyone else XRP at any time with no exceptions, sort of like Bitcoin. By contrast, in order to receive any other currency or asset of value on the system you must trust certain “Gateways.”

2) There is also a certain amount of XRP that is destroyed with every transaction on the system. The amount is a negligible .00001 XRP (a extraordinarily tiny fraction of a penny), and is used to prevent spam transactions from clogging the protocol. As such, each wallet on Ripple needs to have a minuscule XRP reserve balance of 20, which is at total of $0.28 at current prices.

In a nutshell: XRP has value as the reserve currency of the payment system. It is the grease in the wheels of the whole thing.

Ok, so I probably lost a lot of you above with the whole “Gateway” and “trust” concept. Let me explain.

First of all, no other currencies or items of value are actually held within the Ripple payment system. Gold traded on Ripple will be held in a vault somewhere, and U.S. dollars (USD) traded will be held in some sort of external financial institution, a bank, credit union or whatever. This is where “Gateways” come into play. “Gateways” are essentially companies that serve as the custodians for non-XRP assets that trade on Ripple.

To make this easy to understand, I will use the USD example. If you are a U.S. citizen and want to hold USD in your Ripple wallet the best “Gateway” to use at the moment is SnapSwap. SnapSwap has a bank account at Bank of America and you “fund” your Ripple wallet with USD by sending the currency to SnapSwap’s bank account. At that point your USD enters the Ripple network and you can purchase XRP and send it to anyone, or you can send your USD to anyone on the Ripple network who also “trusts” SnapSwap. As I mentioned earlier, you don’t need “trust” to send or receive XRP, you only need “trust” to send other items of value that have counter-party risk. Since there is obviously counter-party risk associated with your USD (risk resides at both SnapSwap and Bank of America) a Ripple user must conduct due diligence to determine whether or not they “trust” SnapSwap in order to receive USD via Ripple. The choice is yours.

For more information on how SnapSwap funding works, I suggest reading this explanation.

This brings me to what I think is one of the most exciting parts of Ripple, the ability to trade physically backed, deliverable precious metals. All you need is a “Gateway” with a vault (or access to one) that is willing to allow the metals to trade instantaneously and in fractional amounts on the payment system. While my mind was already excited about this potential after I met Phil in NYC, one of the things holding me back from writing this article was the lack of a solid option for doing so. Well that option arrived in January with the launch of Ripple Singapore as a “Gateway” in late January.

In the press release describing the service they explained:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Seth Klarman Compares Phony U.S. Economy to “The Truman Show”

by

Seth Klarman is one of the most talented fund managers of our time. I have been consistently awed by his intelligence and consistent performance, as well as a strong sense character and honestly.

ValueWalk just put together a synopsis of his latest investor letter, and there are some choice phrases in there. While I completely disagree with him on Bitcoin (he seems to see it as merely a currency rather than an efficient, global, P2P, decentralized payment system), I’m not going to hold that against him.

Now from ValueWalk:

Baupost Group, among the largest hedge funds in the world, returned $4 billion in assets to clients at the end of 2013 because it didn’t want to grow too quickly and dilute performance, according to an investor letter reviewed by ValueWalk.  Seth Klarman’s fund, which in 2013 had a high of 50% of his portfolio in cash, up from 36% in 2012, posted 2013 returns in the mid-teens consistent with the fund’s nearly 22-year track record.

Like many of the best market analysts, Seth Klarman looks at both sides of the issue, the bull and bear case, in depth.  “If you’re more focused on downside than upside, if you’re more interested in return of capital than return on capital, if you have any sense of market history, then there’s more than enough to be concerned about,” he wrote.  Citing a policy of near-zero short-term interest rates that continues to distort reality and will have long term consequences, he ominously noted “we can draw no legitimate conclusions about the Fed’s ability to end QE without severe consequences,” a thought pervasive among many top fund managers. “Fiscal stimulus, in the form of sizable deficits, has propped up the consumer, thereby inflating corporate revenues and earnings. But what is the right multiple to pay on juiced corporate earnings?”

“In an ominous sign, a recent survey of U.S. investment newsletters by Investors Intelligence found the lowest proportion of bears since the ill-fated year of 1987,” he wrote. “A paucity of bears is one of the most reliable reverse indicators of market psychology. In the financial world, things are hunky dory; in the real world, not so much. Is the feel-good upward march of people’s 401(k)s, mutual fund balances, CNBC hype, and hedge fund bonuses eroding the objectivity of their assessments of the real world? We can say with some conviction that it almost always does. Frankly, wouldn’t it be easier if the Fed would just announce the proper level for the S&P, and spare us all the policy announcements and market gyrations?” he said in a somewhat hilarious moment that bears a degree of truth.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

The Inside Bitcoins Conference is Coming to NYC – April 7-8

by

Last summer, I attended my very first Bitcoin conference. It was the Media Bistro sponsored “Inside Bitcoins” Conference and it was an incredible experience for me on many levels. To read my summary of the conference check out my post: Inside Bitcoins: Welcome to Satoshi Square. Conference organizers describe the upcoming event as follows: After thousands … Read more

The Comcast/Time Warner Merger and the War Between Centralization and Decentralization

by

Or take the right to vote. In principle, it is a great privilege. In practice, as recent history has repeatedly shown, the right to vote, by itself, is no guarantee of liberty. Therefore, if you wish to avoid dictatorship by referendum, break up modern society’s merely functional collectives into self-governing, voluntarily co-operating groups, capable of functioning outside the bureaucratic systems of Big Business and Big Government.

-Aldous Huxley, in Brave New World Revisited (1958) 

Until recent years, the struggle between the forces of “centralization” and “decentralization” was more of a full on slaughter-fest than an actually battle or war. As Americans sat there blissfully asleep for decades, every facet of our lives has been carefully consolidated into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of corporations, and hence individual executives. This trend is undeniable in everything from food, banking, media and everything in between.

Myself and many others saw the financial crisis of 2008 as a gigantic wakeup call. The disasters caused by powerful financial institutions and the greedy people that ran them should have been used as a rallying cry to break these institutions up. To recognize the dangers of too much power in one particular place. This is especially important in something as crucial as banking. However, as we are all painfully aware, this is not what happened. Rather, the institutions were bailed out, the industry consolidated even more than it was before, and the perpetrators of the crisis emerged from it even more wealthy and powerful.

My personal focus on this website has been to expose the unique dangers presented by centralization in the financial industry and the monetary system. However, many others are dedicated to the equally important and disturbing trends in other industries. Consumer goods is one of these areas, and a very telling diagram went around late last year showing how 10 companies basically control everything you buy. Take a look below:

10corporations

Dangerous consolidation of the media is a trend that has also been discussed by many people on many occasions, and many of us by now have heard the stat that in the U.S. just six media giants control 90% of all TV, news, radio and film. Now that Comcast is set to buy Time Warner, the situation is about to get that much worse. The International Business Times made some poignant points:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Consumers are Switching to Cash in the Wake of Recent Credit Card Data Breaches

by

“We aren’t releasing that data,” said a Visa spokeswoman in response to a query about whether the company had noticed a recent dip in card use. A MasterCard spokesman declined to comment.

– From yesterday’s New York Times article: Newly Wary, Shoppers Trust Cash 

A very interesting article was published yesterday by the New York Times. It highlighted the fact that according to an Associated Press poll, 37% of Americans “had made an effort to use cash instead of credit or debit cards to pay for purchases as a result of the recent data thefts.” While I certainly agree with the assessment that people will likely only switch to cash temporarily and move back to plastic as soon as their low attention span minds allow, doubt regarding credit cards has been firmly planted in people’s minds. The more breaches we see in the future, the more people will look for alternatives.

Fortunately, we already have Bitcoin, and the more people learn about it, the more people will continue to adopt it. While the criticisms remain with people saying “but where can you spend them,” this is becoming an increasingly false critique. You can now buy airfare with Bitcoin, all the items on Overstock.com as well as also precious metals. In fact, the precious metals part has me particularly excited, and Amagi Metals is a local company that has led the way in BTC payments for PMs. They are also running a series of specials on silver all of February which you should definitely check out.

Now from the New York Times:

Like dieters vowing to trade cupcakes for carrots, a number of American shoppers are making a new pledge: cash only.

The drumbeat of disclosures about credit and debit card breaches at major retailers (and hints of more to come) has unnerved consumers to the point where chatter online and at the water cooler is filled with people promising to curb their plastic habits.

“This is CRAZY. First my Target card, now this,” wrote Lorraine McCullough on the Michaels Stores Facebook page last week after the arts and crafts chain said that it was investigating whether customer data had been exposed. “I am going to pay cash from now on.”

A poll released last week by The Associated Press and GfK Public Affairs & Corporate Communications found that 37 percent of Americans had made an effort to use cash instead of credit or debit cards to pay for purchases as a result of the recent data thefts — almost as many as those who checked personal credit reports because of the thefts. (Just 29 percent said they had changed passwords or requested new cards.)

Screen Shot 2014-02-03 at 10.30.05 AM

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Blast from the Past – Adam Kokesh Interviews Charlie Shrem (October 2012)

by

Last week, I wrote an article expressing my disgust at the selective prosecution of BitInstant CEO Charlie Shrem. The piece was titled, Some Money Launderers are More Equal than Others Part 2 – CEO of BitInstant is Arrested. The aggressiveness of the prosecution and the arrest itself reminded me of what has been done to countless … Read more

Video of the Day: F*ck the Fed

by

On this day, when the banker-cartel commonly known as the Federal Reserve is set to announce its latest decision in central planning, I thought it would be wise to revisit an old, yet classic video which calls out this neo-feudal institution for the state-sanctioned criminal enterprise it is. Neal Fox summarizes my sentiments exactly with three … Read more

Banks are Running Scared – Wells Fargo Bans Staff from P2P Loans

by

It’s extremely amusing to observe the welfare baby, bailout dependent, “Too Big to Jail,” parasitic legacy banking system squirm in the face of advancements in peer-to-peer financial technologies; whether they be Bitcoin, P2P lending or crowdfunding. It is becoming increasingly clear that humanity would do much better without this gigantic cancerous tumor on our backs, and we finally have the tools to move on. 

In fact, the largest bank in the U.S. is so concerned about peer-to-peer lending, it has banned its staff from participating.

We find out from CNBC that:

Wells Fargo has banned its employees from lending their own money through peer-to-peer loan platforms, in a sign of growing tensions between new “P2P” lenders and the largest U.S. bank by market value.

“Ethics administrators” at Wells Fargo decided to forbid staff from P2P lending after concluding “that for-profit peer-to-peer lending is a competitive activity that poses a conflict of interest.”

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.