Advertisements

Will Cryptocurrency become Over-regulated in 2018?

Will Cryptocurrency become Over-regulated in 2018?

Dear Cryptocurrency Investors…and those concerned about the future of regulation,

We need to think about what they will do next. Before the dominoes begin to fall. Currently, cryptocurrency appears to be reacting.

It’s time to be proactive or at least think ahead.

What’s the bad thing about ICO’s being regulated?

The next bend in the road.

It’s the first good way in. A way for governments to begin their crawl into the cryptosphere using the alleged reason that they want to protect you – to save you money. Because, you know – if they leave it up to you – you’ll screw it up and some fools will get ripped off.

A Broad Stroke…

So, instead of going after the thieves, the regulators use a broad brush. They paint everyone red. It’s then your job, as a cryptocurrency developer, to prove your innocence. You are automatically guilty from the start. Hey, it’s the way of the money-changers.

That’s how regulations work. Not laws, which help to convict the bad guys, but regulations to tell the good guys how they will run their businesses. From how many toilets a grocery store must have to the slope of the wheel chair ramps at Wally World.

“…regulations…”

Can you imagine the crypto-regulations? How many coins a crypto might have. How much they may charge. Where they can sell. How they will register and identify all users. How the company must be formed. What records it must keep.

I could go on.

The point? Innovation would suffer. Coins, good and bad, would die. The big boys on the block would file all the necessary paper work and press on, only to become embroiled in more legal issues. Bitcoin would need to register. The one saving grace – that bitcoin is not a company or a corporation – would be tossed in the crapper.

You’d have the same choice as before. Which company should I invest in? Which controlled, fiat dollar financed, regulatory burdened, bankster run, non-private new-crypto should I choose?

How about none of the above, if crypto gets ramrodded?

Now, you might say that ICO’s, which in the early days of purist-crypto (that never really existed), are no different than premining. And I’d have to agree. But if you accept an ICO, then no harm no foul and…let the best seed money bear fruit. Not much different than initial stock offerings that go belly up or soar.

No longer. The regulators, in their quest to ensure the permanence of centralized government monetary systems have no choice but to secure the current systems via tight controls of the supply of money; and that means anything that is even remotely connected to money. And that means…you and me.

Cryptocurrency is more closely related to stocks than money, some will argue, but make no mistake, the ICO warning is a shot over the bow, again.

So, what is next, logically?

Ignoring for the moment, steps being taken by various governments to fold crypto-regulation into the murky half-laws dealing with KYC and money laundering issues, how will the government gangs launch their next foray?

Here’s an idea.

When the laws pass that will require all Americans, Europeans, Asians etc., to report their crypto-holdings, that will simply be the opening bell. The “hey, we’ve just legitimized your bubble money and now you must let us ruin it” moment.

Next, after regulating who may or may not create a cryptocurrency, via an ICO, they (our blessed regulators who invent and create nothing) will, in the most obvious of blunders, conclude that anyone seeking to initiate a blockchain based crypto or similar, must first seek approval from a bureaucrat, who is necessarily, holding keys to the jail cells. It will be the Pre-ICO rules. Comply or bye-bye. Good guys must be throttled with numerous and confusing righteous regulations, above and beyond the laws, to be sure.

Now that is not all.

How else, given their penchant for protecting their conscriptual citizenry, will our illustrious innovators of graft continue to serve our interests?

“…retroactive…”

I say they will go full retroactive. After all, it’s the best way to collect taxes. Make them guilty, yesterday.

Henceforth, all cryptos having existed prior to now, and which are not currently in compliance with the laws heretofore dictated, must comply immediately. All persons having control or interest in the core development of any and all cryptocurrencies, must come forward to [fill in the blank] and file all appropriate applications, submit all required fees, undergo a background check, and more or less, be told exactly how said currencies will be sold, dispensed or used.

The above, is of course nonsense or is it?

Keep an eye out.

Just wait for it. Maybe in a year?

I’d be nervous if I was a “dev.”

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird

Advertisements

Bitcoin: Deletion by Executive Order?

Bitcoin: Deletion by Executive Order?

Dear Cryptocurrency Investors,

Let’s play a “worst case scenario” game. Why? Because it’s always good to play the “what if” game. It helps you prepare.

You see a lot of hints out there and worries. But I wanted a bit more. I wanted you to taste it, if even fictionally. Why?

Because this has happened before. I know people who lived through it. People who had to turn in their gold to the government or face criminal prosecution.

But a little background first.

Cryptocurrency is now being accused of outshining gold. It’s little wonder that in the United States bitcoin is effectively, 10 times the price of gold.

Think on that for a moment. Software – a ledger service – is now more valuable than a physical commodity.

What’s more, cryptocurrency cannot be as easily regulated as gold or silver. It’s a governmental conundrum.

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) signed Executive Order 6102. It essentially confiscated gold from law abiding citizens because of an emergency.

The emergency? It’s debatable, but many point to one thing: to bailout the Federal Reserve. At the time, many foreign countries were cashing in dollars for American gold and well, the government was running low.

Gold prices back then were set by government at $20.67 an ounce. About a year later, the official rate of gold was raised to $35 per ounce. What that meant was that the US Dollar lost approximately 40% of its value in a year. Inflation was gifted by Uncle Sam. It may have also slowed the gold drain, since by then, foreigners had to use more fiat currency to buy the same amount of gold.

This is all history. How US citizens were ripped-off by their government. No wonder, that even today, people are nervous about their gold. But maybe they shouldn’t worry so much now.

Gold has been out-shined. The days of price manipulation by governments, is over.

Bitcoin is now the up and coming king of currencies. Perhaps it is better to say that cryptocurrency is king. Why?

Because we do not know if some new altcoin will win the day. Ethereum, IOTA, Litecoin or Monero – or some innovative altcoin may soon become the new digital gold. But there is no doubt that the digital gold rush is on.

Governments are paying much closer attention.

They see that their fiat currency is under threat by software that not only substitutes for fiat dollars, but does all sorts of other neat things too. They avoid capital controls, zip around the world in seconds, skirt banks and taxes – and hide in plain sight. Best of all, they can’t be confiscated, without permission – or so we hope. Governments have a difficult time tracking them.

The idea that blockchains cannot be cracked by quantum computers might not wash. If the government agencies utilize quantum computers to confiscate a single cryptocurrency transaction, this would no doubt have a chilling effect upon the entire cryptosphere.

Would people then stop transacting in crypto, knowing that any transaction could be redirected to a government wallet? Would that not halt crypto in its tracks? Make it worthless?

Could our governments conduct a 51% attack? A concerted effort to destroy specific crypto targets? These cryptocurrency websites often suffer such attacks and other issues.

North Korea attacks bitcoin regularly, via the exchanges. It appears that they are trying to steal cryptocurrency, however, and not destroy the targets themselves. They are a fiscally challenged despotic regime, after all.

Denial-of-service attacks recently hit the cryptocurrency exchanges Bitfinex and Bittrex.

Bitfinex shies away from American customers due to the onerous reporting regulations and the costs associated with them.

Bittrex is suspiciously locking Legacy accounts and asking for upgraded identity information from its customers. They telegraphed (reported) this process before they proceeded, but reduced customer withdrawal amounts. Shortly thereafter the total lockdown began. They have sent out emails to apologize.

One would expect a big outflow of funds when and if Bittrex releases the locks. Unless Bittrex customers have been Goxxed.

Crypto-jacking is on the rise. Are you mining crypto for others as you surf the web? You would hope not.

ICO’s may soon lose their luster. Initial Coin Offerings can be used to easily raise money, but will the developers make good on their promises? Recent US investigations might be one nail in that coffin.

And to top it all off, it appears that bitcoin has some serious problems ahead. Routing attacks are a concern. Apparently, most of bitcoin’s transactions flow through just three ISP’s. If true, how difficult would it be to slow the nodes? To make everyone lose the faith?

“…the biggest threat…”

In all this mess, many of us are ignoring the biggest threat of all, however: The Great Confiscators. The governments.

If FDR could sign an Executive Order to take all the gold from Americans, how difficult would it be for a sitting president to do the same – to steal the crypto?

If Congress, in the US, cannot agree on a bill to make Americans report their crypto-holdings, would it not be easier to whip out the presidential pen and in a matter of hours, criminalize bitcoin possession?

And that’s my thrust here. I wanted to imagine just what such an order would look like. So I looked up FDR’s great theft and perused a couple of The Donald’s recent Executive Orders and came up with this:


Presidential Executive Order Combating Terrorism, Money Laundering, Illicit Drugs and Cryptocurrency Pyramid Schemes

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and in furtherance of the objectives of Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001 (Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks), which declared a national emergency by reason of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States, and in order to provide the Secretary of Defense additional authority to manage personnel requirements in a manner consistent with the authorization provided in Executive Order 13223 of September 14, 2001 (Ordering the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty and Delegating Certain Authorities to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation), and in order to clarify SEC. 13. Prepaid access devices, digital currencies, or other similar instruments, (a) In general. —Section 5312(a) of title 31, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation, the term “hoarding” means the withdrawal and withholding cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency contracts, prepaid access devices, and digital currency, from the recognized and customary channels of trade, be they held at a digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency or anywhere and in any form not yet known to exist. The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver or transfer on or before January 1, 2018, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all cryptocurrency holdings, cryptocurrency passwords and password seed phrases, to include hardware, software, and paper wallets, now owned or controlled by them or coming into their ownership on or before December 6, 2017, except the following:

(a) Such amount of cryptocurrency as may be required for pre-approved legitimate and customary use within and under the direct control of the regulated banking and financial industry or those government regulated companies that serve said industries, including any cryptocurrency mined/minted therein.

(b) Cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate of .00000001 BTC, belonging to any one person; and cryptocurrency having a recognized special value to bankers as rare and unusual altcoins.

(c) Cryptocurrency and mining, minting, or other methods of network security, earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign Government or foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements.

(d) Cryptocurrency and any derivatives thereof, licensed for other proper transactions (not involving hoarding) including cryptocurrency and said derivatives, imported for reexport or held pending action on applications for export licenses.

Section 3. Until otherwise ordered, any person becoming the owner or controller of any cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency passwords or password seed phrases, to include hardware, software, and paper wallets after December 6, 2017, shall, within three days after receipt thereof, deliver the same in the manner prescribed in Section 2; unless such cryptocurrencies are held for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of Section 2; or unless such cryptocurrencies are held for purposes specified in paragraph (d) of Section 2 and the person holding it is, with respect to such cryptocurrency, a licensee or applicant for license pending action thereon.

Section 4. Upon receipt of cryptocurrency delivered to it in accordance with Sections 2 or 3, the Federal Reserve Bank or member bank will note therefor an equivalent amount of any other form of legal tender at the official rate of one US cent per one BTC or equivalent in any other altcoin.

Section 5. Member banks shall deliver all cryptocurrency owned or received by them (other than as exempted under the provisions of Section 2) to the Federal Reserve Banks of their respective districts and receive credit or payment therefor, at the going market rate, prior to the issuance of this order.

Section 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, out of the sum made available to the President, will in all proper cases pay the reasonable costs of transportation or transfer of cryptocurrency delivered to a member bank or Federal Reserve Bank in accordance with Section 2, 3, or 5 hereof, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be necessary, upon production of satisfactory evidence of such costs. Voucher forms for this purpose may be procured from Federal Reserve Banks.

Section 7. In cases where the delivery of cryptocurrency by the owners thereof within the time set forth above will involve extraordinary hardship or difficulty, the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend the time within which such delivery must be made. Applications for such extensions must be made in writing under oath, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and filed with a Federal Reserve Bank. Each application must state the date to which the extension is desired, the amount and location of the cryptocurrency in respect of which such application is made and the facts showing extension to be necessary to avoid extraordinary hardship or difficulty.

Section 8. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and empowered to issue such further regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this order and to issue licenses thereunder, through such officers or agencies as he may designate, including licenses permitting the Federal Reserve Banks and member banks of the Federal Reserve System, in return for an equivalent amount of other coin, currency or credit, to deliver, earmark or hold in trust cryptocurrency to or for persons showing the need for the same for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Section 2 of these regulations.

Section 9. Upon collection of the cryptocurrencies in question, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby ordered to delete, by any feasible method, as verified by Federal Reserve Banks and companies on retainer for said purposes, the cryptocurrencies in their possession by not later that February 1, 2018.

Section 10. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $1,000,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than twenty-five years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.

This order and these regulations may be modified or revoked at any time.

THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE?

December 6, 2017…


Do not think for a moment that such an order is impossible today.

Be ready.

Note: Please feel free to copy my fictional executive order and distribute. Wake up some crypto-heads.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird

 

P.S. Do you really think that all Americans – the true patriots – gave up their gold in 1933?

 

Bitcoin: The Gathering Storm

Bitcoin: The Gathering Storm

Dear Crypto Fans,

Excuse my absence. I’ve been reading all the news lately and it has made me slightly wary of things to come.

The crypto innovators are being hunted…again.

Prepare for more American regulation…again.

Followed by the UK.

And probably Australia…again.

Wendy McElroy called it the Pitbull assault, in the US. She’s being nice. She keeps tabs on this crap and I suggest keeping an eye on Wendy.

Uncle Sam is taking square aim at your stash of crypto now. Bitcoin et al.

Maybe Uncle Sam is tired of his missing tax loot. More than likely, he’s about ready to print a load of paper money to pay down the debt through inflation. It would be smarter just to e-print some crypto, but allegedly the US gov’t isn’t biting.

If there is one thing that could put a serious dent in cryptocurrency, internationally, this is it: S.1241. Or, perhaps more accurately, push crypto underground – in the US, UK and Australia. Okay, let’s add South Africa.

Did I miss anyone? Canada? Please.

Crypto Black-markets may be about to explode in the old free-world, as a result. But how long can they last?

Who controls ICANN?

Reactions from this news might push people into the privacy coins. Monero (XMR) is up of late, but some of that may be from news that you can now purchase discounted music with XMR’s. In other words, it’s marketing. No, Jethro, it’s privacy.

Privacy, privacy, privacy.

Let me harp on that. Get ready. It is possible that the Winklevoss Twins backed the wrong horse. It’s okay, but if they are smart, you should see a rising Monero now. Slowly at first. Then faster.

It is highly probable that governments will continue to attack cryptocurrency as a threat, as a bubble, as an unregulated investment vehicle, with no intrinsic value. They will hold out their own valueless fiat currencies as the one true god. Bitcoin will be beaten.

Don’t pray too hard. Diversify. If not Monero, any other privacy coin you think is good gumballs, buy them. You might live to regret it, if you don’t. I seriously doubt you will regret it, if you do.

S.1241 states, if you are a US subject (I am) – you must comply. They will cancel my passport, if I do not. This is my prison camp. How big is yours?

The United States must modernize. I’m serious, that’s the buzzword: modernize. But think of this word instead: confiscate. I mean, at least be honest, pud-winkles. Modernize what? The confiscatory tax laws?

And don’t think there is an out.

S.1241 covers all the bases. Ownership. Control. Cryptocurrency exchanges. Paper wallets. Brain Wallets. Hardware wallets. My dead grandma’s coffin stash. Hey, they even made it all-encompassing: funds stored in digital format are subject to reporting requirements, if the bill passes.

And you think it won’t pass? Do you remember why Jesus tipped over the money-changer’s tables?

By my estimation, there are over 30 million Americans holding (HODLing) crypto. I hope there are more. Eleven more disciples at least. No Judas.

S.1241 is attempting to amend a section of  Section 53412(a) of title 31, United States Code. And it appears as if our illustrious US law makers will do it on the sly. Middle of the night stuff. And soon.

Satoshi Nakamoto warned us. Bitcoin was only a temporary solution.

So, what is a more enduring solution?

Monero? Grin? Aeon? Electroneum? Bytecoin?

Any port in a storm.

And for the record, IOTA. I have a bad feeling about it. I hope I’m wrong.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird


The above is all opinion. If you think it’s off the mark, that’s okay.

1 in 10 Americans Own Bitcoin?

1 in 10 Americans Own Bitcoin?

Dear Cryptocurrency Investors:

You are a big audience. That means we might get bigger?

We’ll start with a little speculation, John McAfee style.

If Bitcoins are $1,000,000 each by the year 2020, here is how the chart might look, if charts had straight lines.


MILLION - Copy


(Come back and look at this in a year.)

Curse McAfee if he’s wrong.

That will mean the total capitalization of bitcoin would be approaching 20 Trillion dollars – if bitcoin can go this high.

It would be a 100-fold increase if it did.

Talk about irrational exuberance. I think people would almost consider a McAfee diet if bitcoin does value at a million bucks per.

Currently, the US debt is about as much as what bitcoin would be worth, as a whole, in this year 2020 scenario: 20 trillion clams.

Let’s back track though. Get our bearings.

Bitcoins were about $400 each, two years ago. I got nervous then and sold some — after reading some bubbly stuff. Dumb mistake.

They grew 25-fold by 2017 – to more than $10,000 each. That has apparently surprised a lot of people and fresh bubble calls are in vogue again.

I mean seriously, did you expect this?

How about awareness?

Estimates put awareness of bitcoin (in the US) at about 80%. (Maybe.)

In 2013, awareness was half that number – in the US. Around 40%.

But awareness and ownership are different animals.

India is far more aware of cryptocurrency today, according to some reports.

Of Americans who are aware of bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) only about 14% actually own any.

That’s about 35 million Americans who own bitcoins(No wonder the IRS is complaining they can’t steal enough money!)

Translated? About 1 in 10 Americans owns crypto.

Now, using Joe Kennedy’s rationalization – listen to the shoeshine boy – for getting out of the stock market before it tanks, just prior to the Great Depression, are we near a bubble – now? But remember, Joe Kennedy shorted the markets back then. And he made a bundle. He did not get out of the markets.

So, the allegation today, that everyone is talking about bitcoin and this will be its downfall, seems to fall flat.

I’ve asked my financial planner (US-based) if anyone has asked him about bitcoin – really wanted to talk about it – and he sees the high dollar investor types all the time; and he said that virtually none of his clients talks about it. They may mention it in passing, but they are not serious about it. His investors are after real investments, he advised. Safer and better. Bitcoin is a confusing mess at tax time – in the US.

And if that is the “tell” – everyone is talking about it – then I’d have to ask you where you are. Because in my neck of the woods (Florida), few make mention of it. No clerks or cell phone sales guys. No neighbors or bus drivers.  I often ask them, just to have fun. Most just stare at me.

And bitcoin signs? Billboards? Darned few around here. Maybe some local radio announcer gives his take. Or maybe I should get out more.

Additionally, all the classic bubble burst models I’ve checked show 10 to 20% drops in value and then crashes – not to the floor, but maybe to the 20% – 40% level.

Bitcoin has been swinging like a drunken sailor since day one. And then recovering. It does not appear to listen to the bubblers. Or not yet anyway.

Do I think bitcoin is magic? Don’t be silly. But I do think we need some new bubble models on this one. All the old earmarks seem wanting.

And maybe the gurus of the bubble will need to rewrite the business books after a few more years of growth. This time, using a model that accepts that crypto is a money replacement and not a stock.

Oh, the shock.

But I could be wrong. Being a pessimist at heart – skeptical – I’ve been waiting patiently for the Great Bitcoin Crash, so I can tell all those nasty Bitcoin Rich guys that I told them so.

In the meantime, just on the outside chance BTC’s go to a million each, I don’t think owning a slice is a bad thing.

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird

“Mining” Your Visitors?

“Mining” Your Visitors?

Dear Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts:

Don’t ask don’t tell.

Words to live by? Not.

Don’t muck with your website visitors. Ask first.

Aside from all the other goings-on, we now have to concern ourselves with sneaky people. Those who will inject code in their webpages to mine your CPU, basically.

Watch out for those pop-unders.

There is so much information out there, that my two bits aren’t worth the bother. In fact, you can now get hopelessly lost in the crypto-sphere. And have fun at the same time. And make money.

But the webpage miners are being thwarted at every turn.

Is this really a cryptocurrency phenomenon at all? Or is it a social one? Geared toward the criminal element?

Not necessarily and I’ll get to that in a moment.

The webpage mining tech was attracting the users. Even me. I figured I could ask for people to mine a bit of crypto as they read my blog. A bit of extra income.

But many webpage miners didn’t ask you. They got greedy. And they fouled the water for everyone else — for now.

So, can you really make money by grabbing everyone’s CPU power? It seems that the effort has now been largely blocked. So, the short answer is no.

At first, the idea seemed to hold some promise. Help us niche bloggers earn a few extra bucks, but then the dream evaporated, if it ever was more than a dream in the first place.

Many of us have heard about CoinHive and its alleged shady reputation. How you could use their codes on your website and mine cryptocurrency (Monero XMR) by using the CPU power of website visitors. You could even do it without advising your website visitors, which was unethical, to say the least.

The fact that Coinhive did not originally design their software to inform the website visitors that your CPU was being used without your permission, but left it up to the software users to do this, speaks volumes. And even if Coinhive had coded their app to inform website visitors, any good hacker could then strip away those warnings and mine in secret anyway.

If you check, Coinhive’s reputation on Scamadviser you will see that they have a high rating. Really? I say they are going to sink, if they don’t re-gear posthaste.

I experimented with CoinHive for a bit, several months back — on other websites — not here. I let everyone know up front what I was doing.

It was kind of fun, but also kind of a waste of time. I think I earned about 25 cents, but I can’t withdraw that tiny amount, so Coinhive will end up with it, I’m sure.

I think I actually mined most of my own crypto anyway. Every time you logged onto Coinhive’s site, they mine your CPU, essentially.

I experimented two ways on my webpages.

First, I copied the code CoinHive had and pasted it on one of my old Blogspot Blogs (not on this website) that didn’t get any traffic, because like a dummy, I renamed it and screwed up my Google Adsense account – which is another joke.

But the CoinHive miner did work – then. The scripts ran.

Here was my code for embedding all the fun:

Coinhive Sc - Copy

I just copy and pasted. Then I advised everyone what I was doing.

Here’s what pops up (if it works):


miner - Copy


And don’t be fooled, even this demo (above) on the CoinHive website, sucks down CPU power like mad. It’s a live demo! No free lunch.

Well, the above code was improved by CoinHive to alert you that the mining was taking place. (A bit late guys.)

In any event, most ISP’s, Google etc., block the scripts from running. And yes, you can get fancy and try to code workarounds – if you really want to get blacklisted (unless you’re working over TOR or a VPN).

You are certainly welcome to copy my code and try it. Adblock should eat you alive, however. And you may suffer the blacklist. What do you expect from ISP’s these days?

The second method I used from CoinHive was called the “shortlink.” It was kinda neat. A proof-of-work captcha that, in theory (if I was a webmaster and not a simpleton blogger) I could install as a “key” to allow you to read my fine works.

Once activated, the shortlink mined Monero for a moment (on a computer – not a cell phone) then redirected you to a website of my choosing. (I redirected everyone back to my blog.)

Here’s my shortlink:


cnhv.co/ol2


Here’s what it does (maybe):


Coinhive Cap - Copy


However, your Adblockers etc., should kill it.

There are other script miners out there as well.

There’s Popcoin, Crypto-Loot (kind of shady), and others. But they don’t necessarily have good reputations.

There is one website miner out there, however, that does have promise — but it’s also blocked. It looks to be a legitimate crypto in this space.

JseCoin (my affiliate link) does not seem to fall into the bad-boy crowd. But coming on the heels of CoinHive and clan, I wonder if they can pull it off – after their ICO.

JseCoin also has a script miner. Here’s mine:


!function(){var e=document,t=e.createElement(“script”),s=e.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0];t.type=”text/javascript”,t.async=t.defer=!0,t.src=”https://load.jsecoin.com/load/31935/thecryptopapers.com/optionalSubID/0/”,s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}();


JseCoin is nice enough to have the code all ready, but…as with CoinHive’s script, Adblock eats it up. It will not (usually) work. But I did confirm that the script is functional.

Jsecoin looks like this, when it runs, if it runs:


Jsecoin wsm - Copy


JseCoin does not offer shortlinks, presently, but may offer ads for publishers in the near future.

As for JseCoin itself? I have no idea, but the promise is intriguing. You can also, just like in the old days (2009), mine with your CPU online; and I understand that JseCoin is ASIC resistant as well.

But here’s the thing. All the bad press about the big-bad honcho’s stealing your CPU power (and some did) has not yet caught up with the idea of paying with crypto, hot off the press.

If this crypto-world keeps on going, this kind of thing might become routine. And the naysayers – those who say website mining is theft — might need to get with the program and stop whining for blog hits (like me).

If you are aware of it and agree to pay for some service or visit a website, knowing in advance, that you are financing the site with magic internet money, burned from your CPU, no nitwit can censor your right to do it. And that goes double for the ISP’s and giant internet media farms (given special privileges by governments to hold large landmasses of humans nearly hostage to crappy service).

Oh, I’m not on about Net Neutrality. That’s a red herring, IMO. The internet does not need more regulation, it needs less. More providers should be allowed on the landmasses. Right now, it’s pay to play. As in, fork over bribes to Pauli Politician – to get exclusive territories. That’s just wrong.

Do you really think governments don’t just love it when website/webpage miners are trashed? Sure, they do. It would be the second-to-the-last-straw if we could pay for stuff with CPU power as we surfed the web.

Hey, maybe that’s what JseCoin is seeing… A new world of tiny CPU cryptos and they want to be first in.

The thing is, the tech isn’t right yet. I mean the idea of a webpage miner is a start, but not the whole kitty litter box. We need some more user-friendliness. Maybe some profit-sharing.

There are so many ways to do this. We could all download a small miner to pay for browsing. Use a tiny bit of our CPU for incidentals. One news story from the Wall Street Journal. A free ebook for a few minutes of your CPU.

Websites that benefited could issue prizes, coupons, gasoline credits.

The marketing ideas are endless.

For now, however, the ISP’s etc., are attempting to halt this innovation at the request of the old guard. Webpage mining tech is yet another nail in the FED’s printing-press monopoly. And they are already miffed about bitcoin.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird.


 

The “Bitcoin Cash” Hit Piece

The “Bitcoin Cash” Hit Piece

(Updated November 28, 2017)


Dear Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts:

This is an open letter-blog and assessment of the Mr. John Carvalho and Roger Ver discussion.

Is this the beginning of the end of Bitcoin Cash?

It’s not every day you get to take a peek at the guys and gals – the movers and shakers – in the crypto-sphere. See them in a more human light. See them make mistakes, get angry and do dumb things.

There is no such thing as a Bitcoin Jesus or is there? Well, he is being demoted now.

If you have 45 minutes, you can watch the interview with Bitcoin Jesus, by a less than dignified fellow. It occurred on November 27, 2017.

If you prefer an interpretation, then scan the words below. I have pulled out some of the more interesting highlights.

This is my interpretation of today’s debate between John Carvalho and Bitcoin Jesus — no longer. He is now just plain old Roger Ver these days. And it really gives you a taste of crypto-current-events.

Events that are awash in…problems.

It’ll make you think twice about Bitcoin (BTC)…and Bitcoin Cash (BCH and BCC).

Ver, as many know, was an early supporter of bitcoin, but now supports Bitcoin Cash. That should tell you something. And anyone who thinks that Ver is just a money grubbing corporate type, might end up holding a worthless bag of BTC, but I hope not.

Carvalho, our alleged hero, has a YouTube site called Bitcoin Error Log. He is the CEO of Xotika.TV, which appears to be a porn site.

Carvalho has serious character issues…

You be the judge of John Carvarlo’s character, but I say the guy has near zero credibility. And like Ver advised, I also don’t care if you sell smut for a living, but it does define you. It tells the world what you really are.

(And be careful accessing the Xotika.TV site, it involves a high-risk country, according to Scamadviser.com. Scumbag issues.)

Why Ver agreed to the interview it is beyond me. Smut profiteer interviews self-made millionaire? Go figure.

The smut seller wins debate?

Carvalho of the Bitcoin Error Log (on YouTube) put Roger Ver on the spot today. It was a live debate, but more like a planned hit piece. It is hard to tell if Ver did not deserve it.

Ver was apparently speaking from a hotel room and Carvalho was in his safe-space. It looked like a setup. Carvalho obviously wanted to make Ver look bad. Please tell me if that was not the plan Mr. Carvalho.

Carvalho’s attitude was condescending and Ver seemed to hit back with straight forward answers. Polite most of the time. Until the end, where he lost his composure. (He is only human, but is that an excuse?)

Carvalho spiced his language. Cursed, laughed, derided, and made empty accusations.  Again, what do we expect from his ilk.

And it worked. I began to have doubts about Bitcoin Cash and Ver.

Unfocused debate…more like a Witch Hunt

The debate, if that is what you would like to call it, was apparently supposed to focus, at least in part, on the block-size issues with bitcoin/bitcoin cash; however, the discussion appeared more accusatory and was derailed early on.

Carvalho was the accuser. Ver was on trial, trying to respond to unsubstantiated allegations. A Drumhead Trial from afar.

For starters, as Ver tried to answer questions, there was construction noise nearby and his audio often cut out. This, I’m certain, did not help Ver be heard. At that point I would have asked to debate later. But Ver soldiered on. A mistake.

It did help Carvalho. The beating of the drum…

Carvalho asked why Ver did not like the label “Bcash” for Bitcoin Cash.

Ver stood by his guns. He and the devs like the label Bitcoin Cash, Ver said. The label “Bcash” seems condescending in Ver’s opinion. (See here for how it all started.)

Carvalho wanted to know why he couldn’t call it what he wanted to call it.

Ver tried to explain that the term “Bcash” was obviously negative, so he and others, didn’t care for it.

Pushing buttons…

Carvalho explained that he and others feel that they can label it “Bcash” because there is only one true bitcoin. That seemed to be the crux of it. Carvlaho wanted to give Bitcoin Cash a derogatory name and wouldn’t admit it.

Why not admit it? Sometimes button pushing works and when the pushee admits that, he’s lost the battle.

Ver explained that this was Bitcoin Cash, not “Bcash” and not bitcoin, but Carvalho ignored this. It’s Bcash, he stated repeatedly. A dog with a bone.

This bit of nonsense was repeated by Carvalho. Bcash. Bcash. Every chance he got.

[One might think Ver was being interviewed by a child, but that was the game, was it not, Mr. Carvalho?]

Carvalho asserted that there is only one true bitcoin. He interrupted Ver, as it was explained that Bitcoin Cash was in line with Satoshi Nakamoto’s Whitepaper. These interruptions were obviously designed to keep Ver off balance.

And this is how it went. Ver, trying to be cordial and Carvalho interrupting with “Bcash” and snide remarks. And like I said, it worked.

Carvalho indicated that said bitcoin Whitepaper was not the “bible.” That “we” (meaning the Carvalho porno-gang?) can “agree” that the original bitcoin is the one true bitcoin and the Whitepaper (the original design) is essentially not bitcoin. In other words, if bitcoin’s code changes and the devs diverge from the original vision, it’s still bitcoin original — according to Carvalho.

Certainly, this is a tenuous argument. But Carvalho wouldn’t let go.

And Ver didn’t dislodge that sentiment. It was Ver, big bad corporate man, against bitcoin, a bunch on innocent devs (earning a bit of money on the side from Blockstream and others) working hard — coding.

Carvalho’s assertions…

These repeated assertions by Carvalho seemed to say that old bitcoin is always new bitcoin, even if it’s not in line with Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision. If the devs are still there, no matter if they are new devs, if the undefined community still exists, if the repository is still there, it’s bitcoin.

Appeal to emotions. A point for Carvalho.

What Ver attempted to explain, but Carvalho refused to acknowledge, was that Bitcoin Cash was closer to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision than bitcoin is now. That bitcoin has diverged and is heading down the wrong path. A path with higher fees, slower service and lost transactions.

It fell flat. Ver was a copycat and it stuck.

Carvalho continued his attack.

Carvalho repeated that the repository is “bitcoin” no matter how the code is edited by the core devs or contributed to, by the undefined community.

Ver indicated that not just anyone in the community can contribute to bitcoin. [So this is a false statement, Ver implied.]

Bitcoin is NOT open to the community.

Ver cited Gavin Andresen’s revocation. Andresen is no longer allowed to contribute – meaning bitcoin is NOT open to the community.

Carvalho stated that Satoshi Nakamoto did not hand bitcoin over to Gavin Andresen in the first place. That Andresen somehow obtained control over bitcoin after he went to the CIA. [Vague accusation – never explained. FUD?]

Ver stated that Carvalho was incorrect. That, not only did Nakamoto share access to bitcoin development, but Andresen then shared it with others. These others then revoked Andresen’s access, without his consent. Andresen can no longer approve code to be included into bitcoin.

Andresen a risk?

Ver also stated that the new core devs alleged that Gavin Andresen’s bitcoin dev account had been hacked and that was the reason his access had been revoked…permanently. Oddly, this, on its face, appears very suspicious and thus far this author is not aware of any evidence that Andresen’s bitcoin Github access was ever hacked. On the other hand, concerns over Andresen’s original indications that he had found the one true Satoshi Nakamoto (Craig Wright) may have played into the issue.

Carvalho stated that the new core team, which Gavin Andresen gave permission to help develop bitcoin, had been asking him to voluntarily revoke his own access, before they locked him out, because he was no longer “contributing” to the bitcoin project. That allowing Andresen continued access was a security risk.

Carvalho also stated that Andresen contributed to his own downfall by focusing on “antagonistic” things. [In other words, Andresen did not agree with the new core team members…and was unceremoniously booted out? That appears to be the implication.]

Okay. Enough. Andresen being booted out does not make bitcoin a closed community.

Point to Carvalho.

Back on focus…

Ver then tried to have Carvalho focus on the block-size debate issues, which was apparently supposed to be the focus of the interview.

Carvalho said that Ver had originally supported the Bitcoin SegWit2x fork.

Ver replied that this was true, but after the last-minute cancellation by others he went with Bitcoin Cash – and he had indicated this would happen if SegWitx2 failed. And it failed.

The accusations continued to fly from Carvalho.

Derailed again…

Carvalho indicated that Ver recently received flak for the newest Bitcoin.com wallet (Ver owns or has interest in Bitcoin.com). That the new wallet defaulted to Bitcoin Cash.

Ver stated that this was also untrue and held up his cell phone and showed Carvalho. The screen on the phone clearly showed two wallets. One for Bitcoin and another for Bitcoin Cash.

Cell Phone Wallet - Copy

(Photo Source: YouTube)

Carvalho stated that this would confuse people and implied that the names (Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash) were too similar. That “newcomers” might not know the difference.

And I’d have to say that Carvalho is right on this point. Ver’s cell phone shows a confusing set of choices. If you don’t know the difference between BTC and BCH, then you might become confused.

Carvalho then asserted that it was fraudulent to use the bitcoin name in Bitcoin Cash. Carvalho did not explain this accusation.

Fraudulent is something obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception.

Ver stated that he did not think the labels were that confusing [or fraudulent].

[Side Note: If you can’t tell the difference between crypto-wallets with separate labels, you should probably not be using cryptocurrency.]

Carvalho then asserted that the Bitcoin.com wallet would confuse people, implying that the name of the website was also misleading.

Ver stated that the Bitcoin.com wallet clearly states that is supports Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash.

Carvalho then changed the subject. He stated that “we’re” concerned for the “noobs” due the Ver’s marketing power. That they will be confused.

Even score here. Both have valid points.

Ver countered. He asked why Carvalho was not concerned that newcomers would pay more in transaction fees ($20.00 fees) with old bitcoin?

Carvalho ignores high old bitcoin fees.

Carvalho said he wanted to talk about fees “separately.” That he was more interested in “education.”

[In other words noobs losing money in old bitcoin was not considered educational to Carvalho.]

Ver gets a point.

Once again, Ver stated that Bitcoin Cash more closely resembled the original Bitcoin.org Whitepaper.

Carvalho asked how Ver could “…make that leap” since there was “…no mention of Bitcoin Cash,” in the Whitepaper and is not any more peer to peer, than is bitcoin. [Carvalho had indicated that bitcoin was ‘node to node’ these days.]

Ver gets another point. Carvalho’s answers are too vague.

Ver explained that the fees were lower with Bitcoin Cash — again. That nobody can stop the transactions.

“…Bitcoin Cash can be stopped…”

Carvalho stated that Bitcoin Cash can be stopped since it’s a smaller network. That the only reason that transactions are cheaper, is because nobody is “spamming” Bitcoin Cash yet.

Interesting idea.

Ver asserted that this was not true. That bitcoin is now slow and expensive due to full blocks and the user experience is suffering.

Ver is on the money. Bitcoin is very slow.

Carvalho cited bitcoin’s higher market cap, but Ver stated that bitcoin has failed. That the slow transaction speed is the tell.

Bitcoin has not yet failed.

“…the Lightning Network…”

Carvalho stated that the “Lightning Network” would increase transaction speeds.

Ver responded that the transition from Bitcoin Core the Bitcoin Core assisted by the “Lightning Network” is much more difficult than to simply switch to a better coin.

Ver asked Carvalho if he had ever completed a single Lightning Network transaction and received a negative response.

Ver gets a point. There are SegWit2x problems. It’s an unproven system.

Bitcoin is bleeding out…

Ver stated that Bitcoin used to have a near 99% market share. That it is now “bleeding” into other altcoins and stands at about 53% of market share.

Carvalho disagreed and indicated that this does not mean that bitcoin is losing ground due to its value per coin.

Nobody wins this round.

Ver said that Bitcoin Core has “intentionallydestroyed bitcoin’s usability by capping the block-size. It’s too expensive to use, less reliable; and therefore, investors are seeking out alternatives.

Block size?

Carvalho stated that Satoshi Nakamoto designed the small block-size in the first place.

Ver stated that Nakamoto was convinced by others to do this later, as a temporary measure, to stop others from “flooding” the network.

Carvalho tried to change the subject again, but Ver asked him to finish each subject before moving on.

Ver then advised that Nakamoto’s original intent was to allow the block-sizes to be as big as they needed to be, to accommodate the network.

Carvalho then stated that the bitcoin block-size was in fact limited from the beginning.

Ver did not answer this question clearly. Ver stated that the block-size (what was stored in each block) grew as time passed [until it apparently hit the actual preset limit].

Even score again. Nobody wins this point.

Why does Carvalho like old bitcoin?

Ver then asked why Carvalho liked bitcoin and he responded with the standard line. No inflation, private, decentralized, store of value etc.

Ver then indicated that Carvalho’s answers defined many altcoins in general.

Then Ver advised he was trying to replace all forms of money with a form of permission-less money and make it impossible for governments to control money and free trade.

Carvalho hit on the decentralization aspect again, but Ver stated the this is a tool of censorship resistance, not necessarily a goal in and of itself. That censorship does take place in bitcoin when your transaction is too small, and it drops from the “mempool.”

Carvalho cited blockchain rollbacks by miners with more power. This “power” centralization has effectively censored transactions.

Ver countered that the small bitcoin block-sizes incentivizes investors to use large “bitcoin” banks like Coinbase. Such a concentration of bitcoin is akin to “centralizing.” If the block-size is larger, the system is easier to use and keep in investors’ hands.

Carvalho tried to state that the altcoin exchanges are a centralization risk, but Ver reminded him that it was a matter of choice to trade on exchanges.

Mix and match. Nobody wins these points.

Untested Tech

Carvalho then advised that his company (Xotika.TV) now uses SegWit2x.

Ver implied that it is an untested tech and that there does not have to be a block-size limit anyway.

Ver wins this point.

Carvalho moves onto theory. There is “infinite demand for block-space.”

Ver disagreed. He said it depends upon the demand that the miner’s set for the block-space.

Ver’s point.

Then Carvalho played the “what if” game.

What if the blocks were infinite?

[Yet another seemingly ridiculous argument. Carvalho is not apparently grounded in economic reality, but mired in some infinite theoretical worry. At this point Carvalho becomes defensive as it has become obvious he is losing the debate.  Accusations begin to fly. Ver doesn’t actually know what he says, etc.]

Ver stated that nobody knows what the perfect block-size is.

Carvalho: not knowing then [the optimum block-size], what is the best approach? A conservative one or a risky one?

Carvalho’s lack of knowledge shows…

Ver stated that the market should decide. Then he asked Carvalho to name any other altcoin that has full blocks [like bitcoin].

Carvalho didn’t know.

Ver stated that it has never happened.

Ver wins point on technicality.

Carvalho indicated that everybody wants to use bitcoin. [Yet another wild assertion. Bad form.]

Ver related that bitcoin having full blocks and high fees – and being experimented upon – is VERY risky. That the experiments should be done on a separate altcoin, not bitcoin. [Really good point.]

Ver wins two-points.

Carvalho’s do nothing approach

Carvalho stated that “inaction” on bitcoin is “conservative.” That leaving it alone is not risky. That Ver should not paint it this way.

Ver stated that action is needed on bitcoin.

Ver wins point again.

Carvalho repeated that bitcoin had a coded-in block size limit originally, but Ver explained that this was not generally true. That the one-megabyte limit was not reached until recently, since there was no “infinite” demand for block-space. At that point any responsible core team should have fixed it. Such a failure, in the real world of business, would have resulted in an employee’s termination, according to Ver.

Ver’s explanation agains fall flat. Minus a point.

Ver stated that many well-known exchanges are busily integrating Bitcoin Cash, but if people still wished to use bitcoin, that is fine. On the other hand, if you want reliability, faster transactions, something like the way bitcoin was supposed to work, then Bitcoin Cash is the answer – and it will save you money.

This comes off as smug. You are losing the crowd here, Ver.

Carvalho asserts…again

Carvalho asserted that Bitcoin Cash was unreliable. He asked why Bitcoin Cash created more coins and raised the specter of inflation?

Ver stated that Bitcoin Cash has the same coin number as bitcoin, but for a time, many miners switched to Bitcoin Cash and they got ahead.

Point for Ver.

Carvalho then supplied a list of Bitcoin Cash complaints all at once. He continued to interrupt Ver.

Carvalho indicated that Bitcoin Cash changed their mining algorithm to make it easier to mine.

Point for Carvalho. Ver never counters.

That ASIC Boost can also be used.

Point for Carvalho. Ver ignores or forgets?

That there is almost a 1% inflation rate in Bitcoin Cash.

[This inflation assertion is disingenuous. Inflation implies a constantly growing money supply. Bitcoin Cash, like bitcoin, has an upper hard limit. Carvalho’s argument is that since Bitcoin Cash mines faster it causes temporary inflation of coins – but this does not necessarily translate into a lower coin value, which is the result of inflation in a controlled, single-source and mandated money supply. Bitcoin Cash is not “legal tender.”]

Carvalho’s inflation allegation falls flat. Minus a point.

Carvalho also alleged that “old work” can be used to obtain more Bitcoin Cash coins in some cases. No other explanation was given.

Ver does not counter. Carvalho wins point by default.

Ver claimed that given the current bitcoin environment, bitcoin will lose out to Bitcoin Cash.

Vague.

Carvalho indicated that Ver stated these things because he thinks that Bitcoin Cash is doing something new.

Ver said that Bitcoin Cash has a larger user base that litecoin, for example. That anyone can check Coinmarketcap.com to see this.

Carvalho responded that using trading volumes, where there are no fees, for example, does not give an accurate picture. But he failed to describe what did give an accurate picture.

Nobody wins a point.

Carvalho plays dirty…

Carvalho then accused Ver of over-tweeting, getting socks (sock puppets) to up-vote and downvote etc.

Carvalho loses credibility all at once. Dumps all his points. Irrational statements. No verification offered.

Ver stated that these were lies. And backs his statements up with examples.

Ver is awarded five points.

Carvalho offered zero evidence of these accusations or any others, up to this point. And yet he presses on.

Minus another point for Carvalho, who is now sinking.

Carvalho then launched into more insult-like behavior, called Bitcoin Cash, “Bcash” and Ver became irritated. He advised Carvalho to discontinue this line or he would discontinue the interview.

Since Carvalho senses he’s lost the high ground, he starts to sling.

Minus more points.

Carvalho continued to press Ver’s buttons, stating that Ver only wanted the bitcoin name to “…coopt the brand.”

Ver stated that it was essentially more legitimate than bitcoin, although the name is Bitcoin Cash. But it is the true “bitcoin.” Read his lips, Ver stated.

The discussion is off track now.

Ver began to cite the growth of Bitcoin Cash over bitcoin, pointing out that it will soon overtake bitcoin.

Bravado?

Carvalho’s belief — higher bitcoins fees are better?

Carvalho stated that the higher fees associated with bitcoin makes it more valuable. [Seriously.] That for Ver to continue to hold bitcoin at all “…makes no sense.”

Ver reminded Carvalho not to place all his eggs in one basket and that bitcoin still retains a “network effect.”

Ver creams Carvalho again.

Carvalho continued with his “Bcash” insults and Ver reminded him it’s Bitcoin Cash. Ver also indicated that he does not need to speak to “someone on the internet” who does not necessarily run a successful business.

This makes Ver look bad. Loses emotional high-ground here. Big bad Bitcoin Cash entrepreneur bad mouths porn king, just trying to make a smut-buck. We’re in the ditch now.

Carvalho asked why it mattered that Ver was a millionaire.

[Why? Because it shows a person who can run a successful business.]

Carvalho reminded Ver that bitcoin is not a business.

Ten points for Carvalho. He’s above water again.

Carvalho insisted repeatedly that he could call Bitcoin cash, “Bcash” and Ver reminded him that that label was started in a derogatory manner on the internet and that he didn’t like it.

Moot point. Does not help discussion. It just pushes Ver over the edge.

Carvalho’s last stab…

Carvalho stated that he thought only Ver, “Jihan” and Ver’s sock puppets, didn’t like the “Bcash” label.

Ver then discontinued the interview after flipping Carvalho off.

Bad form. Ver loses debate in seconds — on emotional grounds, but not substance. Makes him appear easy to enrage.

I’ll have to say, of all the interviews I’ve seen Ver do, this one was the most interesting. Showed his human side. His inabilities.

And if Ver is right, it will be an “I told you so moment” when (and if) bitcoin begins to falter. Whether Bitcoin Cash will pick up the slack, is another matter.

Do you still trust Bitcoin Cash?

Conclusion:

Carvalho’s interview only served to point out bitcoin’s weaknesses, show that Ver is human and make people realize that they might want to reconsider holding onto BTC or BCH.

On the other hand, Carvalho made some valid points, even if most of it was mud-slinging.

Put your eggs in different baskets.

Ver issued his apology here. Too late now.

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird


…I am now rethinking my Bitcoin Cash holdings.

Feathercoin: Chicken or Golden Egg?

Feathercoin: Chicken or Golden Egg?

Dear Crypto-Enthusiasts:

I came across it quite by accident…again.

No, not a particular crypto, but something that led me there, quite by accident.

Some people say the strangest things…

And you don’t find those things in classrooms or in books as often as you’d like. Magazines are filtered niceties. News alerts, groomed and stylish. Substance takes the side exit, in the politically-edited world.

You find these snippets scattered on this thing called the internet. In videos and blogs, where guys and gals argue on some other guy’s YouTube Channel. On Reddit, where kids bash adults and jokesters have their way.

Despite it all and perhaps because of it all, the good cream rises, then dissolves. You can always tell when someone is pushing coin and how others (myself included) make mention of certain cryptos that have come into focus of late. I don’t like to push.

Here’s an example of fantasy shoving…

…mycelial network?

Bitcoin and crypto, in general, are a mycelial network(s). Nature’s internet, long ago fastened to the reality of need. Huh?

Little blurbs of genuine hype like this are common.

Mycelial Networks. Living things compared to crypto-networks. From Wikipedia – “the vegetative part of a fungus or fungus-like bacterial colony, consisting of a mass of branching, thread-like hyphae.”

I get the picture. It’s not a bad analogy, if a weak one.

Although, crypto is not a single entity – even bitcoin’s ledgers run on various “machines” – the neural-like network is ubiquitous. It is homogeneous, but not self-sustaining. Bitcoin requires you and me to “make” it function. It’s the opposite of a fungal root system, that grows to absorb its nutrients.

It’s as good an explanation as any, however. Bitcoin – crypto – is usually a network. An energy-network between computers. But it is also dependent, like the lowly mycelium, upon its environment. It must take from its surroundings to live.

We are networks too. Our bodies and brains. We eat and walk and procreate. We use our environment.

But bitcoin is not alive.

Chemical or electrical, a network is a network. And I’m not on about the fabulous nature and redundancies of networks. They work, unless all hell breaks loose. The bigger, the stronger.

But living things – networks — have their weaknesses. One good virus and goodbye network. Redundancies or not.

Electrical networks – digital networks – are far more resilient. Usually.

Thus far, few crypto-networks have failed, aside from forks and 51% attacks. Once bitten, however, the end users often suffer the trust-bug. No longer will they provide energy to that network.


Peercoin

The network may live for years in a subdued state, like Peercoin, but left without new code and new blood, networks die off. At least you think they would. Some mature and stabilize. They become good for short term crypto-storage. Then entropy rages.

I never thought Peercoin would last as long as it has. They had problems early on. I lost money in one of their unplanned forks. Then the main devs pressed on. Created other complimentary coins. None of the relation has had significant success, but I’m relatively sure the devs have reaped the rewards.

Is that not the play? If you do not at first succeed and all that. Or is it something more sinister? Are we simply watching money vacuums in action?

“Come one, come all – today we have a special! Today, we announce (almost – we need some start-up money, hence the ICO) a 4th Gen crypto! It’ll send your cryptos in under five seconds, confirm in under a minute and you can mine it with solar energy! How’s that for green?”

Then there are the bedrock coins. Never quite here, but never quite dead. Not zombie coins, but pregnant ones?


Feathercoin

Some few older cryptocurrencies like Feathercoin, one of the longer standing coins, seem resilient. Not overly obtrusive, not all that exciting, but under the covers. They have made significant changes since I last looked.

Interesting? Maybe or maybe not.

Looking back, I wonder why, other than its plain vanilla feel, Feathercoin has yet to realize the pumps we have seen with the other cryptos. It has never reclaimed its earlier records, choosing instead to meander in the lows, until 2017.

After two years of relative slumber, like many cryptos, Feathercoin seems to be waking. Or is it that the people are awakening?

There are also Google Trends showing recent Feathercoin interest spikes. In the crypto scheme of things; however, they are not seemingly relevant.

Why do I mention cryptos, like Feathercoin? Because, after reading The Two Bit Idiot’s latest piece I’m left wondering if the general public will get a very bad “bitcoin” taste in their mouths. So much bickering.

Two Bit is on about Bitcoin Cash (BCH or whatever). And I’ve always respected his views. He gets into so many angles, though – and that helps one respect the research – it leaves me a bit sick. Holding or HODL? BTC or BCH?

To hell with it all, I sometimes think. Let me hope for the best with Lending Club.

And yes, we’ve all seen BTC rise and rise. We’ve all noted when big boy tanks, the girls (and guys) scream and nearly all of the other coins sprint for the doors. They cash out or Tether up. But that plays seems less of a bother these days.

These days, some few cryptos hold their candle wax, as BTC burns. Is this the handwriting? A psychological shift?

In any event, unless you think that one of the bitcoin brothers will hitch its star to Jihan Wu, who if memory serves, advised that people will follow the pack. I submit that packs, like pure democracies or autocratic empires, eventually crumble.

People are fickle, Mr. Wu. Trust is difficult to maintain when one has large businesses within China. A country not known for treating its subjects fairly.

Aside from all the battles and concerns about bitcoin, bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold and so on – there is the other angle to look at: profit. People, in this fintech space are not after trade, as much as profit. Profit seems to be the dirty little word, however. But let’s admit it. Don’t you want to profit on your investment in crypto?

Using that yardstick, do you hope one of the bitcoins (not cryptocurrency in general) will double, triple or quadruple in value? Sure, you do.

On the other hand, do you scan the other cryptos looking for more leverage? Seeking that short and explosive coin to jump start your investment? Maybe you won’t hold it, just use it, right? Then park your profits in BTC or maybe LTC or maybe somewhere else…

And it’s the somewhere else that will begin to chip away at the mountain that is bitcoin. It’s been happening for the last few years anyway.

And how do we decide what will be the most profitable investment in crypto? I find no experts. Some of the chart reader types seem to get close, on occasion. But some have insinuated that “over heated” crypto-markets are bubbly.


Electroneum

And the hunt for adoption is ever the noble journey. Electroneum seeks this high ground and maybe, in time, investors will reap the rewards. Certainly, utility must charge the profit meter. How can it not?

Compare utility to bitcoin. Is it not speculative in nature? Does one not want to accumulate, rather than spend? And is not the spending of bitcoin becoming prohibitively expensive?

Sure, there were gold hoarders in the past, but the gold’s utility as actual money maintained its power to purchase. When gold was legal tender, one was not charged for the privilege of using it, but storing it was often fee based.

My point is, things like legal tender gold and silver coins had a utility value multiplier, when used as money, as well as stored for savings. Since bitcoin and crypto are unstable, the risk reward for any long-term investment is dubious at best.


Attributes:

Here are a few of the attributes recommended by the gurus of ‘coin and ones I’ve come up with over the years. By no means is this the all-inclusive list. Plenty of cryptos have soared and are doing quite well using different methodologies.

  • High-speed transactions
  • Ability to secure personal data (privacy)
  • Limited virtual supply
  • Trusted by its users (maybe not an ICO)
  • May or may not be centralized
  • Bottom-up focus
  • Longevity
  • Customer Service/Communication
  • Core or primary services located in freer countries
  • Dev/founder philosophy

And don’t get all hung up in longevity. Just because a coin is old, does not mean it’s the same. Often, past forks, like what occurred with Feathercoin, offer new and better code, but also end up with new headaches. If the team remains, that’s a big tell.


Final Notes:

Moving back to Electroneum (one coin I’m watching lately) – it uses the CryptoNote codebase. A well-known, but sometimes problematic system which Monero has improved. In other words, the code can be well-tested (trusted) long before someone picks it up and takes it down a new path.

Finally, you may have come across the RuffCT concerns that could slow Monero down. Better at privacy, but less efficient, could spell disaster, unless coders find a better solution. How Electroneum will feel about such a modification, if they update to it, could put them in the same boat.

Meanwhile, I wonder if Feathercoin will lay some nice little eggs after all these years…

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird


The above is not investment advice. Seek appropriate gurus for that.

 

Cryptocurrency: “…and Bitcoin Must Burn!”

Cryptocurrency: “…and Bitcoin Must Burn!”

Dear Crypto-fans,

The crypto-fake-fintech-news continues, but the tide is turning in some few lands. Slovenia maybe. Singapore, possibly. Nigeria? Yes. But I won’t be emigrating.

Google trends are showing an upswing of late.

But the battle against cryptocurrency is also gaining momentum. The reaction is fomenting. Like Cato the Elder’s call for Carthage to burn, so too are the princes of the day signaling their intent, through their mouthpieces on retainer, that non-princely crypto, must also be destroyed.

The most recent pretext to dump bitcoin and cryptocurrency, besides bubble fears, is that fiat currency is “backed” by the government or the Central Bank. That such a thing as cryptocurrency, which does not enjoy the toxic fruits of the government fiat monopoly, is intolerable and hopeless.

But this assertion is ominous, not glorious. Whether you believe Clif High, that Bitcoin will far outpace the value of gold or you want to take to the shadows with your secret Bytecoin, the princes are on the march. They care not if you chose Cardano (ADA), but might let up, if you wade into Ripple (XRP).

And we cannot reach into our television sets, our computer monitors, our tablets or cell phones, and shake these intellectual Lilliputians by the shoulders and yell, “Hey, Brainiacs, fiat money is also NOT backed – except by a gun.”

“How dare you think that, you finite fleshpots.”

That’s how they respond, in my translation. Shake their ponytails, peer side-long down red veined noses, lick their finely wine-soaked lips, point to the proper ends of their overcooked eggs, with bejeweled digits, and leer at us subjugated subjects – with the aplomb of the imagined royal birthright.

Two such peers of servitude deserve mention.

“Alan Greenspan…Jamie Dimon…”

Alan Greenspan? A former gold bug, now completely in tune with the Fed or is that the vampiric feeding of inflated monetary dogma?

Jamie Dimon? A bankster in the Morgan mold or is he a dollar-defender, through hell and devalue?

Here are a few more bitcoin bashers to peruse.

Deep thinkers of the bygone epoch, where it is said that monetary conscription is better than gold-backs. Where the song of sound money, as sublime and powerful as it is, cannot meet the rejoinder – the princely power of the purse, under guard.

What do these bashers of bitcoin really mean when they say that cryptocurrency is not “backed” by Johnny Law? They mean, dear readers, that the prince is not in charge of the peoples’ currency, i.e., cryptocurrency.

And that is the crux of it. THE PRINCE HAS NO CONTROL. Paupers must mind their prince.

The prince’s fiat money is “backed” by his soldiers. You must use it – or else.

Think on that, each time you pull that fiat from your wallet with that picture of the current or past princes. This currency is “backed” by the point of a gun, the threat of jail if you refuse to use it, or large fines if you dare to abuse it. It is called forced compliance.

The Federal Reserve Note, is your contract with the prince. Do no fail to abide by the terms.

Has not humankind outgrown such princely designs?

The religion of money…

Most currency, that plastic card, paper or digital noise stored at your bank or under that rock in your yard, is worthless-worth. It is backed by nothing and the power to “make it work.” A promise to pay zero and from that zero, substance. The religion of money, if you will. To make nothing buy something. Just believe, sayeth the Prince of Fiat.

Every school child should know this. Government fiat is “myth money.” Fantasy cash, you are compelled to use.

The soldier “backs” your princely fiat these days. Except, to him, you are the enemy. Harsh words, but relevant when comparisons must be made with cryptocurrency.

Fiat crypto, by comparison, is an all-volunteer army. In this scenario of sin, the prince of fiat is dead.

And about the noble metals. There are no gold bars at the bank – in most cases. Even the Swiss have denuded their banks of metal. But the Swiss people, being a lot more intelligent than their host of princes, have stored gold in private vaults – not banks. Unfortunately, the princes are aware of the locations of such vaults.

But who owns that gold? You think American and Japanese billionaires don’t have a dog in that fight? Sure, they do. Will a Swiss Army man care to back your Swiss stored gold, if his prince reclaims the bars, for the good of Switzerland?

And private vaults abound these days. Do you wonder why? And are these vaults safe from the princes’ soldiers?

…myth money…

Cryptocurrency is also a myth money, a fiat currency, but it is different too. The prince does not own the cryptocurrency fiat money machine. The people own crypto. It is a detached system of fiat currency that circumvents capital controls, i.e., the Prince’s Rules of Trade. And there are dozens of competing blockchain alternatives, not simply one princely fiat system.

The prince is fuming about this. How dare his subjects create their own fiat currency. Don’t they know that fiat money is backed by nothing – not even the princes’ soldiers?

You might wonder how a cryptocurrency system can invade and dislodge, peaceably, the Prince’s Bank and essentially rob him of his ability to conduct business. You might also wonder what the prince is going to do when his fiat currency begins to devalue so rapidly that he can no longer pay his castle employees the proper level of wages.

He will need to pay his soldiers some how and maintain his dominance.

Will the prince seek to control all the cryptocurrencies on earth? No, he does not have that power.

Could our Prince enlist the help of other princes abroad, hold a summit in a foreign land and gather the forces of many other princes and kings, to block this crypto-virus from spreading?

Maybe. He and his soldiers, who he pays in Bright Prince Fiats, must team up with other lands to thwart this growing threat, before it’s too late.

…a gold standard…

In the meantime, some gold-bug few of the Prince’s own citizens, wealthy masters in their own right, the ones who have decried his use of fiats for years, call for a gold standard once again – and for the abolition of crypto, henceforth.

The prince, seeing a way out of the crypto-crisis begins to devise his plan.

The renewed gold standard is enacted, sort of.

The prince has all the land gather their hoards of silver and gold, deposit them into the banks he controls and promises his subjects, that from this day forward, sound money will reign supreme in all his lands.

The prince’s subjects, save a few wary ones, deposit their golden hoards, which they have hidden from the princes of past and present, into the princely vaults. Record amounts of gold, silver and diamonds, flood in and the subjects are ecstatic.

Even the prince smiles, benevolently praising his lands. “For the good of my subjects!” he laments. He feigns emotions at just the right moments, as his advisors have advised.

The subjects of the lands, relieved of the dual threat of the crypto-virus and the prince’s own fiat money scourge, forgive the latter and bash the former with abandon.

Pronouncements echo and postings are posted all over the lands. Town criers cry. On every tree and jailhouse wall, flapping in the breezes, are the grand and memorable memoranda: sound money is the order of the new day.

Of course, our Prince, along with all the other princes and kings; and not a few queens of dubious nature, have simply activated their plan to cast a shadow of disrespect over the whole of crypto.

“You see,” the prince quips, as he lounges on great pillows, attended to by subjects knowledgeable in the ways of arcane finance, “crypto is fiat…and princely sums are sound money – backed by gold and silver! I have returned to the ways of old gold!”

But the plans these of princes is most certainly a mirage. They, the princes and kings, the dubious queens and tyrannical tricksters, have merely confiscated the gold and issued multitudes of fiat. They have also declined to report the exact amounts of gold and silver in their safe-haven bank vaults, under their control and properly guarded by soldiers of the crown, by and for the good of all subjects, of course.

“Security,” says the prince, “is of vast and secret importance! Therefore, for the good of all subjects, I will keep the location and amount of princely precious metals undisclosed.”

…gold and silver and jewels…

What’s more, the prince, seeing to the secret security of all this gold and silver and jewels, has it moved from the banks and consolidated at his Summer Palace. A palace which is really a fortress far from his subjects and heavily guarded by loyal soldiers, who are paid in actual gold.

Princely subjects, fighting for the flag, dying for honor and dust, must dine, once again, upon the quantitative ease. No more are they worth, no less should they breathe.

Do you see any parallels here? This is essentially the repeating history of money. The Classical Liberal societies start with gold/silver monies then they devolve into socialistic fiefdoms and fiat systems controlled by the prince. A prince, who requires all your private information, to keep you safe from the wanton criminals and be able to reallocate your accumulated wealth as you live; and upon your demise, absorb your gold – all for the good of the prince’s subjects – meaning us, whether we like it or not.

And you wonder why the subjects currently trust fiat cryptocurrency over gold – for now.

The subjects – paupersdo not trust the prince.

Perhaps one should look at this trend. Bitcoin is gathering more interest than silver or the dollar. That’s an eye opener.

When do you suppose the interest in bitcoin will surpass gold? And does it have staying power?


Sincerely,

 

Your Friend in Crypto…

Jack Shorebird


Disclaimer: Believe none of what you read herein, half of what you see, and bow to the prince every night, before your subject-slumber, if you think that I’m not serious…

Cryptocurrency: Dreams in a Bottle or a Bubble?

Cryptocurrency: Dreams in a Bottle or a Bubble?

Dear Cryptocurrency and Freedom Lovers of Earth:

We are just dreamers waiting for the big bad bubble. Lean over and kiss your bitcoins goodbye.


Bubble Trouble

Cryptocurrency is a bubble.

It’s the 2.0 try-outs, since we didn’t believe them the first thousand times.

We love Ponzi, they insinuate. We probably initiate chain-emails in our sleep, insert cryptocurrency miners on your webpages, and dream of pyramid schemes…as we pay our extremely reasonable .gov taxes.

Cardano (ADA) will surely explode.

Monero (XMR) will implode.

Electroneum (ETN) will evaporate.

Ethereum (ETH) will wither smartly, and die.

Cheaters and meanies are hiding in the dark corners of those ICO-laced cryptocurrencies.

Bad people, the lot of them.

Run back to gold?

“Hey! But we love the blockchains! Just not the ‘people’ running them.

“You see, us banks and .govs – we do a much better job popping fiat bubbles. We just go around, blowing them up, making you go broke and then we do it all over again!

“And us metallic mega-hoarders, well, we can dig it too! And hopefully, one day in the far-flung future, gold will become what it once was: money. And then us mega-hoarders will win the day. We will say, on that day, if that day ever comes again that — we told you so!

“We can’t wait. It’ll happen soon, we promise!”

At least some of the gold bugs are on board the crypto-train. Guys like Mike Maloney. He’s a forward thinker, unlike others…

The lesser numismatic gods, the ones still hoping to influence President Donald Trump – to take the US back to gold – are instead bashing away at crypto. Maybe they don’t realize that they are, at the same time, bashing away at liberty itself. Not such a brilliant tactic as it is a calculated risk.

“Tell these Millennial dolts that cryptocurrency not stamped IN GOD WE TRUST and FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE is NOT money. Jeez, the humanity of it all. Tell them gold is the answer – immediately.”

Is that the general feeling you get from some of the golden metal-heads? The ones who warn of crypto-bubbles and hope for altcoin death, in situ.

And the best gold bugs? The proud Sharia Law complaint versions of them? “Oh Canada!” they sing aloud on their days off, from those frozen roof tops.

I take you now, dear reader to the halls of GoldMoney. In Canada. There, the money (no not money yet) is GOLD! Actually, the company was called Bitgold before that, but cited regulatory problems and low demand, before shutting down.

These golden folks have allowed to be posted on their website (and I’m almost certain it will be taken down like another YouTube video that fled in haste — business is war, right?) are the illustrious words of one Bubble Attacker: Alasdair Macleod. For shame. (My opinion.)

Macleod is an apparent researcher for the company in question, hence not the best disinterested party, right? A mouthpiece? Hmmm.

Then there is a far more corrupt banking industry to consider. Finance houses practicing insider trading. A Fed that feeds the US with worthless notes. Just read the headlines. Wells Fargo. JPMorgan Chase. Bank of America. Quantitative Easing. (Not an opinion. Facts.)

Need I say more? Aren’t you sick enough yet?

It’s not the banks or the .govs this time, however. It’s gold. Or more precisely, a troubled offshoot of gold bullion pushers surveying the crypto-landscape and taking careful aim.

 

Crypto Kills Fiat

To talk of cryptocurrency bubbles that will occur and describe them as a dire menace to .gov fiat is pandering to the .govs of the world. Gold money is a far worse threat to the .gov machinery and they – the bullion dealers — know it.

If people were actually allowed to use gold, silver, copper – as money – the Fed would close its doors and the Military-Industrial Behemoth would most definitely become rather irritated, if not hungry.

The .govs would need to finance themselves with real money then. No longer could they pass on the costs via inflation taxation. They would need to beg, borrow or steal the gold – again – from their subjects.

And that is always a problem, isn’t it? Gold theft?

And why can’t some companies see that? Especially ones in North America? Don’t they understand that before gold can become money again – that the entire centrally planned economic model must be dismantled? That laws must protect the people from their .gov?

It appears that Our Golden Savior of Canada is sounding that alarm, however. Or at least helping to ring a few bells to scare the cryptocurrency birds away. Darned pesky eagles just won’t die. They want to fly at any cost, even if it means creating their own crypto-fiat money in a world gone money-subservient.

It’s also a way of diverting attention – heat – from them. And a way to “sell more gold!” Soon they might begin knocking on our doors. Or you’ll see them at flea markets, not buying gold, but selling it!

Congratulations bullion traders of the Great White Socialistic North. Not that the US is that far behind either, but strike while the bubble is hot! And the bubble attack is ongoing.

But we need new material, not tired old rinse-and-repeats.

It reminds me of Chicken Little when he yelled, “the sky is falling!”

I’ll call them, those Gold Money guys and gals, Our Golden Savior. The bell ringers, who are losing investors to cryptocurrency. And who only want to make sure you and I aren’t being swindled, right?

After all, gold is money. No, it’s not. Not yet anyway.

 

The Warning

One Macleodian article on their website (and also here) talks to us about bubbles. But this does not irritate me as much as the Canadian based Sharia Law Compliant company does.

I mean, gold and precious metals are no doubt great value keepers, but dear fellas, we do not live in a golden age. I swear. I just called my bank. They said that they can arrange to store any gold I might wish to purchase; however, I can’t use it as money. (No thanks.)

You can’t spend it, your gold – in the US – like money. The IRS wants an accounting of each transaction. Just like cryptocurrency.

We live in a fiat-currency age – in the US. We are jammed in tight. Well, there is one out. It’s called cryptocurrency.

Gold is taxed as property in the US, which makes it terrible to use as money – even debit card based. I believe Peter Schiff advised this long ago, but now – he has joined them. And now…these facts seem to have drifted away. Little tax bombs ready to go off in April, when you have that “awe shucks” 1040 moment.

Don’t get me wrong, I would rather use precious metals, as money. I’d love to have a sound money system, but this fiat thing is just going to have to burn itself out first. Venezuela style. A little Greek fire, as it were.

The article in question asserts that gold is on the minds of many. Granted. Any form of sound money ought to be. If gold was money today it would be on everyone’s mind. Well, most everyone. Some actually like the fiat money system and socialist governments.

The write-up also warns, yet again, about the pure and shiny new bubble. The cryptocurrency bubble that is sure to burst – someday.

The problem is the golden .gov wall, however. We are all looking at that wall and asking ourselves the same questions.

Is there an alternative to gold, since I can’t spend it like cash?

Should I buy a few pieces of a precious metal and store it myself or should I use a gold bullion dealer in Canada? A dealer with gold all over the world in nice vaults – all on the ‘up and up’ – but far away…?

 

Crypto is NOT Money?

The primary debate against cryptocurrency, that it is not money, ought to be jettisoned.

We know this. We know it is not money.

Gold can be money, but it’s not either. It’s just gold, for now.

Cryptocurrency is more closely related to a functional currency or a service money, but it is a form of fiat currency as well. But a far superior fiat currency, for many reasons. And rather crappy, as well.

That’s what we are living with. We can use cryptocurrency, with all the associated risks or we can obey. Now do you understand?

Why did people risk their lives to come across the oceans in hopes of a better life? By comparison, this rather low-key way of transferring wealth is lame by comparison. It’s an exercise in freedom, however frail. The thing is, the .govs need to crush it in order to stop the virtual and peaceful sit-in.

 

A Bridge to Sound Money

Cryptocurrency is a bridge. It is a way back to sound money over the river of .gov fiat systems currently in place. It is the bank waiting to store the gold, so to speak. Only, the .govs stand in the way, so there is an impasse.

Who will blink?

How could crypto bridge to gold?

View it as a check or a contract.  A voluntarily enforceable one for now, but one that would easily fit in as a legally binding instrument against a rare commodity, such as a precious metal. Banks could accept cryptos in exchange for silver coins in some enlightened future. That ‘backing’ would likely stabilize cryptocurrency values.

The problem is that precious metals are currently locked out of legal tender status. The same can be said of cryptocurrency, except it has many other advantages neither fiat money or gold has – at present.

A gold bullion dealer is no less vulnerable to .gov regulations, than are most public cryptocurrencies. There are more private cryptocurrencies, however.

 

Privacy

And that brings up the idea of privacy. The love-child of cryptography and blockchain services.

Unlike the bullion company in question, where I need to give my name, address, income, photograph, ad infinitum – let them dig into my personal life – I don’t need to do that with many cryptocurrencies. Not with CryptoNote versions; and I can find ways around those exchanges now asking for my goods, as well.

The argument that the cryptocurrency companies, promote their own coin – buy in, pump it up – is a given. This is also true across the spectrum of stocks and bonds, in the restricted .gov regulated trading houses – where the brokers take their cuts and fees; and slice the pie more often than the average cryptocurrency exchange. All at the pleasure of .gov.

 

Early Adopters

Certainly, early adopters could make the most profits in a cryptocurrency economy. Ground floor opportunities have that potential, but this does not validate that a bubble is on its way. This is unlike the fiat cash flowing into the stock market and extinguishing any semblance of a P/E Ratio.

The obvious measure that bitcoin, for example, is a self-verifying property mechanism, is difficult to ignore. The limited virtual supply of bitcoin can drive its price. It’s ability to maneuver unhampered is juxtaposed with the .govs’ desire to bring it to heel. There is no P/E Ratio here. It’s absorption of one unstable fiat by a stable one.

Can that be said of our bullion buddies? Not the ones who sell us gold and silver and we stash it elsewhere, but the one in question. The one that essentially keeps our metal safely locked away where we will never see it and where any wayward .gov can grab it.

You call that safety? Try and grab my fiat crypto. Go ahead.

How did that work out for you?

It didn’t, huh?

 

The Undermine

And the fact that cryptocurrency can “undermine” capital controls is not a weakness. Money, ultimately, should be private. Taxes, ultimately, should be voluntary.

Did you not read the word “controls?” Who is doing the controlling and why? By what right?

Why must I send my cash via banks, be over-charged, wait days, when I can zip crypto to my Aunt in South America in seconds and do it much cheaper?

Hence, cryptocurrency is pro-freedom, whereas the company under scrutiny is compliant. But it must be, right? It has chosen the obedient path.

And fiat currency issued by .gov, is, of course, fiscal subservience.

If allowed to go mainstream, those cryptocurrencies that wish to comply with the long list of rules and fees, could certainly see radical value booms and busts. Obedience will have its profits.  After this alleged legal adoption, when the investment houses flood in, the public will take notice, as the assertion goes. The bubble will come as a result.

 

Pre-Bubble

So, the article in question makes the assumption that the .govs will eventually acquiesce to the public cryptocurrencies. Ones like traceable Bitcoin, Litecoin or Cardano. Then it all goes pop!

Why are the bubblers so certain? Past comparisons?

The South Sea bubble, where corruption was rampant? Government granted monopolies are not comparable to voluntarily purchased, transparent cryptocurrencies.

The Tulip Mania bubble is often cited, but the fact that much of Europe was debasing their currency at the time, is not often explored. Interesting parallels, but tulips aren’t cryptos.

Additionally, since many CryptoNote based cryptocurrencies are not designed with regulations in mind, this bubble warning only seems to apply to the public blockchains, like bitcoin and family.

According to the assumptions in the article, this future flood of bubble wealth into public cryptocurrencies will also cause prices to rise. Another dire warning.

That’s the static world view. In other words, more money into crypto equals more spending, equals less goods available, equals higher prices.

The problem is, when demand increases, in a free trade economy, the supply is often increased, and everyone wins. Prices often come down, in such economies.

This static theory of rising prices also ignores non-spenders. Some will save and not spend.

 

Choking

Yet another bubble warning is the “choke-off fable.”

Once and if .gov fiat currencies begin to falter, interest rates will be raised to entice crypto-investors away.

One problem with that scenario is rising interest rates slows the economy and could explode the debt and pop the fiat bubble all the faster.

Another? That crypto holds far more promise of profit than bank certificates.

If .gov could lure the crypto enthusiasts away from their chosen altcoins; however, what would stop them from also confiscating all the gold? After all, gold does compete with fiat currency and it makes fiat devaluation clear. An embarrassment to be certain, but one that can be easily remedied with an official announcement of fiat currency to gold conversion. It’s happened in the US before. Quite a choke I would say.

And we are only talking about the US here. There would need to be an international effort to quash crypto. Raise interest rates all over. And suffer the consequences.

A credit crisis would be the least of our problems then. Fiat currency would falter and I’d posit that cryptos, absent a move to a sound money standard (gold) by .govs — would maintain their purchasing power, so long as .gov didn’t zap the internet. Then we’d need to use stored reserves (gold/silver), eggs, canned goods and wine.

 

Conclusion:

The upside is that gold is real money, but it is not legal tender. Until then, it appears rather sluggish.

To state that private cryptocurrency is a threat to .gov fiats, that they could hasten their demise, is a bit disingenuous. Fiat currency is a threat to all of us already. If crypto hastens its demise, so be it.

The company in question is no less a threat and perhaps even more dangerous to investors, when one considers all the precious metals under their private control and the ability of any one .gov to remove said stores on a whim – or a “trumped up” national emergency.

In short, to return to a precious metal standard will require new laws in the US and elsewhere. It will require the closure of the US Federal Reserve, unless they begin to issue gold backed currency. It will then open the doors for competition between banks, with real money in their vaults. Money that should also be in your country of residence and not Dubai, Toronto, or Hong Kong.

Until then I’ll risk a crypto-bubble and pass on the debit card of gold, from the company in question. While waiting for the laws to embrace sound money, I will grow old and I hope rich, on the only form of successful liberty-currency I have ever witnessed in my lifetime: cryptocurrency.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Shorebird

 

P.S. Don’t let the .gov buttheads get you down. And think before you buy into Bitgold GoldMoney.


The above is my opinion. Make sure to consult your gold bullion dealer, economist, attorney, accountant and hair stylist, before you chance the Greatest Crypto Bubble of all time!

%d bloggers like this: