I hope my libertarian friends won't take this as an endorsement of
socialism/communism, on the contrary, I am supporting the
free-association of liberty-loving free thinkers who, in response to the
socio-economic oppression of a corrupt system, a capitalism which had
subverted the free market, have opted to voluntarily band together into
communities where they could peacefully and freely live with like-minded
individuals, immune to the intervention of the state and corporations
alike. This was the original communism, that Karl Marx and his
supporters perverted into the most oppressive ideology the world has
ever seen!
_____________
*Does anyone realize that the
terms "Socialism" and "Communism" have historically been hijacked by
Marxism, and its various implementations?*
It's actually somewhat
difficult to find source material that accurately conveys what
socialism/communism originally was, and correctly documents and analyzes
its evolution into, what is quite frankly antithetical to its original
form.
I find it extremely disturbing that people can find Marxism
and communism as synonymous, considering that prior to Marx, and to
this day (where the same principles of the original communism that were
practiced, are still practiced, apparently without recognition of their
roots).
I'm going to have to do some extensive editing of
Wikipedia to correct this lack of information, and resulting
misinformation, but for now, I'll leave you all with an account from
Karl Marx, chapter 3 of the so-called "Communist Manifesto", where he
explains in detail what _*real_* communism/socialism was. It's ironic
that the original version of communism/socialism isn't given
recognition, as these communes, and the ideals that they were built on,
provided Marx with the inspiration to create his own ideology in the
first place!
*3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism*
We
do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern
revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat,
such as the writings of Babeuf and others.
The first direct
attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of
universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown,
necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the
proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for
its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be
produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary
literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had
necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism
and social levelling in its crudest form.
The Socialist and
Communist systems, properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier,
Owen, and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period,
described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie
(see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).
The founders of
these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action
of the decomposing elements in the prevailing form of society. But the
proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a
class without any historical initiative or any independent political
movement.
Since the development of class antagonism keeps even
pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they
find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the
emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new
social science, after new social laws, that are to create these
conditions.
Historical action is to yield to their personal
inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to
fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organisation of the
proletariat to an organisation of society especially contrived by these
inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the
propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.
In
the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for
the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class.
Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the
proletariat exist for them.
The undeveloped state of the class
struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this
kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They
want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of
the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large,
without the distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling
class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail
to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of
society?
Hence, they reject all political, and especially all
revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means,
necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the
way for the new social Gospel.
Such fantastic pictures of future
society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very
undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own
position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class
for a general reconstruction of society.
But these Socialist and
Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack
every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most
valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The
practical measures proposed in them — such as the abolition of the
distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on
of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage
system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the
function of the state into a more superintendence of production — all
these proposals point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms
which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these
publications, are recognised in their earliest indistinct and undefined
forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely Utopian
character.
The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and
Communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In
proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite
shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic
attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical
justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems
were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every
case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original
views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical
development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that
consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class
antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their
social Utopias, of founding isolated “phalansteres”, of establishing
“Home Colonies”, or setting up a “Little Icaria”(4) — duodecimo editions
of the New Jerusalem — and to realise all these castles in the air,
they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the
bourgeois. By degrees, they sink into the category of the reactionary
[or] conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only
by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious
belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.
They,
therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the
working class; such action, according to them, can only result from
blind unbelief in the new Gospel.
The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Réformistes.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Collectivism As a Paradigm Driven By Free Association
Since a collective is made up of a group of persons or individuals, it implies that collectives are voluntary. If a collective isn't voluntary, furthermore, it can't be considered a collective by the very nature of a collective, which requires all members of the collective to be like-minded (part of the cohesive element of collectivism, which you should be familiar with from a more in-depth, academic understanding of collectivism theory.
Collectivism is, incidentally, a crucial element of the free market; here's a piece on the collectivist nature of the free market, from a libertarian point-of-view:
http://fff.org/.../article/tgif-individualist-collectivism
There are a wealth of works by individualists who claim that collectivism is forced or coerced, but interestingly enough, no collectivism advocates so much as hint at the possibility that collectivism is imposed upon people; additionally, many moderates, and even some individualists (such as in the paper above) recognize that coercion is, at the very least, not necessarily part of collectivism.
One could argue that a collective can be forced, but the vast majority of historical collectives were not forced, and those that were forced or coerced, have always proven historically to be dysfunctional. Coercion is a dysfunctionality of any society, individualistic or collectivistic.
The Soviet Union was dysfunctional and wasteful, had communication and social integration problems, and ultimately fell due to the societal entropy caused by the lack of collective cohesion, due to its coercive nature. Forced collectives never succeed, because they're not healthy or stable.
On the other hand, free association collectives, such as the democratic process, unionization, political parties, the stock market, the free market generally, the U.S. constitution, free software development, user-generated content (such as YouTube, Wikipedia, and social networks like Facebook), etc.-- these are all crystal clear examples of historical collectives that continue to survive and thrive, precisely because they maintain the supporting element of free association, for any collective to remain healthy and stable.
So, perhaps to prevent any further misunderstanding, I will clarify: All healthy and functional collectives are necessarily decentralized and free associating. A collective is unstable, dysfunctional, and corrupt in proportion to its lack of adherence to these two principles, especially the principle of free association.
Collectivism is, incidentally, a crucial element of the free market; here's a piece on the collectivist nature of the free market, from a libertarian point-of-view:
http://fff.org/.../article/tgif-individualist-collectivism
There are a wealth of works by individualists who claim that collectivism is forced or coerced, but interestingly enough, no collectivism advocates so much as hint at the possibility that collectivism is imposed upon people; additionally, many moderates, and even some individualists (such as in the paper above) recognize that coercion is, at the very least, not necessarily part of collectivism.
One could argue that a collective can be forced, but the vast majority of historical collectives were not forced, and those that were forced or coerced, have always proven historically to be dysfunctional. Coercion is a dysfunctionality of any society, individualistic or collectivistic.
The Soviet Union was dysfunctional and wasteful, had communication and social integration problems, and ultimately fell due to the societal entropy caused by the lack of collective cohesion, due to its coercive nature. Forced collectives never succeed, because they're not healthy or stable.
On the other hand, free association collectives, such as the democratic process, unionization, political parties, the stock market, the free market generally, the U.S. constitution, free software development, user-generated content (such as YouTube, Wikipedia, and social networks like Facebook), etc.-- these are all crystal clear examples of historical collectives that continue to survive and thrive, precisely because they maintain the supporting element of free association, for any collective to remain healthy and stable.
So, perhaps to prevent any further misunderstanding, I will clarify: All healthy and functional collectives are necessarily decentralized and free associating. A collective is unstable, dysfunctional, and corrupt in proportion to its lack of adherence to these two principles, especially the principle of free association.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Is The Fed Really What We Need To End?
The Federal Reserve has clearly devastated the United States currency, with a cumulative inflation of a staggering 2,253.1% since its introduction in 1913. One USD in 1913 would be worth $23.53 in 2014, meaning that in effect, the dollar has since 1913 lost nearly 96% of its value.
On Facebook, a fellow Libertarian made the following claim- a common sentiment shared among anti-Fed conservatives:
"We've been in constant inflation since 1913, with exponential inflation since 1971. The Fed can't stop printing. It will collapse."
I agree with the second claim, but not with the first. we experienced cycles of inflation and deflation in the first few decades following the introduction of the Fed, as the Fed was still following its intended duty of matching the gold standard. As a result, we experienced cycles of deflation from 1920 all the way until 1955:
1920-1921: -10.5%
1921-22: -6.1%
1926-28: -3.4%
1929: 0%
1930: -2.3%
1931: -9%
1932: -9.9%
1933: -5.1%
1938-39: -3.5%
1949: -1.2%
1955: -0.4%
2009: -0.4%
(source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008 )
Our currency stopped deflating entirely after 1955, and as he said, didn't start inflating exponentially until after 1971. This goes to show that the Fed in-and-of itself doesn't devalue currency, the policies of it do. The problem is that the United States economy is being increasingly driven by stocks, which thrive on market growth and increasing consumer prices- and on the rich elite, who thrive on risky investments that they can only afford to make by relying on low-interest debt. It's our economic paradigms, and market dynamics that drive the Fed, not the other way around as anti-Fed activists suggest.
Ending the Fed won't change anything, it will merely create a vacuum of power that will be filled by the most economically-advantaged contender(s). In fact, that's exactly why the Fed was created in the first place. When economic policies failed in the 1800s, and again in the 1900s, large bankers and corporations, especially JP Morgan, took advantage of the depression to gain great wealth and power, and fronted huge loans to the U.S. government, in exchange for high interest rates and political concessions that threatened to compromise the government's power over economic direction.
Incidentally, that's exactly what went wrong with the Fed. The Fed itself has been compromised by bankers and investment firms, despite its intended aim to prevent that. The Fed isn't a bad thing in and of itself any more than democracy is. What's bad is that it has been co-opted for the wealthy elite, at the expense of everyone else.
On Facebook, a fellow Libertarian made the following claim- a common sentiment shared among anti-Fed conservatives:
"We've been in constant inflation since 1913, with exponential inflation since 1971. The Fed can't stop printing. It will collapse."
I agree with the second claim, but not with the first. we experienced cycles of inflation and deflation in the first few decades following the introduction of the Fed, as the Fed was still following its intended duty of matching the gold standard. As a result, we experienced cycles of deflation from 1920 all the way until 1955:
1920-1921: -10.5%
1921-22: -6.1%
1926-28: -3.4%
1929: 0%
1930: -2.3%
1931: -9%
1932: -9.9%
1933: -5.1%
1938-39: -3.5%
1949: -1.2%
1955: -0.4%
2009: -0.4%
(source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008 )
Our currency stopped deflating entirely after 1955, and as he said, didn't start inflating exponentially until after 1971. This goes to show that the Fed in-and-of itself doesn't devalue currency, the policies of it do. The problem is that the United States economy is being increasingly driven by stocks, which thrive on market growth and increasing consumer prices- and on the rich elite, who thrive on risky investments that they can only afford to make by relying on low-interest debt. It's our economic paradigms, and market dynamics that drive the Fed, not the other way around as anti-Fed activists suggest.
Ending the Fed won't change anything, it will merely create a vacuum of power that will be filled by the most economically-advantaged contender(s). In fact, that's exactly why the Fed was created in the first place. When economic policies failed in the 1800s, and again in the 1900s, large bankers and corporations, especially JP Morgan, took advantage of the depression to gain great wealth and power, and fronted huge loans to the U.S. government, in exchange for high interest rates and political concessions that threatened to compromise the government's power over economic direction.
Incidentally, that's exactly what went wrong with the Fed. The Fed itself has been compromised by bankers and investment firms, despite its intended aim to prevent that. The Fed isn't a bad thing in and of itself any more than democracy is. What's bad is that it has been co-opted for the wealthy elite, at the expense of everyone else.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Fusing Libertarianism with Progressivism - Resolving Misunderstandings
I found out how to overcome the biggest obstacle to an alliance between libertarianism and progressivism: libertarians passionately believe that property rights increase freedom, but in fact that effectively do the opposite. see my thread here for an argument (where I have largely unsuccessfully) attempting to convince the Google+ libertarian crowd that property rights go against freedom.
https://plus.google.com/+TimothyMatias/posts/GEyRtHpJr6W
It just occurred me though, if libertarians realized that property rights limit freedom, they would be much more likely to join progressives, who's weakening of property rights for individuals (physical, monetary, intellectual, etc.) has proven to be the biggest obstacle between the two groups.
It's my mission to make the impossible possible. I understand libertarians very well. I also understand progressives well. I know how much libertarians value property, and that's why I'm making it my priority to show libertarians how they've misunderstood the function of property, in relation to "freedom" and "responsibility".
This means convincing Libertarians that the will of society is a just a projection of the wills of individuals, and convincing Progressives that the wills of individuals reflect the will of society.
See, that wasn't so hard. "Different ways of looking at the same thing"
If I can find a way to make that "click", we'll be one step closer to a fusion of values.
https://plus.google.com/+TimothyMatias/posts/GEyRtHpJr6W
It just occurred me though, if libertarians realized that property rights limit freedom, they would be much more likely to join progressives, who's weakening of property rights for individuals (physical, monetary, intellectual, etc.) has proven to be the biggest obstacle between the two groups.
It's my mission to make the impossible possible. I understand libertarians very well. I also understand progressives well. I know how much libertarians value property, and that's why I'm making it my priority to show libertarians how they've misunderstood the function of property, in relation to "freedom" and "responsibility".
This means convincing Libertarians that the will of society is a just a projection of the wills of individuals, and convincing Progressives that the wills of individuals reflect the will of society.
See, that wasn't so hard. "Different ways of looking at the same thing"
If I can find a way to make that "click", we'll be one step closer to a fusion of values.
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Relationship Between Property Rights and Freedom
As
much as I support private property rights as a necessary right in
modern-day societies, it isn't something that can be justifiably
promoted in the name of "liberty". Private property isn't a part of
freedom, nor is it necessarily compatible with freedom. Owning property
limits who can use it, how people can use it, etc., and puts conditions
on its use. By definition, private property is a barrier to freedom, as it restricts the use property to the conditions imposed on it by the legal owners.
This isn't to say that private property can't be a vehicle of *partial* freedom. Sometimes it's necessary to restrict some freedoms (such as the free use of property, via private property) to ensure other freedoms (such as the individual guarantee of freedom to do what they like with their property, and protection against those who would infringe on that freedom).
In an ideal, truly free society, private property would not be necessary, as the people would freely share all their land. resources, ideas, commodities, etc. with each other, and everyone would be more prosperous, free, and innovative as a result. Private property cannot be part of any *truly* free society, as (for reasons I documented above) it is a barrier to the free use by non-owners. Just keep that in mind: Private property is necessary for a conditional freedom that emphasizes the rights of individuals, but is not by any means compatible with unconditional freedom.
This isn't to say that private property can't be a vehicle of *partial* freedom. Sometimes it's necessary to restrict some freedoms (such as the free use of property, via private property) to ensure other freedoms (such as the individual guarantee of freedom to do what they like with their property, and protection against those who would infringe on that freedom).
In an ideal, truly free society, private property would not be necessary, as the people would freely share all their land. resources, ideas, commodities, etc. with each other, and everyone would be more prosperous, free, and innovative as a result. Private property cannot be part of any *truly* free society, as (for reasons I documented above) it is a barrier to the free use by non-owners. Just keep that in mind: Private property is necessary for a conditional freedom that emphasizes the rights of individuals, but is not by any means compatible with unconditional freedom.
Free Market Vs. Capitalism: Clearing up Some Confusion
It seems there's a lot of confusion about the relationship between the "free market" and "capitalism", so I'd like to clear things up:
technically the "free market" is a form of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is rather broad:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
According to this definition, most economic systems that are not state-controlled are capitalistic.
The free market, in its most pure and idealistic form, is what we refer to today as "the black market", or alternatively, "the underground economy". This is the most decentralized form of capitalism.
Corporatism is most centralized form of capitalism. It is essentially the same thing as socialism, only the states are substituted for corporations, government agencies for subsidiaries, bureaucrats for CEOs, and voters for shareholders.
In an ideal, free society, the free market would be the de facto form of capitalism, but such free trade has been so suppressed that it can only thrive underground. And incidentally, it has thrived greatly, at least on a global level, despite (or rather, because of) government oppression and intervention in the economy).
So when I say capitalism is completely different from the free market, this is what I mean: The capitalism in place today, around the world, is completely different from free market capitalism- it is in fact its polar opposite. And additionally, the polar opposite of Socialism is Anarchism, which goes to show that the advantages of capitalism may not be advantages at all. What brings us prosperity isn't capitalism, it's freedom!
technically the "free market" is a form of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is rather broad:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
According to this definition, most economic systems that are not state-controlled are capitalistic.
The free market, in its most pure and idealistic form, is what we refer to today as "the black market", or alternatively, "the underground economy". This is the most decentralized form of capitalism.
Corporatism is most centralized form of capitalism. It is essentially the same thing as socialism, only the states are substituted for corporations, government agencies for subsidiaries, bureaucrats for CEOs, and voters for shareholders.
In an ideal, free society, the free market would be the de facto form of capitalism, but such free trade has been so suppressed that it can only thrive underground. And incidentally, it has thrived greatly, at least on a global level, despite (or rather, because of) government oppression and intervention in the economy).
So when I say capitalism is completely different from the free market, this is what I mean: The capitalism in place today, around the world, is completely different from free market capitalism- it is in fact its polar opposite. And additionally, the polar opposite of Socialism is Anarchism, which goes to show that the advantages of capitalism may not be advantages at all. What brings us prosperity isn't capitalism, it's freedom!
Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Economist's Fallacious FUD About Bitcoin
This article about Bitcoin, while knowledgeable and well-written, is a
classic example of how even the experts can misunderstand how Bitcoin
functions:
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590766-virtual-currency-it-mathematically-elegant-increasingly-popular-and-highly
No, Bitcoin is not unprofitable to mine, it is fairly profitable, if you know what you're doing.
No, Bitcoin's open source nature and the software's ability to be easily modified democratically does not make it fragile, it makes it remarkably strong and resilient, just like any other governing system of such a nature.
No, Bitcoin would not have difficulty maintaining nodes once the block rewards become negligible, the transaction fees have already been implemented, and the plans to scale the transaction fees to account for diminishing rewards has already been established.
No, decentralization and a lack of reliance on government or bank authorities does not make Bitcoin "untrustworthy" or "fictional", it makes Bitcoin more democratic, more trustworthy (since it is almost purely logical, and does not depend on the highly faulty and plutocratic exchange of power imposed by governments and banks), and far more resilient than any other existing financial system in place, particularly since Bitcoin has no single points of failure, unlike traditional financial institutions and currency authorities.
No, Bitcoin is not particularly vulnerable to security. Exchanges and wallets are hacked, not Bitcoin, and that is the fault of the users and the exchanges, not the Bitcoin software. and even if the software was at fault, it can be easily (within minutes, often) be patched and secured, and is guaranteed to be so due to the active Bitcoin community and the open-source nature of the product. So overall, Bitcoin is far more secure than any conventional currency could ever be.
No, Bitcoin is not suffering from its several gigabyte blockchain of transactions. The average hard drive size is growing exponentially, and the current Bitcoin blockchain is less than 12 GB. that's not even half a single layer Blu-ray of data. to suggest that this is a massive, unmanageable amount is just plain asinine!
No, the "arms race" of Bitcoin ASICS is not destabilizing the currency or interfering with its viability. On the contrary, it vastly increases the network's total hashing power, making it exponentially more secure and protected against external threats.
No, Bitcoin transaction times and sizes cannot tell you who made the transactions, even if you "follow the money". The reason Silk Road's CEO and higher level users got caught, wasn't because of the transactions being analyzed, it was because they bragged at length about their exploits, used real names for registration, and made a myriad of other mistakes.
Tell me +The Economist, is you can follow the Bitcoin money to discover the originator of Bitcoin transactions, then (excuse my french) why the fuck hasn't anyone discovered the identity(s) of the single largest Bitcoin owner, and the one who mined the first (genesis) block? Satoshi Nakamoto, despite numerous high profile attempts, remains unknown after all this time, even though he has a bigger Bitcoin footprint than anyone. It's all guesswork, plain and simple. This supposed "follow the money", while useful for formulating educated guesses, is useless for discovering any Bitcoin user's identity, without other, more concrete and transparent sources of information. Ultimately, the ledger of transactions serves no more than as a collection of "hints", the vast majority of which are far too vague to provide any value to investigators.
All and all, while the writers of this article obviously did their homework enough to be knowledgeable about Bitcoin, they obviously haven't analyzed their research enough to really understand Bitcoin, only enough to post FUD and misinformation that can convince the less initiated. This goes to show that even established and reputable journalism firms like the Economist can be very, very wrong!
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590766-virtual-currency-it-mathematically-elegant-increasingly-popular-and-highly
No, Bitcoin is not unprofitable to mine, it is fairly profitable, if you know what you're doing.
No, Bitcoin's open source nature and the software's ability to be easily modified democratically does not make it fragile, it makes it remarkably strong and resilient, just like any other governing system of such a nature.
No, Bitcoin would not have difficulty maintaining nodes once the block rewards become negligible, the transaction fees have already been implemented, and the plans to scale the transaction fees to account for diminishing rewards has already been established.
No, decentralization and a lack of reliance on government or bank authorities does not make Bitcoin "untrustworthy" or "fictional", it makes Bitcoin more democratic, more trustworthy (since it is almost purely logical, and does not depend on the highly faulty and plutocratic exchange of power imposed by governments and banks), and far more resilient than any other existing financial system in place, particularly since Bitcoin has no single points of failure, unlike traditional financial institutions and currency authorities.
No, Bitcoin is not particularly vulnerable to security. Exchanges and wallets are hacked, not Bitcoin, and that is the fault of the users and the exchanges, not the Bitcoin software. and even if the software was at fault, it can be easily (within minutes, often) be patched and secured, and is guaranteed to be so due to the active Bitcoin community and the open-source nature of the product. So overall, Bitcoin is far more secure than any conventional currency could ever be.
No, Bitcoin is not suffering from its several gigabyte blockchain of transactions. The average hard drive size is growing exponentially, and the current Bitcoin blockchain is less than 12 GB. that's not even half a single layer Blu-ray of data. to suggest that this is a massive, unmanageable amount is just plain asinine!
No, the "arms race" of Bitcoin ASICS is not destabilizing the currency or interfering with its viability. On the contrary, it vastly increases the network's total hashing power, making it exponentially more secure and protected against external threats.
No, Bitcoin transaction times and sizes cannot tell you who made the transactions, even if you "follow the money". The reason Silk Road's CEO and higher level users got caught, wasn't because of the transactions being analyzed, it was because they bragged at length about their exploits, used real names for registration, and made a myriad of other mistakes.
Tell me +The Economist, is you can follow the Bitcoin money to discover the originator of Bitcoin transactions, then (excuse my french) why the fuck hasn't anyone discovered the identity(s) of the single largest Bitcoin owner, and the one who mined the first (genesis) block? Satoshi Nakamoto, despite numerous high profile attempts, remains unknown after all this time, even though he has a bigger Bitcoin footprint than anyone. It's all guesswork, plain and simple. This supposed "follow the money", while useful for formulating educated guesses, is useless for discovering any Bitcoin user's identity, without other, more concrete and transparent sources of information. Ultimately, the ledger of transactions serves no more than as a collection of "hints", the vast majority of which are far too vague to provide any value to investigators.
All and all, while the writers of this article obviously did their homework enough to be knowledgeable about Bitcoin, they obviously haven't analyzed their research enough to really understand Bitcoin, only enough to post FUD and misinformation that can convince the less initiated. This goes to show that even established and reputable journalism firms like the Economist can be very, very wrong!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)