Venezuelan Migrants: Columbia opens homes & borders

With all of the Trump talk on television, American media networks have dropped the ball on newsworthy international events. Here is a humanitarian crisis that we haven’t heard much about lately.

In the 1980s and early 90s, many Colombians fled to Venezuela. At the time, the Venezuelan economy was booming. But now, the country is a poverty stricken dog, due to the colossal mismanagement of strong man, Nicolás Maduro.

Now, Venezuelans are fleeing. Inflation is hitting One Million Percent and the common laborer cannot feed his family. Artists make tote bags out of worthless currency. A hot dog from a street vendor cost the typical worker a month’s wages.

The US and Brazil have taken in 75,000 Venezuelans each. Peru has taken in far more than most countries with 414,000 immigrants. Yet, Columbia has taken in one million so far—and they are granting border crossers legal status. Many Columbian citizens are opening their homes, taking in whole families. Surprisingly, even the overcrowded border town (with massive migration at the port), enjoys booming economic activity.

Sure, there are some violent crimes blamed on new immigrants and one local police chief is trying to stir up Trump-style Xenophobia. But citizens and the national government are not buying it. 200 years ago, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador were one country (Gran Columbia, with Bogota as capital). Cross-border migration has been high throughout the past century due to drug wars, the conflict with FARC and various political & economic upheavals. These peoples have shared ancestry. Each country traces its roots to a similar mix of European, African & Native American ties.

Check out this short video. It is a sympathetic look at the current crises, a supportive callout to the people of Columbia and the source of my commentary, above.

Trump: It’s time to make a graceful exit

Let me be uncharacteristically contrite and deferential. No caricatures or unflattering photo. No reference to the latest news bomb. No jabs at character, demeanor, or conflicting statements. Let’s consider just two things. Saving face and appropritate timing, for those who have supported Mr. Trump or his policies…

Republican friends, I identify with you. We don’t agree on every issue of the day, but I have been a registered Republican—cut from the Reagan mold. I believe in conservative economics, draining swamps & limited government. We share these goals.

But to Trump supporters: Let’s face it. Please! It’s time to cave. It’s time for Trump to make a graceful exit.

And to Mr. Trump: Go in peace. I am sure that your heart is in the right place, but you just weren’t cut out for this job. No trial; no impeachment; no demeaning critique. Go quietly, and return to work on your real estate affairs. If you ever need a pardon, I will support your personal freedom. But do it now. Please.

Learn the basics of a steering differential

If you have ever owned a matchbook car, you know that each pair of wheels are connected by an axle. In small toys, the axle is often a steel wire about the diameter of a paper clip.

But in a road car, connecting the wheels with a straight, rigid axle yields a terrible driving experience. Here is a fascinating video on the design and evolution of a steering differential. That’s the gear system that connects a drive shaft from the transmission to a split axle—allowing powered wheels to rotate at different speeds. This is necessary to accommodate turns and uneven terrain.

Without a differential, your tires won’t last long on dry pavement and they will wobble and feather during sharp turns. After all, the outside wheel is cornering a larger radius and so, it wants to turn at a higher speed.

With the exception of 3-wheelers, like the Polaris Slingshot) or the Campagna T-Rex (photo), differentials have been used on internal combustion autos, even in the 19th century. The mechanism was known to the ancient Greeks, and patented for use in steam-powered cars in 1827—long before gasoline engines. Even the Ford Model T had a differential gearbox. But not every 4-wheeled vehicle has a differential…

One Wheel and Rear-Wheel Drive

So, how do go karts, motorized toys and some very cheap cars deal with the need for opposing wheels to spin at different speeds? Answer: The engine is shunted to just one rear wheel, often using a chain drive. This leaves the other wheel free to spin at whatever speed is necessary. It also leaves the front wheels free to navigate turns without the complicated task of sending power through a steering linkage. Because the front wheels were not powered, they simply rotate freely on independent roller bearings at the end of a straight axle.

But one-wheel power lacks traction and skid control. And it becomes dangerous whenever one wheel has less grip on the terrain. That’s where a differential comes into play. Furthermore, rear-wheel drive tends to shove a vehicle into each bump and hill rather than pulling it up and over obstacles. In the past 40 years, most cars have been redesigned to power the front wheels rather than the rear wheels. This not only improves handling, it helps in snow and on uneven terrain.

Differential Design: Simple, elegant & efficient

This video was filmed in the 1937, as evidenced by a vintage, pre-war Chevy sedan. Although this educational film it was made more than 100 years after the differential was invented, I wonder how many additional innovations have been added since?

This video explains a differential. Set time to far left to add
3 minute preface explaining the problem with straight axles.

I’m not in the business of teaching auto mechanics. But if you have caught the bug, check out these additional drive train principles —

Holy Cow! I just discovered Almond Milk

Is almond milk healthier or better tasting than cow’s milk? Here is what Consumer Report says, but you may find my own experience more illuminating…

My Experience

For better or worse, I consume a large quantity of milk; a gallon of skim or 1% every week since early youth. I grew up in an era when kids were urged to drink 4 glasses each day. Breakfast cereals and oatmeal demand milk and ice cream was everyone’s favorite treat. But now, I am more health & environmentally conscious. I have finally begun to explore alternatives.

I can’t speak with authority on which is healthier—milk or a milk alternative. But, in just the past 24 hours, I certainly have formed an opinion about fat, carbs, taste, texture, sustainability, animal cruelty, shelf life and just about anything else you might ask.

Why Bother?

Take your pick: Fat, carbs, sustainability, fear of growth hormones and antibiotics—and for some consumers: a sensitivity to naturally occurring lactose or casein.

Why Not Soy Milk?

Soy is the #1 milk Alternative. But you won’t find me singing its praises. So, let’s get this one little detail off the table from the get go: Soy is banned from this analysis based solely on taste. For me, taste disqualifies it as a milk substitute. I never thought that soy milk tasted right—either straight up, in coffee or on cereal. It just seems a bit off.

What About Almonds?

I have no idea why I waited a lifetime to try almond milk, especially considering that milk is my comfort food and I love snacking on almonds.

I just bought my very first: a 96 oz plastic container of Silk brand, unsweetened almond milk, and I am totally floored. Wow—It is fantastic! Smooth, seductively aromatic and quite sweet (even though it is unsweetened, with only 30 calories per cup). It goes perfectly with breakfast cereal, both hot or cold. (N.B. I have not tried it in coffee, because I drink it black).

Appearance / Taste:

To my palate, Silk unsweetened almond milk tastes surprisingly close to 1% or 2% dairy milk. Any almond milk has a slight nut taste and a warm color (light tan instead of bright white).

Why did I wait decades to try almond milk? I have no idea. I will try making it at home, but—for me—stabilizers, calcium, vitamins, and preservatives are not important issues. My hot buttons, are taste, texture, carbs, fat content, animal cruelty and sustainability.

Protein, Vitamins & Calcium

Dairy and Soy have protein, but almond milk does not. Getting enough protein is not an issue for me. I eat plenty of meat, fish and peanut butter. On the other hand, store brought milk is an important source of calcium and vitamins. This store bought almond milk is fortified with Vitamin A, D & E. It has 50% more calcium than cow’s milk.

Carbs

For me, this is the big kahuna. Until recently, I was boarderline diabetic. My doctor demanded that I lose weight, exercize and cut way back on carbs. I listened, and my health is much better for heeding his advice. If I hadn’t, I would be pricking my finger and shooting insulin. More importantly, I would prefer to keep my eyesight and toes.

A cup of 1% dairy milk has 12.2g of carbs; most of it from lactose, a form of sugar. Lactose-free milk has about the same carbs, because the dairy replaces lactose with another sugar. Silk unsweetened almond milk tastes great. I don’t find it lacking in flavor or sweetness. Yet, it has only 1g of carbs; 92% less than dairy milk. [continued]…

Cost, Shelf Life

I am slightly concerned about cost and shelf life. Compared with the house brand of dairy milk, Silk brand almost milk is about twice the cost. According to the label, it remains fresh for 7~10 days, while store bought dairy milk typically has an expiration of 10~12 days. Since almond milk comes in a slightly smaller container (96 -vs- 128 oz), hopefully, that this won’t be a problem.

Conclusion

I am hooked, even before comparing brands or testing recipes at home, I prefer almond from the very first taste. After consuming 2,600 gallons of cow’s milk (52 gal/yr * years since childhood), I am convinced that almonds beat cows hands down.

But, you may not share my priorities. You might react to lactose or casein or you might not like a slight nut flavor. You might want a natural source of protein or feel that almonds don’t do justice to morning coffee. Check out the comparison below and then try almond milk for yourself. Let me know what you think!

Taste
Cost
Primary Food
Shelf life
Calories/Fat
Total Carbs
Spectacular—better than milk
About 2x the cost of milk
Produced with no heat and little energy/resources
Once opened, it is 30% less than milk
30 calories and 2.5 grams (not saturated)
1g (no sugars!) -vs- 12.2g in cow’s milk

Several acquaintances have asked if I accepted cash or consideration for expressing this positive opinion about almond milk and Silk brand in particular. Not at all. My opinion and decision to publish is personal and extemporaneous. I have no commercial ties, referral fee, free samples or any consideration. I have no contacts with any vendor or food purveyor.

Sessions & Mueller: Will Trump get away with this?

Here is an opportunity to do something for our country. Do it for the environment, for women, for minorities, for truth, for the 1st amendment. Do it for the world.

This is not a matter of Republican –vs– Democrat or Conservative –vs– Liberal. It is scholar, leadership and ethics –vs– ignorance, intolerance and an utter morass.

Sign the change.org petition. Protect the special counsel investigation. Defend justice.

Does voting against someone violate a principle?

These “I Voted” stickers are lined up on our microwave oven—a tradition in our home that began 10 years ago. Each sticker represents an even-year election.

I look up to my older brother. He has always been a mensch in dealing with both personal and business relationships. More consistently than me, he stands for noble ideals. He is not quick to give into self-interest or raw emotion and he always weighs the affect of his actions and decisions on the greater community.

But sometimes, standing firm on principle can backfire. I think that this is such a time.

Two years ago, my brother felt that neither major-party candidate for US president was worthy of his vote. And so, he voted for a 3rd-party candidate. I recall his conviction: “I must have faith in the candidate that gets my vote. I will not vote against someone.”

I felt differently. I agreed that the 3rd party candidate was best for the job, but I was more practical about his very low polling number (under 5%). A vote for him would make my voice ineffective. I was more concerned with the possibility of a seriously racist and unqualified man seizing the oval office.

In principle, my brother and I supported the same candidate in 2016. But in practice, I felt that it was necessary to stop a train wreck in the making. I voted against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I voted against racism, bullying, misogyny, leadership without scholarship, a tyrant without integrity, an individual who builds walls instead of bridges—and one who lies about how the wall will be funded.

My brother voted for the candidate with no path to victory. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, he felt that the other major-party candidate had significant flaws, but he agrees that she wasn’t a train wreck. I would have preferred that he helped to avert the dismantling of all that we value.

I still admire my brother. His word is his bond and his principles are unshakeable. But today, I did exactly what I did two years ago. This time, I hope it makes a difference.

Why vote against someone?

I am ashamed to admit that it has become necessary to vote against something or someone… Against an insipid cancer which is taking our country back to the days of slavery, eugenics, dirty politics and Manifest Destiny in the guise of exceptionalism.

We draw our strength from our diversity, friends—a frightening Truth for those who benefit from their perch. But, we Europeans aren’t the first to enjoy this land. We needn’t be pushed backwards toward ignorance, intolerance and racism. A rising ocean floats all boats. Blacks, Jews, Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans, “unnamed Middle Eastern men” and those who confirm their gender identity are not the problem. They are our strengths—our partner and a solution. Together, we represent a nation of rich diversity, culture and with better opportunity for a successful and vibrant economy.

Far from our differences being a threat, the real problem is intolerance and the assumption of a “zero-sum” game. It isn’t necessary and it isn’t true.

I recognize that there is a legitimate debate over border security, healthcare, gun control, abortion and social programs. Some even feel that there is still a debate over the environment. But, we needn’t be predators. We are not in a battle over territory or the carcass of a deer. Resist racism and intolerance. We can all rise to put this train back on its tracks.

Observations about trust and moral authority (in just this past weekend!)

Will we all be using a Blockchain currency some day?

At Quora.com, I respond to quetions on Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency. Today, a reader asked “Will we all be using a blockchain-based currency some day?”.

This is an easy question to answer, but not for usual Geeky reasons: A capped supply, redundant bookkeeping, privacy & liberty or blind passion. No, these are all tangential reasons. But first, let’s be clear about the answer:

Yes, Virginia. We are all destined  to move,
eventually, to a blockchain based currency.

I am confident of this because of one enormous benefit that trumps all other considerations. Also, because of flawed arguments behind perceived negatives.

Let’s start by considering the list of reasons why many analysists and individuals expect cryptocurrencies to fail widespread adoption—especially as a currency:

  • It lacks ‘intrinsic value’, government backing or a promise of redemption
  • It facilitates crime
  • Privacy options interfere with legitimate tax enforcement
  • It is susceptible to hacks, scams, forgery, etc
  • It is inherently deflationary, and thus retards economic growth
  • It subverts a government’s right to control its own monetary policy

All statements are untrue, except the last two. My thoughts on each point are explained and justified in other articles—but let’s look at the two points that are partially true:

  1. Indeed, a capped blockchain-based cryptocurrency is deflationary, but this will not necessarily inhibit economic growth. In fact, it will greatly spur commerce, jobs and international trade.
  2. Yes, widespread adoption of a permissionless, open source, p2p cryptocurrency (not just as a payment instrument, but as the money itself), will decouple a government from its money supply, interest rates, and more. This independence combined with immutable trust is a very good thing for everyone, especially for government.

How so?

Legislators, treasuries and reserve boards will lose their ability to manipulate the supply and demand of money. That’s because the biggest spender of all no longer gets to define “What is money?” Each dollar spent must be collected from taxpayers or borrowed from creditors who honestly believe in a nation’s ability to repay. Ultimately, Money out = Money in. This is what balancing the books requires in every organization.

This last point leads to certainty that we will all be using a blockchain based cryptocurrency—and not one that is issued by a government, nor one that is backed by gold, the dollar, a redemption promise—or some other thing of value.

Just like the dollar today, the value arises from trust and a robust two sided network. So, which of these things would you rather trust?

a) The honesty, fiscal restraint and transparency of transient politicians beholden to their political base?

b) The honesty, fiscal restraint and transparency of an asset which is capped, immutable, auditable? —One that has a robust two sided network and is not gated by any authority or sanctioned banking infrastructure

Today, with the exception of the United States Congress, everyone must ultimately balance their books: Individuals, households, corporations, NGOs, churches, charities, clubs, cities, states and even other national governments. Put another way: Only the United States can create money without a requirement to honor, repay or demonstrate equivalency. This remarkable exclusion was made possible by the post World War II evolution of the dollar as a “reserve currency” and the fractional reserve method by which US banks create money out of thin air and then lend it with the illusion of government insurance as backing. (A risky pyramid scheme that is gradually unravelling).

But, imagine a nation that agrees upon a form of cash that arises from a “perfect” and fair natural resource. Imagine a future where no one—not even governments—can game the system. Imagine a future where creditors know that a debtor cannot print paper currency to settle debts. Imagine what can be accomplished if citizens truly respect their government because the government lives by the same accounting rules as everyone else.

A fair cryptocurrency (based on Satoshi’s open-source code and free for anyone to use, mine, or trade) is gold for the modern age. But unlike gold, the total quantity is clearly understood. It is portable, electronically transmittable (instant settlement without a clearing house), immutable—and a precious substance needn’t be assayed in the field.

And the biggest benefit arises as a byproduct directly of these properties: Cryptocurrency (and Bitcoin in particular) is remarkably good for government. All it takes for eventual success is an understanding of the mechanism, incremental improvement to safety and security practices and widespread trust that others will continue to value/covet your coins in the future. These are all achievable waypoints along the way to universal adoption.


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He is Top Writer at Quora and sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation. Book a presentation or consulting.

You don’t understand Bitcoin because you think money is real

Maria Bustillos is founder of the blockchain supported publication, Popula. I stole the title of this post from her essay at Medium.com (linked below).* I hope that Maria considers it a tribute rather than title-plagiarism. Her article is blocked by a pay wall, so allow me to explain a concept that confounds even a Nobel Prize winning economist. My take on the issue is somewhat different than Ms. Bustillos.

The difficulty understanding or appreciating Bitcoin boils down to a misconception that the dollar is backed by something more tangible, such as gold, guns or the promise of redemption. Not only is this an illusion, but Bitcoin is backed by something far more tangible, intrinsic and durable.

The illusion that “real” value emanates from government coupled with a robust consumer economy has been woven into our DNA for millennia. But, the value we attribute to a Dollar, Euro, or Yuan is a result of conditioning rather than any intrinsic value. That same conditioning has led us to believe that there is something sane and inherent in a nation that controls its money supply and its monetary policy.

Most public works projects—power generation, space ships, or the telephone network—were controlled by government in the past. If not, they were regulated as a licensed monopoly. This creates a choke point, a lack of competition, and a gaping opportunity for inefficiency, mismanagement or graft. It defies a free market economy and it concentrates power in the hands of politicians. But, at one time, it seemed necessary.

You might assume that government controlled these industries because they relate to areas of critical infrastructure and public welfare. That’s part of it, but it’s not the real reason. In each sector, a distributed or free market solution was prevented due to technology limitations or issues of scaling and geography.

Government issued money exists because in the past, we had no mechanism to arrive at a consensus on the value of something that is portable, fungible, secure, anti-forgeable and easily transmitted. Not even Gold fits the bill (pun intended). Prior to 2009, the only thing that met the criteria for money in a modern society was government issued fiat. At least someone, somewhere said that this is money and that this is what we must use to pay our taxes.

Today, there is no more reason for a government to control its money supply than there is for it to control communication networks, space travel or package delivery services. Today, a free and competitive marketplace benefits all of these industries and even government itself. And here’s the kicker: No harm will come to a government that uses a completely trusted, transparent and decentralized currency, rather than firing up a printing press whenever a group of transient politicians spends beyond their means.

The economic order facilitated by the blockchain is not as radical as it seems. Aristotle lamented the lack of an accounting tool that we can now address via the clever combination of encryption and a communications network that is both instant and ubiquitous.

I am not smarter than the average bear, nor am I clairvoyant. Once in a while, I recognize a truth before the masses—and before its time. It’s time to clearly and succinctly illuminate business, banks, consumers, creditors and government:

  1. The value we attribute to the dollar is an illusion
    ..
  2. Bitcoin is not just fair and cost effective. It is tangible and durable. It is good for consumers and good for governments.

Bitcoin ushers in an era of accountability and more fairness. It does not facilitate crime, nor interfere with a government’s ability to tax, spend or enforce tax collection.

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency with a firmly capped supply. Will it lead to deflation? Could governments lose control over their own monetary policy? Yes to both questions…

But, these are each good things. Capping the money supply and decoupling a nation from monetary policy not only eliminates inflation—it increases access to capital, retires debt more quickly, reassures creditors, imposes transparency and honesty—And it accelerates economic growth, rather than retarding commerce.

Dispelling three millennia of conditioning can be confusing and unsettling. I hate understanding something before my peers. Let’s please get ahead of the curve on this one. I want to enjoy the benefits of using real money in my lifetime.


Related Reading:

* I wrote the first article more than 7 years ago. It is a simple explanation of a geeky, new economic mechanism. Bitcoin had not yet entered mainstream media nor gained attention of Wall Street investors. But consider the similarity to Maria’s tutorial in the 2nd article. Perhaps Maria and I think alike!

Getting into Bitcoin? 2 subtle points…

Andreas Antonopoulos releases a new talk on his YouTube feed several times each week. If you are still a Bitcoin doubter, watch his latest video with an open mind. It highlights two subtleties of utility and adoption that can overcome the gap between early adopters and doubters.

Early Adopter: I do not refer to an investor, but one who embraces Bitcoin as both a payment instrument and a currency. Someone who realizes that is very likely to become a stateless currency some day.

Doubters: These are individuals who see Bitcoin as either risky, unnecessary, susceptible to hacking & scams, or fueled by libertarian anarchists. In general, they do not perceive a fundamental or compelling benefit to a stateless currency—or they believe that Bitcoin is not backed by something real, tangible or enforceable. They question a currency without some form of central authority, clear backing or point of redemption.

In particular, Antonopoulos helps his audience reconcile the relationship of a decentralized currency with a community or government that does not fully embrace the benefits or fears the downside (crime, tax dodging, deflation, loss of control over the monetary supply).

Below, I have added notes related to two key points below. These are the very same points that I focus on in my conference presentations. Andreas is very articulate and we are certainly on the same page about these subtle but critical issues:

1. Resist the urge to regulate or control
Timestamp 10:34

— Governments or trusted, established banks (e.g. Merrill Lynch) may try to persuade you that blockchain-backed currencies have potential, but that certain ‘safeties’ must be added to the to make them compliant and commercially viable. They will say that this is needed to encourage compliance & reporting—or to thwart criminal activity.

For example, the treasury, IRS or other fiscal bureaucracy might ask the community to respect a list of assets that are tainted by criminals and to seamlessly substitute new coins for the tainted coins. This seems like a small change. In fact, it seeks only to overlay a law-and-order framework on top of Bitcoin. But, don’t be misled by good intentions.

This is exactly what you don’t want to do! Fiddling with the legitimacy of outstanding wealth undermines the entire purpose and benefit of migrating to a decentralized, stateless currency. The architecture must remain open, permissionless, resistant to censorship, and resistant to manipulation by any authority, whether good or bad. There is already a mechanism for distributed consensus—one that does not vest any central authority with the power to annul a user’s wealth by edict.

Ironically, even the US treasury recognizes the critical importance of unit fungibility. It guarantees the exchangability of every issued dollar for any other—no matter what its history.

2. Don’t just save—Use it in your business
Timestamp 12:12

— How do I get started with Bitcoin (or some other cryptocurrency). Help me get started with an exchange so that I can buy my first crypto coin…

No, no, NO! Don’t start with an exchange account. Learn how to set up a wallet in your home or online. One that you control. Rather than hoard Bitcoin, accept and spend it. This is critical if we hope to see eventual adoption of a transformative economic mechanism in our lifetimes.

— Buying cryptocurrency should not be your first step into the game. Don’t think of crypto as an investment asset. Think of it as a currency that you accept and spend.

Bitcoin will not be relevant in your lifetime, until the fraction of trades fueled by purchase & sale, salaries, fees and loan payments dwarfs the number of transactions fueled by speculators, investors, HODL and even sector funds or ETFs. All of these trades retard the day that Bitcoin will be stable, fluid, fungible and useful. Currently that first set of transactions represents 98% of all activity. To spur adoption, we must change push the fraction of investor transactions and currency exchange below 30%. It’s a tall order, but it is gradually beginning to happen.


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He advises The Disruption Experience in Singapore, sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation and is a top Bitcoin writer at Quora. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

Ric Edelman: Bitcoin will become asset class

Kudos to WallStreet analyst and advisor, Ric Edelman. He drank the Kool-Aid, he understands a profound sea change, and he sees the ducks starting to line up.

Check out the clearly articulated interview, below, with Bob Pisani at the New York Stock Exchange and legendary Wall Street advisor, Ric Edelman, (Not my term…That’s what CNBC anchor, Melissa Lee, calls him). Read between the lines, especially the last words in the video, below.

Ric Edleman has just joined Bitwise as both investor and advisor. This lends credibility and gravitas to the organization that created the world’s first cryptocurrency index fund. Bitwise benefits from Edelman’s affiliation, because the US has been slow (some would say “cautious”) in recognizing the facts on the ground: Cryptocurrency is already an asset class.

Edelman fully embraces a strong future for Bitcoin—not just as a currency or payment instrument, but as a legal and recognized asset class; one that is at the starting line of a wide open racetrack. He explains that the SEC sets a high bar for offering a Bitcoin ETF, but that this will be  achieved. It will pave the way for large institutions, pension funds, etc to allocate a portion of money under management for blockchain products.

At timestamp 3:39, Melissa asks Edelman “Why wait for an ETF?” and “If you believe this strongly, why not advise clients to invest a portion of assets into Bitcoin right now?

Edelman’s response is stunning. He explains that he is frustrated, because this is what he wants to advise. But, his firm is bound by the Investment Act of 1940—and so, they cannot tell a client “Go to Coinbase” or “Invest in a private fund such as Bitwise—that I am such a big fan of. We don’t have that ability in our practice.” [i.e. until the SEC recognizes Bitcoin as an asset].

In my opinion (and in the opinion of Edleman), SEC recognition of Bitcoin as an asset can’t be far off…

  • It’s already happening in other countries. Reputable exchanges and index funds exist today.
  • Unlike a traveler’s check or Amazon gift card, it is inherently a store of value, whether or not you believe that its value is intrinsic;
  • The IRS already considers it an asset for tax purposes (What an odd schism in definition & treatment!)
  • It is legal to pay staff in Bitcoin and use it to settle debts, for any recipient that accepts it. For employees and consultants, it is a wage or stipend, just like FIAT. They can convert into cash immediately—or retain crypto it to pay their own bills)

It’s not difficult to read between the lines. Edleman makes a clear recommendation, although he can not yet advise this—certainly not on the record. His personal forecast for long term adoption and appreciation, especially of Bitcoin, matches my own analysis. His new affiliation with Bitwise (a pretty bold move) demonstrates certain commitment.

This ends my analysis of Edelman’s strong endorsement. But it raises another important question:

If large financial institutions are likely to offer Bitcoin products and services—and if credible analysts & advisors are chomping at the bit to recommend this new asset class—shouldn’t we invest in Bitcoin now?!

Ironically, I do not recommend hording or investing in cryptocurrency, even as a collectable. Why?! Because of the big “Investment Catch-22”. I don’t discourage investing in Bitcoin because I fear that its value will lessen. It is for a completely different reason. And so, my advice against investing is half-hearted.

Currently, Bitcoin and altcoins are widely misunderstood. Many people have these false impressions…

  • It is not backed by anything
  • It interferes with tax collection
  • Cryptocurrency facilitates crime
  • Governments will never allow it
  • They do not convey compelling benefits over government-issued currency
  • They water down the overall money supply
  • Their deflationary nature threatens economic growth
  • They are easier to lose and subject to scams & hacking
  • They do not facilitate refunds, rescission, recourse and customer claims
  • They interfere with a government’s ability to control its monetary supply

All of this is untrue, except the last item—and that one is a tremendous benefit.

Additionally, blockchain currencies fluctuate widely in real market purchasing power, many altcoins and all ICOs are scams, and acceptance is far from being ubiquitous. Clearly, widespread adoption requires stability, infrastructure, trust and ubiquity.

This cannot happen until two things occur:

  1. The fraction of transactions in normal business and retail commerce (purchases, salaries, debt payment and settlement) must significantly dwarf the fraction that is driven by investors, hoarders and speculators.
  2. A significant number of established brands, services or retailers must begin publishing prices in Bitcoin and honoring those prices throughout a defined sale period (e.g. until the next catalog is published or until the next production run).

Things are beginning to change, but for such a positive and transormative mechanism, that change is frustratingly gradual.

A series of falling dominos is already in process. But, the end game is retarded by those of us who invest in Bitcoin, because we are removing a limited resource from circulation and contributing to volatility. We do this, because we realize that—in the long run—Bitcoin can only go up in value. Yet, our investment at such an early stage (before consumer adoption) makes the infant sick.


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He advises The Disruption Experience in Singapore, sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation and is a top Bitcoin writer at Quora. Book a presentation or consulting engagement/.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: America’s Tariq Aziz

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, please tell me—I earnestly wish to know…

Are you completely daft?!

• Have you no honor?      • No self respect?      • No backbone?      • No shame?
• No concern for your future career?      • No concern for sexual assault victims?

I mustn’t be unfair.
Let’s recall a bit of recent history…

Five days ago, in the wake of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony before the U.S. Senate, President Trump showed sympathy toward Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Regarding her claim of attempted rape by Brett Kavanaugh—and her fear of being killed by pressure to her mouth— Trump acknowledged that she was “very credible” and that she is “a very fine woman”.

What a difference 5 days makes!

Shortly after Dr. Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified in an open Senate inquiry, Republican Arizona Senator Jeff Flake was cornered in an elevator by two woman survivors. This led him to announce that he would not confirm Kavanaugh unless the FBI was given orders to investigate claims of alcohol fueled violence toward women.

If you live in the United States, and have not been squirrelled away on a camping trip, Buddhist retreat, or secret skunkworks project, then you already know this. It’s yesterday’s news. But today, Trump railed into Blasey Ford, making her out to be a liar and a political operative. At a red state political rally, he attacked this “fine woman” by mocking her memory, claiming that she recalls having one beer, but forgets where, when and with whom she was with at the time of the alleged attack. Trump goes on to claim that she remembers only having a drink and nothing else.

In fact, Dr. Ford recalls the names of others present, what she was wearing and very specific details of the attack. But, beyond the flat-out lie, Trump pretended to be Dr. Ford, by shrieking and whining in the first person—just as he did while flailing his arms in mockery of a handicapped reporter during his election campaign.

Nothing can be said about these low points in American politics other than to note that we are surviving a period in which the Oval Office is occupied by a child, a bully, a liar and an ignorant human being.

But this post is not about Trump. It is about Sarah Sanders, articulate and passionate defender for a dunce.

Now, let’s go back further than 5 days
— Let’s turn back the clock 15 years

Who remembers Tariq Aziz? He was Iraq’s deputy prime minister and then foreign minister, under Sadam Hussein. His early military and political careers weren’t notable to anyone living outside of Iraq. But you couldn’t help to marvel at this guy during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US led an invasion—first to find weapons of mass destruction—and later to find Sadam himself. Throughout the war, Aziz was thrust squarely into the spotlight as spokesman and poster boy for Sadam’s regime.

With the veracity of a broken cuckoo clock, Aziz insisted that the American dogs were being defeated in a string of bloody battles; that Allied soldiers were scurrying like mice, and that no Iraqi had been affected by the imperialist aggression. If it weren’t for news from hundreds of reporters (and photos through the bomb sites of coalition planes), you could almost believe him. But ultimately, the facts demonstrated the opposite of what he claimed. The schism between facts and fantasy revealed Aziz to be more than a lackey. He became a court jester and fodder for late night comedy.

As the Iraq army crumbled, troops deserted, Sadam’s sons were shot to death and Hussein ran into the forest to hide. Throughout it all, Aziz could have focused on the immorality or questionable legal basis for the American invasion. But he didn’t. Instead, he continued to make fun of Allied operations and insisted that American’s were losing. With conviction and character, he said that American’s were scared, retreating, deserting and on the run.

If the war weren’t so bloody, the Aziz diatribes would be comical. But, it was bloody—thousands of Americans and a half million Iraqi soldiers and civilians among the dead.

There probably weren’t any weapons of mass destruction—and history may ultimately condemn USA for initiating war when we should have focused ISIS terrorists and on finding Osama bin Laden. But, what made Tariq Aziz both memorable and laughable was his incredible loyalty to a dictator. He defended and distorted whacky behavior with passionate fervor.

Getting back to Sarah Sanders…

I won’t draw out the comparison, but for one minute, consider the similarity between Tariq Aziz and Sarah Sanders. They are in the same business: Putting lipstick on a pig. Defending the indefensible!

And today, Sarah defended the mockery of a sexual assault victim, the bullying by her boss, and the lies of a man who has no shard of credibility. Why? Can she find no other employment?

Sanders is saddled with the world’s worst job. It must be horrible to be in her shoes. She must defend and justify behavior of a child who commands a once great nation. She must explain misogyny, xenophobia, abject ignorance, mockery of the handicapped and of victims, and a continuous stream of lies. She must defend “sh*thouse nations” reneging on trade agreements and nuclear treaties, rude behavior toward a chancellor and crude behavior in the presence of a Queen. At some point, any reasonable person must ask “Why, Sarah?!!” Why defend the indefensible and distort the obvious. Is it out of a sense of loyalty? Out of patriotism? —Or out of sheer ignorance? Have you always stood firm with bullies and blamed victims?

When Sean Spicer was Whitehouse spokesperson, one could easily overlook his daily Daffy Duck pronouncements. Let’s face it: He was sort of a goofball from the very start. With no history, no pedigree, and no reputation to protect, it was easy to dismiss his absurd excuses. He was just a marionette in the oval office—a ‘Mini Me’ to Dr. Evil.

But when Sanders stepped up to the podium, I was  impressed. She was educated, articulate, impassionate and with an apparent capacity for critical thinking. She didn’t appear to be a pushover—not for the press and not even for the president. For a few weeks, she convinced me that she was part of the checks-and-balances offered by a critical staffer.

Alas, our hopes for a reasonable liason to the chaos in Trump’s head were dashed. And now, they are dashed more than ever.

Sarah: Have you no moral compass? Have you no shame? In what capacity will you work after a Trump presidency?

Disruption Experience Nails It

The Disruption Experience this Friday in Singapore is a blockchain event with a difference. With apologies to the Buick commercial, this is not your grandfather’s conference

I know a few things about blockchain conferences. I produced and hosted the first Bitcoin Event in New York. My organization develops cryptocurrency standards and practices. We help banks and governments create policy and services. And as public speaker for a standards organization, I have delivered keynote presentations at conferences and Expos in Dubai, Gujarat India, Montreal and Tampa, New York and Boston.

Many individuals don’t yet realize that both Bitcoin and the blockchain are as significant as the automobile, the transistor and the Internet. I was fortunate to grasp Bitcoin and the blockchain early in its history. It is never boring to help others understand the blockchain.

And so, I am an evangelist for both a radically improved monetary system and a transformative tool. During the past eight years, I have honed the skill of converting even the most profound skeptic. Give me 45 minutes in front of any audience—technical, skeptical or even without any prior knowledge—and I will win them over. It’s what I do.

An Atypical Conference Venue

As Bitcoin and altcoins begin the process of education, adoption and normalization, the big expos and conference events have begun to splinter and specialize. Today, most blockchain events market their venue to specific market sectors or interests:

For me, Smart Contracts are one of the most exciting and potentially explosive opportunities. As a groupie and cheerleader, I am not alone. Catering to the Smart Contract community is rapidly becoming a big business. Until this week, I thought it was the conference venue that yielded the biggest thrills. That is, until I learned about the Disruption Experience…

Few widely promoted, well-funded events address the 600 pound elephant in the room: What’s the real potential of blockchain trust, blockchain economy or blockchain AI? Take me beyond tokens and currency (please!). How can an international event help us to realize the potential of a radical new approach to accounting, trust and arbitration? Let’s stop arguing about Bitcoin, Ethereum or ICOs…

How can we unleash the gorilla—and grease—
a fundamental change that benefits mankind,
while providing leapfrog technologies for us?

—At least, that’s my spin on the potential of an unusually practical venue.

That question is slated to be answered on Friday at a big event in Singapore. And get this—It is modestly called a “Sneak Peak”. This is what I have been waiting for. The Disruption Experience premiers on September 28 at the V Hotel Lavender in Singapore. But don’t show up at the door. This event requires advance registration. (I do not offer a web link, because I hate being a conference huckster. If you plan to be in the area at the end of this week, then Google the event yourself).

What’s the big deal?

The Disruption Experience team is populated by blockchain developers, educators and trainers who take issue with existing events that focus on monetization. The purity of intention was overrun by greed. And so, they set out to form an event with a more altruistic purpose: Build technology, relationships, mechanisms and educational tools that better mankind. The focus at this event and the conferences that follow is to educate, expose and innovate. The focus is squarely on disruptive technology.

With their team of blockchain innovators focused on benefits and progress, I suspect that attendees will get what we have been searching for: Education, investment opportunities, an edge on new technologies and job opportunities.

Cusp of a Breakout Year

As an analogy, consider the race to understand Bitcoin and consider the engines & motors.

Bitcoin and the blockchain were introduced simultaneously in a 2009 whitepaper. It’s a bit like explaining the engine and the automobile together—for the very first time. One is a technology with a myriad of applications and the potential to drive innovation. The other is an app. Sure, it’s useful and important, but it’s just an app.

For 8 years, Bitcoin was a radical and contentious concept. Of course, there was the mystery of Satoshi and an effort to pinpoint his or her identity. And, a great debate raged about the legitimacy and value of decentralized, ethereal money. But, the interest was reflected primarily on the pages of Wired Magazine or at Geek-fests. Bitcoin was complex and costly to incorporate into everyday purchases and there were questions and gross misconceptions about hacking, regulation, taxes, criminal activity. The combined audience of adopters, academics, miners and geeks was limited.

That changed last year. With serious talk of exchange traded funds, a futures and derivatives market began to take shape. A critical operational bottleneck was addressed. Ultimately, 2017 was a breakout year for Bitcoin. You may not be using it today, but the smart money is betting that it will enhance your life tomorrow—at least behind the scenes.

Likewise, 2019 is likely to be the breakout year for blockchain applications, careers, products and—perhaps most importantly—public awareness, understanding and appreciation. Just as motors and engines are not limited to automobiles, the blockchain has far more potential than serving as an engine for decentralized cash. It is too important to be just a footnote to disruptive economics. It will disrupt everything. And we are the beneficiaries.

What is Interesting at The Disruption Experience?

The Friday event in Singapore covers many things. The presentations and tutorials that quicken my pulse relate to:

  • AI
  • Smart Contracts
  • Serious insight into blockchain mechanics, applications, adoption, scalability and politics
  • There’s even an exciting development in ICOs…

If you read my columns or follow my blog, then you know I am not keen on initial coin offerings (ICOs). That’s putting it mildly. They are almost all scams. But a rare exception is the Tempow ecosystem which encompasses three functional tokens. Stop by their exhibit and meet the officers of a sound economic mechanism that facilitates decentralized trading while overcoming the efficiency paradox.

What can I do at Disruption Experience?

The September 28 event is a preview for January’s Inaugural Event.

  • Listen and learn what Disruption is all about
  • Experience the first Virtual Reality Expo
  • Get to know the speakers and founders of Disruption
  • Hear about the Disruption Utility Token (DSRPT Token)
  • Meet the Disruption Team
  • See Disruption Expos

… and much, much more.

If you get to the big event, be sure to find the organizer and host, Coach Mark Davis. Tell him that I sent you. His passion and boundless enthusiasm for the blockchain and especially for transformative disruption is quite infectious.

Related reading:


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation and is a top Bitcoin writer at Quora. Book a presentation or consulting engagement. He is also an unpaid advisor to The Disruption Experience.

ISS hole: We will look back on Sept 2018

Someday, people across the world will look back on September 2018, much like we look back on the terror attacks of 9/11 or the safe return of Apollo 13 in 1970. They are touchstone moments in world history. For Americans, they are as indelible as Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the first moon landing.

So, what happened just now? The month isn’t even half over, and the only events we hear about on the news atre related to Hurricane Florence and Paul Manafort. (In case you live under a rock or are reading this many years hence, the hurricane made landfall on the coast of the Carolinas, and the lobbyist / political consultant / lawyer / Trump campaign chairman pled guilty to charges and has agreed to cooperate in the continuing Mueller investigation).

No—I am not referring to either event on the USA east coast. I am referring to a saga unfolding 254 miles above the Earth—specifically a Whodunit mystery aboard the International Space Station (ISS). NASA hasn’t seen this level of tawdry intrigue since astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak attacked a rival for another astronaut’s affection—driving across the country in a diaper to confront her love interest.

So What is the Big Deal This Week?!

It didn’t begin as a big deal—and perhaps this is why mainstream news services are slow to pick up on the latest information. But now, in my opinion, it is a very big deal.

A small hole was discovered on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft (a lifeboat) attached to the International Space Station. That hole, about the size of a pea, resulted in the slow decompression of atmosphere. The air that our astronauts breathe was leaking out of ISS and into the void of space.

So far, the story is unremarkable. Ground scientists issued two comfort statements about the apparent accident. They addressed the possible cause and the potential risk:

  1. This small hole could have occurred on the ground (during construction). Alternatively, it could be the result of a micro-meteorite or even man-made space debris. Perhaps a fleck of varnish peeled off of a satellite and collided at high speed with the massive, orbiting space station. No problem. The ISS and each commuter spacecraft that dock with it are designed to sustain collisions with small particles—even ones that punch a pea-sized hole through the hull.
  2. Air pressure in the ISS and in each spacecraft is only 1 atmosphere. This type of small leak could effectively be stemmed by simply applying duct tape.

The initial news event was interesting to space buffs, but it didn’t seem to present a significant threat to our astronauts, nor require a massive technical response. You may recall that duct tape played a critical role in getting the Apollo 13 astronauts safely back to Earth almost 50 years ago. The crisis that they faced was far worse. The solution required extensive impromptu engineering both in Houston and up in the spacecraft. What an awesome historical echo and footnote to an event that captured the hearts and minds of so many people back in 1970.

But the story does not end with a piece of duct tape. In fact, it just got much more interesting…

After a few days, NASA revealed that the hole was intentionally drilled, and the deed probably occurred while the ship was docked at the space station. Since there is no log of activity with tools in this section of the laboratory, it strongly suggests an act of sabotage by one of the astronauts on board.

And now, we have some new information: Guided by ground engineers, astronauts fished an endoscope through the hole to inspect the outside of the spacecraft. Guess what?! That same drill bit damaged the meteorite shield which stands 15 mm beyond the pressurized hull of the spacecraft. This will add significant risk to anyone traveling back to earth in the damaged ship.

One theory is that a member of the crew wanted to create the conditions to more quickly return to Earth. Now, that return trip may present and elevated risk to occupants.
This story has not yet concluded, of course. It will likely conclude with tragedy or triumph. In the better scenario, no one will die—but successful return and reentry will be followed by a criminal conviction or court martial. I am having difficulty envisioning an alternate outcome.
Read about it here. The story is unfolding, but the details are utterly fascinating.

Still haven’t written for Medium? Be the content, instead!

Are you worried about Bitcoin dipping to within pennies of $6,000 today? That’s a magic buy alarm for me—and it looks like I may not be alone.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that a student intern (and budding author) from Portugal interviewed me today. He is quite knowledgeable about Bitcoin and the blockchain. I did not feed him the questions. It was a standard “Ask an expert” format, and I didn’t think much of the interview at first.

My interviewer, Diogo Fierreira, rolled out a phalynx of questions longer than my arm. They were sweeping and thorough; general and specific. Still, I wasn’t sure how much time I could afford to devote. In the end, I am glad that I stuck with the young columnist and remained cogent. I now realize that this fellah really knows how to market his interviews! By end of day, the entire interview was published at Medium.com.

I have never been published at Medium, but I certainly enjoy the quality and diversity of thought provoking content. Now my little pearls of wisdom are forever enshrined in stone, (Well—at least sandstone!)

Warning: Medium.com claims that this is a 12 minute read. At just over 3,000 words, it is a bit longer than most of my own articles.

Drone Assassination Attempt Foreshadows Future Events

Until this past year, consumer drones carried tiny ultralight cameras, but they just didn’t have the energy or the reserve to carry much else. They certainly could not deliver much of a product or payload. They flew for  15 minutes, lacked the capacity to carry excess weight, and had short range.

But market demand sparks innovation. Amazon and Domino’s Pizza are experimenting with drone delivery. The improvements needed to serve these needs are quickly bubbling down to unlicensed weekend pilots. Hexacopters with 4K cameras, gimbals and retracting landing gear are available for under $400. Tiny foldable drones with 720p cameras are available for $35. Some models don’t even need a pilot on a joystick. You can preprogram the flight path to reach any target using GPS, or you can guide them by making gestures with your hand. The drone actually looks back over its shoulder and responds to your hand-waving commands.

Lance Ulanoff is a cartoonist and robotics fantech expert. But he shares a lot in common with Wild Ducks. He is an eclectic journalist and social media commentator.

This month he began publishing at Medium.com, and I’m glad he did! Lance has a knack for going beyond the Who, What, Why. Even in a short article, he explains the social implications. He provokes us to recognize why it matters.

Lance breaks down the recent attempt to assassinate Venezuela’s president with a drone delivered explosive and raises our social antennae. This news event ushers in a grim technology era. Ulanoff points out that in a short time, it has become inexpensive and fairly easy to send an explosive directly into a national monument like the Statue of Liberty.

Photos: Venezuela President, Nicolás Maduro, reacts to incoming drone. Although the assassination attempt failed, others on the ground were injured.

Uber & Lyft fight drivers over caps NYC

New York legislators are close to deciding an issue driven by Uber and Lyft drivers. They are demonstrating in the streets and demanding a cap on the number of authorized ride-share vehicles.

Mainstream media began covering this dust storm two weeks ago, but the pending decision is putting international attention on the issue of licensing a sector that was credited with eliminating nanny-state legislation. After all, licensing should be confined to the singular issues of transportation safety and not overall commerce.

A cap? What is a cap?! Does this mean that a person with a clean car, a good driving record and no criminal complaints will need a special license or medallion to participate in a ride sharing service? How ironic! Don’t glance in your rear-view mirror, because that is exactly what we used to grant taxi services until…Well, until sometime next year. It’s an old school, anti-free-market concept that we surmounted 10 years ago!

Legacy drivers claim that we need a cap of 80,000 entrepreneur-drivers, ostensibly for two reasons:

  1. They want economic protection. (Duhh!). Drivers who were early to the party are cruising the streets in cars that are empty 42% of the time. They are waiting for their next guest. This quite ironic, because these are the same drivers that disrupted the protections afforded to taxi companies.
  2. They claim that capping ride-share cars will reduce congestion on crowded Manhattan streets, along with pollution and commuter frustration.

But the ride share companies are not backing their drivers. They are lobbying anyone who will listen that we must avoid legislative restrictions.

A Wild Duck Opinion…

Uber and Lyft are absolutely right in championing the fight against a legislative cap and thereby removing free-market economics from the transportation sector. These drivers are owner-operators. There is already effective vetting of safety and criminal records. They are not employees of a municpal service. They are entrepreneurs exploiting a smart-phone app to sell their own services. It is no different than programmer who uses an app to write and distribute his own software.

Putting legislative caps on the number of participants in a new-era, free enterprise service, or limiting hours of operation is antithetical to a democratic and empowered free market constituency. It smacks of a Communist mind set. The armchair economics of protestors (drivers who feel threatened by newer drivers) and even well-researched data of credentialed economists) plays no role in an organic, facts-on-the ground growth industry.

I am not suggesting that an unlicensed or criminal driver should get away without vetting. But attempting to impose restrictions that are unrelated to health, safety or the environment will have unintended consequences, such as:

  • Underground apps that do the same thing with even less restrictions
  • Pushing innovation and profits off shore — or —
  • Ceding the market to foreign countries

Licensing has always been intended to serve the public good and not thwart innovation, growth and individual entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, it is often used to protect early entrepreneurs and exclude newcomers. That’s not how it should work—certainly not in a free country.

If you can’t take the heat of fair market competition, then innovate.

 

How Fear Affects Ideology

A very brief comment…

Is Conservative-vs-Liberal an expression of the same spectrum as Fear-vs-Trust?

The video below offers an interesting take on the difference between conservatives and liberals. It’s short, entertaining, and it clearly explains a reasonable hypothesis.

I am not sure what my few Trump-supporting friends would say about this analysis, but I don’t see it as divisive. It’s just an observed correlation without any judgement.

Spoiler: It ends with a call for us to all move toward the center… Not necessarily the center of the political spectrum (conservative -vs- liberal)—but toward the center of Fear -vs- Trust, which the video strongly correlates with our individual politics.

How Will Bitcoin Work When Mining Rewards Run Out?

Let us frame the question, by reviewing what miners really do…

Miners play a critical role in the Bitcoin network. Their activity (searching for a nonce) results in assembling an immutable string of blocks that corroborate and log the universal transaction record. They are the distributed bookkeepers that replace old-school banks in recording and vouching for everyone’s purchase or savings.

From the perspective of a miner, there is no obvious connection between their activity and the worldwide network of bitcoin transactions and record keeping. They are simply playing an online game and competing against thousands of other miners in an effort to solve a complex and ongoing math problem. As they arrive at answers to small pieces of the problem, they are rewarded with bitcoin, which can be easily translated into any currency.

What is the Problem?

One day, mining for rewards will no longer be possible. The fundamental architecture of Bitcoin guarantees that mining will end. The pool of rewards that were held in abeyance as incentives is small and will run out in 2140—about 120 years from now. So, this raises the question: How will we incentivize miners when there is no more reward? (Actually, they won’t really be miners anymore…They will more accurately be bookkeepers or ‘validators’)

Is there a Solution?

Fortunately, there are many ways to offer incentives to those who validate transactions and maintain the books. Here are just a few:

  1. There is a current mechanism in which transactions bid for priority (speed of validation). Today, this mechanism augments the mining reward—particularly during periods of network performance. For example, the extra payments rose to $30 and more for individual transactions just before lightning network was adopted. In the future, it could replace the reward as the basis of a reward system.
  2. At the 2015 MIT Bitcoin Expo, Andreas Antonopoulos proposed a reputation ranking & reward system based on gaming theory. The ideal is that would result in a sufficient reward to maintain continuous network operation. Reputation points are not just a bragging point, but is likely to translate into real-world gravitas and financial opportunities.
  3. I believe that, one day, every user will be a micro-miner, and this will address the issue of incentives. For example, if users can avoid all mining fees by validating one transaction for every 10 of their own, we might see the widespread adoption of wallets that are full or partial nodes, rather than limited to the function of key storage.In this vision, micro mining will be achieved on a phone, a wristwatch, or a linked device at home. It will not result in an escalating race for increased power consumption…

I believe in this last solution and I have proposed it as the path forward at crypto/blockchain conferences.

Today, this idea seems implausible, because of the memory and computational requirements for running a full node. But, there have been big advancements in the effort to support micro-mining—which does not require such resources. Additionally, it is likely that the current proof-of-work mechanism used to arrive at a distributed consensus will be replaced by another mechanism that does not result in a competition to see who can consume the most electricity.

More about the sunset of mining incentives:


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

Is Bitcoin Erasing 300 years of Monetary Evolution?

Today, economist and Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, wrote in the New York Times, that Bitcoin is taking us back 300 years in monetary evolution. As a result, he predicts all sorts of bad things.

A significant basis for Mr. Krugman’s argument is that the US dollar has value because men with guns say it does.

Is Bitcoin erasing 300 years of monetary evolution?

Running with the metaphor that fundamental change to an economic mechanism represents ‘evolution’, I think a more accurate statement is that Bitcoin is not erasing the lessons of history. Rather, it is the current step in the evolution of money. Of course, with living species, evolution is a gradual process based on natural selection and adaptation. With Bitcoin, change is coming  up in the rear view mirror at lightning speed.

The Evolution of Money

When a medium of exchange is portable, fungible, divisible, unforgeable and widely accepted, it becomes money. For at least six millennia, barter was gradually replaced by various mediums of exchange.

  • Obsidian —» Cowry shells —» Gold —» Promissory notes (backed by a Bank, employer or wealthy industry) —» Fiat (national currency)

But what backs these forms of money? What gives them value?

The first 3 currencies above were accepted as money on 5 continents. They were backed by their scarcity and unique characteristic properties (Aristotle called this intrinsic value). But even gold cannot serve as a widely used currency today. Although it is portable and scarce, it is not easily tested or subdivided in the field; it is risky to transport and difficult to track; and it is not suited to instant electronic settlement. But what about Fiat money. What backs it?

What Backs National Currencies?

Fiat has been backed by various different things throughout history. They are all compromised attempts to establish confidence and trust. They are compromised, because the fall short of one or more facets of trust.

In the list below, monetary backings in Red are what Mr. Krugman calls “men with guns”. That is, he claims that government demands give value to the dollar:

  • Value tied to gold —» Promise of redemption —» Legal tender (public must accept it for all debts) —» settlement of taxes —» The “good faith and credit” of workers

Unfortunately, the transition away from a trustworthy basis and the constant temptation of kings, dictators and politicians to print money based on credit (or nothing at all—as in the case of our fractional reserve system), has created a house of cards that few people believe is sustainable.

Bitcoin changes all this.

Finally, a crowd-sourced trust basis was invented (or discovered). It is unhackable, un-inflatable, unforgeable and immutable. Most important, it allows a government to be decoupled from its own monetary policy and supply. This is a remarkably good thing for businesses, consumers, creditors, trading partners—and especially for governments.

And Bitcoin is backed by something better than guns, gold or promises. It is provably scarce, capped in supply, completely fair, and built on a massive, crowd-sourced network of bookkeepers and auditors. It is the first currency—and quite probably the last—built on genius math and indisputable trust.

Despite the gross misunderstandings and misconceptions of early pundits, it does not interfere with a government’s ability to tax, to spend or to enforce tax collection—and it does not facilitate crime.

Bitcoin is new, but the goal of distributing trust is not as radical as you might think. It addresses a problem that economists and mathematicians have pondered since Aristotle and the ancient Greeks…

Background

Ever since the transition from real gold to government notes, bank notes and bank ledgers—economists have wondered if value can arise from a public trust that is durable, distributed and stateless. Until 2009, the answer seemed to be that this was impossible because of the double-spend problem.

But 9 years ago, something changed; and the change is dramatic. It will take an additional decade for most people to understand and appreciate this change…

In the first paragraph, I cited Mr. Krugman’s statement that the US Dollar has value because of “men with guns” (a reference to the fact that its use is legally compelled for payment of any debt and for government taxes). But this is not what gives it value. The dollar, the Euro, a Picasso painting and a fresh serving of hot french fries all derive their value from supply and demand. Bitcoin is no different. The trick is to generate viral demand and a ubiquitous infrastructure needed to achieve a robust two-sided network.

In the white paper that introduced both blockchain and Bitcoin (the first blockchain application), Satoshi taught us that a widespread and easy to access communications network (the internet and universal access to smartphones) can give rise to value that is based on a different type of trust. Instead of trust in a government, a bank, or testing the chemistry of a precious metal, value can arise from trust in a formula that is ubiquitous, redundant and constantly monitored and vetted.

All of these things have a value based on demand and the available supply. But with Bitcoin, the medium of exchange (and additionally the store and transfer of value), can be achieved by math, distributed trust and a pure, two-sided network.

So, is Bitcoin taking us backward in time, utility, safety and governance? I have never been awarded a Nobel Prize—but it seems pretty clear to me that Bitcoin is taking us forward and not backward.


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

Online Privacy: Learn Tor, VPN, VeraCrypt, LasPass

I have a special request. Actually, this is a personal plea to my readers…

Next month, I host two evening privacy workshops near Boston. I could use a teaching assistant to run around and help newbies install software as I present to the class. But what I really need help with—is getting the word out. Please help…

This time, it’s not about Bitcoin or the blockchain. It’s about taking control of your online identity and browsing activities. It’s about privacy and anonymity. It’s about your communications, your personal data and your disk or cloud storage.

All that data belongs to you and not to your ISP, employer, a hacker, the government, or marketers. And it is surprisingly easy to cover your tracks. In fact, with the proper tools, taking control of your identity and privacy is safe, simple and transparent.

In just 3 hours, attendees will learn install and use TOR, VPN, VeraCrypt and LastPass. They will also get an excellent feel for the function and benefits of a virtual machine.

Anyone attending can choose either Aug 8 (Marlboro) or Aug 22 (Natick). Renting a presentation room in the Natick Library is expensive.

Please help me promote an effective and exciting evening of learning. Get the word out. Check out these announcements: [Sign-up page]   [Meetup page]

Bonus Points: Do you recognize the photo on the left? Be the first to leave a comment with the name of the plastic privacy bubble and the 1960s TV series that featured it. The winner gets two free passes to our privacy workshop that can be transferred to anyone.