Why Do I Not Write about Cryptocurrencies?

It is obvious that money is at the heart of freedom and privacy, and that both are impossible with conventional government issued or controlled money. The first time I wrote about that was in 1990. After that, I frequently wrote about digital money and payment systems, with emphasis on privacy and freedom from political interference. All attempts to create alternative currencies or payment systems, however, failed on certain points, and succumbed to pressure from governments. The first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, addressed and solved the major problems that had, until then, made previous attempts too exposed to political powers.

I think I was one of the first 20 or so to try bitcoin. I bought my first BTC direct from the creator, or at least that was the impression he gave, for 1 cent each (I wish I had bought many and saved them!) - and I paid via something called Pecunix, perhaps there is someone among you who remembers it. For a while I mined bitcoin with my laptop. (Yeah, it was possible back then!)

The first time I wrote about Bitcoin was in 2010, and it followed rather many articles about bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies during some years. But around 2015 or so, the whole topic made me weary. I was all the time an advocate of cryptocurrencies and I used them in various ways, but I was weary of writing about them. Too many people did, and most of them produced pure rubbish. So in my capacity as a writer, I more or less left that topic. I am still keeping myself updated by reading carefully selected sources, but I don't want to waste my time digging in the tonnes of texts that are written weekly, most of them reiterating the same facts, speculations or misconceptions. Moreover, I never was very interested in cryptocurrency as speculation; I always aimed at digital cash, with special emphasis on privacy. I am glad to see BCH choosing the right way, otherwise the most interesting more recent innovation is Mimble Wimble and coins like Beam and Grin.

I am also amazed that people writing about the various (failed) attempts to create digital cash that were made before Bitcoin, never mention the Digital Monetary Trust (DMT), a brainchild of the late Orlin Grabbe. It was part of the very ambitious project in the late 1990s that went under the name of Laissez Faire City. DMT could never solve the problem of double-spending without falling back on an account system.

Let me finish this with the words of J. Orlin Grabbe. This is taken from his essay The End of Ordinary Money, 1995.

"At any rate, the spook spoke the truth: cryptology represents the future of privacy, and more. By implication cryptology also represents the future of money, and the future of banking and finance. (By "money" I mean the medium of exchange, the institutional mechanisms for making transactions, whether by cash, check, debit card or other electronic transfer.) Given the choice between intersecting with a monetary system that leaves a detailed electronic trail of all one's financial activities, and a parallel system that ensures anonymity and privacy, people will opt for the latter. Moreover, they will demand the latter, because the current monetary system is being turned into the principal instrument of surveillance and control by tyrannical elements in Western governments."

Copyright © 2020 Meleonymica/Mictorrani. All rights reserved.

Here you find all my writings about privacy & antibigbrotherism.

You find all my writings on Read.Cash, sorted by topic, here.