Important correction for the nocoiner-syndrome paper, page 9:
"Bitcoin is not going away; it is now a more important reserve asset than silver or the British pound. This means that if we weight risk of Bitcoin, it might be a better idea to enter the Bitcoin economy now than it was in 2010. The risk is gone."
The risk that bitcoin will go away is NOT gone, it is still there and will be there for the foreseeable future. One part of the risk, specifically the risk of not being able to take off, is gone. Say, it was in the range of 99.0-99.9% probability. Another big part of the risk, specifically possible ban (and legal prosecution of the owners of bitcoin) from the state authorities of the major states also seems quite diminished for the time being. But other parts of the risk are still there, namely:
1. possible catastrophic bugs
2. attacks on cryptography algorithms from newer vectors like quantum computing (but not only this)
3. new distributed coin with better qualities, which could flip over bitcoin
4. splitting the network into separate segments - physical or logical, including possible splitting of the bitcoin into several types (white, black, ...) with different prices and utility
5. hacking attempts on the broad spectrum of vectors, which will be the more intense the more value will be concentrated in bitcoin network
6. outlawing of non-custodial wallets and mixers, and moving most of the bitcoin to the state-controlled entities with full control and taxation
7. mining pool wars between the states or corporations
Many of these risks will be more prominent during next years and decades with current trends of the development of the newer AI systems and governments trying to get more and more control over the citizens of their countries.
// Please share with authors. @Institute of Cryptoanarchy
Sorry. Very dubious thing this Declaration... ((( A lot of self-contradictory, narcissistic and just false statements, seems like being written by honest and hot but just 18-years olds without much thinking or experience or knowledge of the world. Paul Rosenberg has much more sense. If I wasn't aware of real normal libertarians with common sense and had this as a typical example of libertarian thought, I would consider all libertarians as just another hormon-ruled mob of youngsters. Who a lot of libertarians are in fact, which is a pity and a hindrance for any practical action from them.
just for example:
"we oppose aggression, and coercion" and then "We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses." and "when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule" --- for real? how exactly they will bite without aggression? Do they have means to bite back of this is just words? I would bet for the latter, who can - don't talk.
"if you come after us, there will be consequences" --- oh really? What for example, again without aggression?
"we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life", "we suffered along with everyone else" --- reads as just one more woke and contemporary "touchy" thing, oh we are so suffering and this is so unearned... I'm not suffering, don't know why they are...
"We are no longer your citizens or your subjects." --- will they require to burn the passports and IDs to be included? If not, this is just words.
"You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions" --- nobody claims control of my decisions, don't know about theirs...
"those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human". --- this is just wrong and false statement (as a lot of other stuff inside); even rulers don't hate or kill every sufficiently independent human, mostly they didn't care if you don't touch them.
Better declarations are available
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by banev | export