Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:33 am

BenDhyan » 26 Apr 2021 21:08 wrote:
DrEvil » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:26 pm wrote:Here's a nice overview of the electricity consumption:
https://cbeci.org/

Their estimates range from 38.99 TWh to 428.58 TWh, with their best estimate at 124.60 TWh.


What's nice about it, I see no hard evidence of where this bitcoin hardware is that is using all this power? Now someone could do a study based on some approved scientific methodology that shows the global electricity usage due to housewives cooking the family meal, cakes, etc., in a year exceeds Argentina's power usage. Now that may be credible but for the study to be scientific, it would need to show the actual numbers of housewives and where they live and the type of stove, etc., etc..But the Cambridge study does not tell us who these bitcoin miners are, what equipment they are using, etc. I don't mean some computer estimate, I mean real names and locations, equipment type, wattage ratings, etc.., something that is verifiable, an actual scientific study. The Cambridge article is not scientific imho, and I can not imagine any scientific journal touching it as it stands.

Isn't bitcoin done mining one by distributed networks, nets and what have you as well?

You used to be able to do it on a PC.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby DrEvil » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:08 am

BenDhyan » Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:08 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:26 pm wrote:Here's a nice overview of the electricity consumption:
https://cbeci.org/

Their estimates range from 38.99 TWh to 428.58 TWh, with their best estimate at 124.60 TWh.


What's nice about it, I see no hard evidence of where this bitcoin hardware is that is using all this power? Now someone could do a study based on some approved scientific methodology that shows the global electricity usage due to housewives cooking the family meal, cakes, etc., in a year exceeds Argentina's power usage. Now that may be credible but for the study to be scientific, it would need to show the actual numbers of housewives and where they live and the type of stove, etc., etc..But the Cambridge study does not tell us who these bitcoin miners are, what equipment they are using, etc. I don't mean some computer estimate, I mean real names and locations, equipment type, wattage ratings, etc.., something that is verifiable, an actual scientific study. The Cambridge article is not scientific imho, and I can not imagine any scientific journal touching it as it stands.


Here's the methodology behind those numbers:
http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electri ... nsumption/
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby BenDhyan » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:10 am

^ Perhaps some of it is done on PCs Joe, but any claims of bitcoin mining power usage without detailing how and where it is taking place is mere hype. The people making the claim of 129 TWh electrical energy usage need to provide details that can be verified in order to be credible. That includes proportion done on PCs, proportion done on stand alone data processing centers, etc..If the growth of mining is indeed exponential as they claim, then someone is manufacturing and selling the hardware to do the bitcoin processing, and it follows therefore that the manufacturing become exponential, so there must be some evidence of this someplace, Until now nada!
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby BenDhyan » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:25 am

DrEvil » Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:08 pm wrote:
BenDhyan » Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:08 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:26 pm wrote:Here's a nice overview of the electricity consumption:
https://cbeci.org/

Their estimates range from 38.99 TWh to 428.58 TWh, with their best estimate at 124.60 TWh.


What's nice about it, I see no hard evidence of where this bitcoin hardware is that is using all this power? Now someone could do a study based on some approved scientific methodology that shows the global electricity usage due to housewives cooking the family meal, cakes, etc., in a year exceeds Argentina's power usage. Now that may be credible but for the study to be scientific, it would need to show the actual numbers of housewives and where they live and the type of stove, etc., etc..But the Cambridge study does not tell us who these bitcoin miners are, what equipment they are using, etc. I don't mean some computer estimate, I mean real names and locations, equipment type, wattage ratings, etc.., something that is verifiable, an actual scientific study. The Cambridge article is not scientific imho, and I can not imagine any scientific journal touching it as it stands.


Here's the methodology behind those numbers:
http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electri ... nsumption/

Means squat, a mere computer model disconnected from reality.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby DrEvil » Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:15 am

It's based on the actual hardware used, not just some abstract model.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Elvis » Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:23 pm

Recent paper on Facebook's Libra. The Executive Summary is 10 pages long, will post just the first three paragraphs.

"B​ANKING ON S​URVEILLANCE​: T​HE​ L​IBRA​ B​LACK​ P​APER"

https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/wp-con ... INAL-2.pdf


On April 16, 2020, Facebook, Inc. and twenty-one business partners released a revamped plan to launch their new digital currency, Libra, by the end of the year. Just nine months earlier,1 Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Chair of the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC), had called for a moratorium on the project, citing concerns regarding surveillance, systemic risk, and corporate power, among a host of other problems. Despite its public relations spin, Facebook2 and its partners, collectively known as the Libra Association (Association), have failed to sufficiently address these issues. Although the Geneva-based Association characterizes the Libra project as a simple “public good” — a global payment system for use by everyone, everywhere,3 anytime — an analysis of Libra’s design reveals dangerous possibilities.

The Libra project poses three overarching, interrelated threats: (1) mass surveillance of Libra users and business partners, (2) hazardous arbitrage of the financial regulatory system, and(3) the concerted encroachment of Facebook and its partners into the financial services sector, which would violate the traditional separation between commerce and banking, and deepen corporate economic and political dominance.

In order to grapple with these dangers, it is critical for policymakers to understand that our information economy is run by ​platforms​: entities like Facebook that generate and intermediate market activity by generating and intermediating data. From the perspective of4 users, platforms make certain services more accessible or convenient ​— ​but they also require legally and technologically complex data collection. As part of this constant harvest, platforms5 deploy additional services that expand the user base and yield more information, helping the platforms continually accumulate profits and power.6


...continues at link
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Elvis » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:22 pm

I put this in the Bitcoin thread, then realized this is probably a better fit here.

This calls to mind the regulatory issues and legal avenues when things go wrong.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/turki ... illion-usd
Crypto Exchange Founder Disappears with $2 Billion

By Anton Shilov 6 days ago

Gimme all your Dogecoins


The founder of a popular crypto exchange in Turkey has disappeared, with media reports indicating that he has fled the country with $2 billion as roughly 300,000 frustrated users have suddenly lost access to their accounts.

In Turkey, the national currency lira has been in a secular decline for nine consecutive years, urging people to take some risks in a bid to protect their savings and maybe even earn something. As a result, the recent rise of cryptocurrencies predictably attracted many investors who hoped to protect their money and possibly gain some more. But things did not go well for them as Thodex, one of the country's largest cryptocurrency exchanges, went bust.

Governments cannot control cryptocurrencies. As a result, they can quickly rise to an all-time high (or rapidly drop), making them a particularly attractive investment instrument — especially for those willing to take a risk. In Turkey, anyone can establish a crypto exchange with just 50,000 liras (about $6,000 USD) in capital, reports Bloomberg. Consequently, crypto exchanges are often run by people without proper financial education that serve unqualified investors who do not understand all of the risks.

Thodex was one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in Turkey with 700,000 users, many lured in by an introductory offer of 'millions' of free Dogecoins. Apparently, most of those Dogecoins were never distributed.

To make matters worse, media reports say that as many as 391,000 users have now suddenly lost access to their accounts. Following the reports, Thodex "temporarily" closed the platform to address an "abnormal fluctuation in the company accounts."

Meanwhile, Faruk Fatih Ozer, the founder of Thodex, has flown to Albania, taking $2 billion of investors' money with him, reports CNBC (citing local Turkish media). As you would expect, the Turkish Justice Ministry is seeking a so-called "red notice" with Interpol to arrest Ozer.

Thodex denies all the allegations and says that the problem impacts 'only' 30,000 of its clients. The company further states that the inaccurate media reporting has ruined its reputation, making it impossible to continue operations.

"The allegations that [accounts of] 391,000 people disappeared after a loss of approximately $2 billion, which was [reported] to the public on 22.04.2021, are unfounded," a statement by Thodex reads. "It is necessary to make this statement in order to respond urgently to these claims that go beyond the limits of honesty and conscience."

The founder of Thodex vows to return investors' money but hasn't revealed how and when he plans to do it. Meanwhile, a lawyer representing the investors said the money had become "irretrievable," according to Bloomberg.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Elvis » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:29 pm

On the question of energy costs. I can't say I grasp all of this but seems worthy of posting for discussion.

https://www.aier.org/article/why-do-cry ... ch-energy/
Why Do Cryptocurrencies Use So Much Energy?

J.P. Koning
– April 30, 2021

By design, cryptocurrencies such as Dogecoin, Litecoin, and Bitcoin are expensive, energy-intensive products. Because they are expensive, cryptocurrencies shouldn’t be very popular – they should be niche tools for specialists. With only a few users, their overall energy footprint would be tiny.

But an odd thing has happened. These expensive products have gone mainstream. Their energy footprint has reached epic proportions, attracting the anger of environmentalists.

Given that cryptocurrencies are so expensive, why have regular people adopted them? That responsibility lies with the opaque way that users pay for distributed ledgers. If the costs of consuming distributed ledger services were more transparent, mainstream users wouldn’t have shifted onto cryptocurrencies like bitcoin in the first place. With fewer users, their environmental impacts would be non-controversial.


Distributed ledgers aren’t cheap

A centralized ledger requires just one computer to store and update it.

Updating and securing a distributed ledger, however, requires the effort of thousands of competing computers, known as miners. I’m not going to give a detailed description of how this process works. (Try here). Suffice to say, the process of building a trustworthy ledger, one that is accurately stored across many computers rather than on a single one, requires a massive sacrifice of electricity by miners.

Because centralized ledgers don’t require thousands of CPUs to replicate each other’s effort, the costs of running them is many magnitudes cheaper than running a distributed ledger.

So what sorts of people want to buy costly spots on a distributed ledger?


Anti-centralization and silver speaker cables

One type of buyer is a new breed of anti-centralization connoisseur. These hobbyists want to oppose centralization and want to hold financial products like Dogecoin, Bitcoin, and Litecoin that are consistent with their view. They enjoy the lack of centralization and are willing to endure its much higher costs.

The choice over the degree of centralization is very much like a consumer’s decision between a Hummer or a Honda Accord. Most folks will take the Accord, but a few will want a Hummer. They feel that they need the extra services that a Hummer can provide, like climbing up a mountain. And they’re willing to foot the Hummer’s much higher gas bill.

But there aren’t many true anti-centralization connoisseurs. Only a handful of hobbyists truly care about the degree of centralization. It lies in the same category as audiophiles debating the merits of silver speaker cables versus copper cables. Most of us just roll our eyes.

Not only is the degree of centralization an obscure topic, but distributed ledgers are harder to use than centralized ledgers, requiring an entirely new skill set.

Given that cryptocurrencies are specialized, complicated, and costly, one would expect only a few nerdy connoisseurs to be buying in. But that’s not the case. Your daughter holds some Dogecoin. Your neighbour is speculating in Litecoins. William Shatner likes Bitcoin.

I’d argue that a big driver of mainstream adoption has been the opaque way that distributed ledgers get paid for.


You mean distributed ledgers aren’t free?

High costs usually dissuade mainstream users from acquiring niche products like silver speaker cables or Hummers. Owning a Hummer hurts. The weekly gasoline bill is massive and comes straight out of one’s pocket. The same goes for auto insurance.

But the costs of maintaining distributed ledgers aren’t paid directly out of one’s personal holdings of Dogecoin or Bitcoin. They are (mostly) funded by the issuance of new coins. In Dogecoin’s case, 10,000 new Dogecoins are created every minute as compensation for miners. With Litecoin, 12.5 new Litecoins are paid every 2.5 minutes, and with Bitcoin 6.25 new bitcoins are rewarded to miners each 10 minutes.

Relying on new coins to pay miners dissociates users of cryptocurrencies from the felt costs of securing them.

Put differently, imagine if you could own a Hummer without the pain of regular gas bills or insurance. That’s a bit like what using Dogecoin or Bitcoin is like. Someone who holds, or HODLs, is indulging their anti-centralization preferences. But they aren’t directly suffering the recurring costs associated with the production of those services. They perceive distributed ledgers as if they were free, even though they aren’t.


What about coin inflation?

But surely the constant growth in coin supply amounts to a felt cost. At the end of each minute 10,000 new Dogecoins are created to pay miners. Don’t these new coins cause the price of all existing Dogecoins to fall? Given that the value of their holdings is forever being diluted, aren’t Dogecoin owners keenly aware of the costs of the distributed ledger?

Not so. With cryptocurrencies the cost of new coins is capitalized into the price.

Let me decode what that means. Dogecoin’s price already includes the fact that Dogecoin miners are paid a recurring fee. And so the price of Dogecoins doesn’t fall each time that a reward is paid to miners.

Here’s an analogy. Every two weeks Microsoft must pay its employees. But if I own Microsoft shares, the price of those shares doesn’t fall every time payday arrives. The price of Microsoft shares already includes the information that salary must be paid.

The same goes for Dogecoin. The fees paid to miners, like Microsoft’s salaries, are already factored into Doge’s price.

And so a Dogecoin owner never really feels the painful costs of the distributed ledger. They don’t pay a weekly bill, as they would if they owned a Hummer. Nor does the value of their Dogecoin holdings progressively fall each minute thanks to inflation. But even so, these are very real costs.


Distributed ledgers are more popular than they should be

If the high costs of distributed ledgers were more keenly felt by users, cryptocurrencies would never have become so popular.

Most folks who are flocking to Dogecoin, Litecoin, and Bitcoin aren’t anti-centralization connoisseurs. They don’t know much about the product and certainly aren’t interested in paying a premium to consume it.

What they want is to get exposure to a fun gyrating number on a screen. They want to become millionaires. Whether they achieve millionaire status via more or less centralized methods is mostly mumbo jumbo to them.

Normally, high fees would dissuade the great unwashed from buying niche products like distributed ledgers or silver speaker cables or Hummers. But because these costs are hidden deep within the prices of Dogecoin, Litecoin, and Bitcoin, the owners of these products don’t directly experience them. Misperceiving distributed ledgers as costless, they are piling in.

What if the costs of cryptocurrencies weren’t so opaque?

Say that each Dogecoin owner had to pay miners a minute-by-minute fee out of their own pocket. True anti-centralization connoisseurs would happily pay up. But mainstream users, confronted for the first time with a transparent price for distributed ledger services, would panic and quickly exit their Dogecoin positions. The same goes for Litecoin and Bitcoin.

Critics are upset about the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies. But it’s not the energy needs of these products that is the problem. Let niche communities enjoy their strange energy-intensive activities.

Rather, what is disturbing is that most consumers of cryptocurrencies don’t perceive the true cost of the services they are using. And so these very, very expensive products have, by accident, gone mainstream.


“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby BenDhyan » Wed May 26, 2021 3:53 am

DrEvil » Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:15 pm wrote:It's based on the actual hardware used, not just some abstract model.

So the University of Cambridge must have a lot of agents in China gathering the data, since according to this article, China accounts for about 65% of the world’s bitcoin mining. Due to its cheap energy, Inner Mongolia accounts for around 8% globally, a greater share than the U.S. That's right, more mining is done in Inner Mongolia than the whole of the USA! I don't see how anyone could verify these claims, where on line would these statistics be found? I know I am not able to prove it, but I still call B/S on the amount of power used in the mining, just a gut feeling that doesn't go away when I read that the truth or no resides in China data that is not in the public domain. Even with cheaper electricity, the cost for say American miners setting up operations in Inner Mongolia must be substantial?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/major-china-bitcoin-mining-hub-lays-out-harsher-crackdown-measures.html
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby BenDhyan » Thu May 27, 2021 4:04 am

Ok, so this is claimed to be the biggest bitcoin mining operation in North America and in most of the rest of the world, it uses 1.4 MW of electrical power. There would need to be about 86,000,000 operations of this size globally to use the 120 TWh, or about 6,900,000 of them in Inner Mongolia to use 8% of that power.
I don't think so!

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Elvis » Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:07 pm

Bloomberg "Odd Lots" is in front on reporting on this, here's a short piece following some U.S. House testimony linked below.


The Big Difference Between a Digital Dollar and a CBDC

By Joe Weisenthal
June 15, 2021

Outside of perhaps China, right now the big use case for central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) seems to be just talking about them. Crypto is cool right now and people are interested in digital money, so government and central bank officials are also spending a lot of time talking about their visions of how fiat currencies could be brought into this new realm.

However, there’s still a lot of ambiguity about how, say, a digital dollar would be designed, or what exactly it would accomplish. We’re still at the talking stage.

A big hearing happening today in D.C. is called “Digitizing the Dollar: Investigating the Technological Infrastructure, Privacy, and Financial Inclusion Implications of Central Bank Digital Currencies.”

To this end, you should definitely read the introductory remarks from Rohan Grey, a professor at Willamette University College of Law. Rohan is a longtime advocate of the government establishing a digital dollar, but with a specific vision in mind. Here are a few key parts of his testimony:

I am afraid I must begin my substantive remarks with a quibble, albeit a gentle and mostly provocative one. In particular, my complaint is with the use of the term “central bank digital currency” in the title of this hearing. In my view, it is a mistake to equate and reduce the idea of a “digital dollar” to that of a “central bank digital currency.” The former encompasses a wide spectrum of designs, architectures, and arrangements, while the latter refers only to a narrow segment of that spectrum in which central banks are the exclusive issuers and administrators. To be clear, I believe the Federal Reserve should and will play a central role in any future digital dollar regime introduced in the United States. I also strongly endorse the FedAccounts proposal of my co-panelist Professor Menand and his colleagues. But in my view, the universe of digital fiat currency possibilities that we should be exploring at this stage extends beyond that which the vocabulary of CBDCs allows us to consider.

The emphasis added is mine, but the key thing is that a central bank digital currency, as most people talk about it, is essentially a way for people to hold money that’s a direct liability of the central bank. It could potentially be likened to a public option for banking. A way for people to hold savings in an institution that’s not directly tied to a commercial bank.

However, a digital dollar, in Rohan’s view, would bear some properties that are similar to cash itself, which include being a private, bearer asset.

Later in his testimony, he writes:

The right to transactional privacy and anonymity is a bedrock of political freedom and democracy, and should not be abandoned as we transition to a permanently digitally connected society. Instead, policymakers should adopt a “do no harm” principle, and commit to preserving “currency neutrality” in both design and implementation.

Right now, anyone with cash in their pocket can hand that money to someone else as a form of payment, and no centralized authority has any control over it, or any clear visibility into it. On the internet this is impossible. Or at least it was impossible until the invention of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which for the first time created something online that was somewhat private and also a bearer instrument. Of course, Bitcoin isn’t an official money or legal tender, and so if you want to conduct transactions with dollars, but in a private way, that’s basically impossible.

As more and more commerce shifts to the internet, the prospect could arise that transactional privacy and anonymity go away, unless there’s a solution. Of course, some policymakers and academics are excited about this possibility. Ken Rogoff wrote a book on the harm caused by cash (in terms of crime, money laundering, etc.) though he mostly took aim at large-denomination bills.

If transactional privacy were to be seen as an important design consideration in a future digital money, one could imagine a government crypto-dollar that users hold in digital wallets, like they hold their Bitcoin, that can be passed between two people without it showing up on any kind of centralized ledger.

As for the other vision of digital money — something more akin to CBDCs — there are many reasons people are excited about some kind of public accounts. Maybe people don’t want to use a private bank. Also we’ve seen, for example, some of the logistical problems that arise from direct cash stimulus payments. Perhaps public accounts could solve that.

There’s also a general frustration that the Fed is capable of backstopping corporate debt and borrowing in a crisis, while the typical household has to wait or hope that Congress will pass something in a timely manner. People also like the idea of stimulus helicopter money and the prospect of a central bank being able to put cash directly into people’s savings accounts, as needed. However, ultimately something like that is going to come down to politics, rather than some new tech. The real question is whether fiscal authorities (Congress) want to delegate this kind of power to an independent authority.

Obviously, there’s still a long process before the U.S. has some kind of official digital government money (if it ever happens at all) but it’s important to make clear that it’s a very different thing to talk about private, cash-like bearer assets in digital form as opposed to an account that citizens can hold at the Fed or something similar. Both may have their uses, but they’re two distinct discussions. In the meantime, definitely read Rohan’s remarks here.



Snippet from Grey's House testimony introduction & link to text (14 page PDF):

Testimony before the U.S. HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Task Force on Financial Technology Hearing on
"Digitizing the Dollar: Investigating the Technological Infrastructure, Privacy, and Financial Inclusion Implications of Central Bank Digital Currencies”
June 15, 2021
Rohan Grey
Assistant Professor of Law, Willamette University


Introduction

Thank you Chair Lynch, Ranking Member Davidson, and members of this Task Force,for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rohan Grey. I am an Assistant Professorof Law at Willamette University, where I research money and technology, specializing in the design and regulation of digital fiat currency.1 I also serve as a Vice-Chair of the Policy and Governance Working Group at the Digital Currency Global Initiative, a partnership between Stanford University and the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union. In that capacity, I work with policy makers and industry representatives from around the world to develop and harmonize technical and regulatory standards concerning digital fiat currency, with a focus on privacy, identity, and on-boarding issues. As the author of a forthcoming book titled “Digitizing the Dollar: the Battle for the Soul of Public Money in the Age of Cryptocurrency” (Melville House, 2022), I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in a hearing that shares its title, and to offer my personal views on the technological infrastructure, privacy, and financial inclusion implications of publicly issued digital currencies.

https://financialservices.house.gov/upl ... 210615.pdf
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:51 am

Belligerent Savant » Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:51 am wrote:.


this can go in several threads here:



Ministry of Defense

Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm

A strategic implications project

The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) is responsible for publishing strategic trends, joint concepts and doctrine. If you wish to quote our publications as reference material in other work, you should confirm with our editors whether the particular publication and amendment state remains authoritative. We welcome your comments on factual accuracy or amendment proposals. Please send them to:DCDC, Ministry of Defence Shrivenham, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN6 8RFE-mail: DCDC-DocEds@mod.gov.ukTelephone: 01793 31 4216/4220


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ccess2.pdf

Excerpt, particularly the last line:

Image

And:

“The wealthy are expected to be early adopters of human augmentation and could use their superior abilities to create an elite overclass genetically distinct from humanity and leave an unaugmented underclass as disadvantaged as the illiterate.”

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:56 pm

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:57 pm

.

Worthwhile to revisit this thread as we near the end of 2021 and have a bit more clarity on objectives.



POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2020

What is blockchain?

Those in power will say:

Blockchain is a secure way for people to own and control their digital footprint, the data they create living through devices and wearable / implantable / ingestible technology in “smart” environments. In essence, it is a digital ledger that keeps track of EVERYTHING across a decentralized computer network that is said to be permanent and secure. Picture a real time account book that keeps track not only of your monetary assets (bitcoin – this is how much folks understand blockchain); but also civil records like birth certificates, marriage certificates, and court proceedings; voting records; property ownership; certifications and education credentials; health information, including DNA, bioinformatics, and data from wearable technologies; public benefit access like food stamps; and now even one’s movements (geolocation data) and social interactions via QR code health passports and contact tracing.

What I say:

Whether we know it or not, when we agree to have our lives linked to blockchain, we are agreeing to live in a behaviorist panopticon. In exchange for convenience and limited privileges, we give up our free will. The future being handed to us is one that will be shaped by surveillance, artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, machine learning, and feedback loops. We risk swapping our vibrant human spirits, beautiful in their passionate creativity and flawed vulnerability, for sanitized digital twins that will be managed as human capital by callous technocrats to profit social impact investors. Before we walk through the door of digital identity, realize it opens onto a maze designed to disorient, confuse, and control us.


https://wrenchinthegears.com/2020/09/22 ... l-serfdom/


Direct from IBM:

What is blockchain technology?

Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger for recording transactions, tracking assets and building trust. Discover why businesses worldwide are adopting it

...

What are smart contracts on blockchain?

Smart contracts are digital contracts stored on a blockchain that are automatically executed when predetermined terms and conditions are met

https://www.ibm.com/topics/smart-contracts
https://www.ibm.com/topics/what-is-blockchain

So, hypothetically:

Once an individual's "Digital ID" (vaccine status, health info, bank/digital asset info, employment status, criminal record, internet activity, etc) is stored on the blockchain, a 'smart contract' can/will be appended to that individual's ID.

So long as one keeps to their vaccine schedule, or avoids certain activities deemed to be 'domestic threats', access to your digital monetary assets will remain active. Stray from the straight line, however, and mechanisms will automatically trigger to withhold funds (no human 'broker-bureaucrat' required; the terms/code of the 'smart' contract does all the work), or otherwise prevent you from making purchases (such as public transit or meals).

These smart contracts would also be built-into other services, such as UBI. In order to qualify for UBI, you must meet certain prerequisites -- easily verified via your Digital ID profile. Failure to maintain certain policy requirements will result in withholding of UBI until the 'issues' (e.g., getting your latest booster shot) are resolved.

This becomes particularly important if CASH/FIAT is no longer a viable alternative.

A 'social credit' system, as currently implemented in China, can easily be built into this framework.

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-s ... ned-2018-4

China's 'social credit' system ranks citizens and punishes them with throttled internet speeds and flight bans if the Communist Party deems them untrustworthy

China has been rolling out a system that ranks its citizens based on their "social credit."

People can be punished if they drive badly, buy too many video games, or steal.

It's not yet a unified, nationwide system, but China plans on eventually making it mandatory for everyone.


This is a potential near future for many nations (prelim phases are already being 'beta tested' in many urban areas/cities in the form of 'vaccine passports'/'health passes').

Sound appealing?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

Postby Elvis » Thu Dec 16, 2021 9:43 pm

:lol: Quark and Odo discuss NFTs and Crypto Currency


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrbDWq64BNg
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 36 guests