Is Bitcoin what we DON’T want?

It may be that until humans have shaken off their controllers, any globalized solution to anything is or will be precisely the problem. Meanwhile, I’d say, think locally, act locally.

Bitcoin: Problem, Reaction, Solution?

December 30, 2013

by Julie Beal


A schism has been created in the activist world, with the appearance of the algorithm called Bitcoin. Its apparent genius means that we haven’t a chance of knowing how good Bitcoin is, because it’s clear that the person or people who created it had expertise in cryptography ANDeconomics, along with a good working knowledge of network science, computer technology, maths, law, and commerce.

In Davis’s New Yorker article he describes the impenetrable nature of Nakamoto’s code. Every time his computer security researcher thought he found a hole, he would discover a taunting message from Nakamoto indicating it had already been patched. It was, Davis said, like a thief tunneling under a bank only to discover that someone had poured concrete into his path “with a sign telling him to go home. (Adam L. Penenberg, 2011)

Since most people specialise, not diversify, within their field of knowledge, few people are in a position to judge Bitcoin’s efficacy, or its potential effect.

We know Bitcoin’s clever, and we know it’s popular, but we can’t be sure it will win. Only time will tell.

Because both the stated purpose, and the design, of Bitcoin, is to improve upon the problems of our current economy, many activists have come to believe Bitcoin is far better than what we have now, and is therefore worth pursuing. However, there are also activists who have always said we’re heading for a New World Order with a one-world currency, controlled by an implanted ID-microchip which can be turned off remotely, and Bitcoin is one of the many digital currencies which are the first step in this direction. It’s totally digital, and is also totally dependent on proprietary hardware, bandwidth, and energy supplies.

Even if we forget about these dependencies, we’ve already witnessed the reformation of Bitcoin, since the FINCEN guidance (intermediaries must check IDs) and the raid on Silk Road (disobey and they take your coins away). Whilst some exchanges are still taking a few days to confirm the legal identities of their users, others have opted for government-sanctioned social logins, or even biometrics, to verify IDs within minutes.

Nonetheless, the initial rumours that Bitcoin is anonymous seem to have stuck, and digi-cash is officially cool, and its users feel empowered. Its media reputation goes hand-in-hand with Anonymous, Assange, Manning, and the mask (all classic icons for a future story, telling the history of the Wild Wild CyberWest, and how it was tamed).

But there are many who believe that Bitcoin has the potential to become the trackable, turn-off-able digital currency we’ve always talked about – one that makes a microchip so precious, it’s safer to implant it. Citizen: barcoded.

The resulting schism amongst activists would be all the more ironic, therefore, if Bitcoin turns out to be a stepping stone to the Verichip. Advocates of Bitcoin suggest it’s better to ‘trust the math’. As an opponent of purely digital, trackable currencies, that’s like asking me to trust A.I. to run the world, instead of human beings. (Google and NASA have the world’s biggest quantum computer, capable of cracking any cryptographic codes, and they intend for it to be the biggest and best Artificial Intelligence possible.)

A ‘basket’ of global currencies is evolving, but few Bitcoin advocates, or opponents, seem aware of the existence of currencies such as Ven, Mintchip, and the Eco-pesa. However, the power of Agenda 21 is pitching us towards a future of eco-currencies, backed by nature (ecosystem services), and by those in power. The most worrying development was the conference last month, at which plans to implement a global sustainable currency, called the Globo, were announced, as a way to address currency wars, and the cost of payments online.

Reform of the payments ecosystem has been taking place for many years, in response to the spread of smartphones and internet access, and their effect upon business, finance, and public services. People want the ease and convenience of a digital wallet, and the infrastructure for this is almost in place, e.g. NFC. The ID chips are now in phones and computers, using technology approved by the NSA (trusted computing),and protocols approved by governments (the Open Identity Exchange).

All that’s needed now is to convert all cash into a digital format.

Bitcoin, for all its cryptographic genius, will always be vulnerable to regulation, and reliant on corporate hardware. If its success increases, more and more middlemen will become involved in the transmission of Bitcoin, and the regulation of trust between peers.

Once Bitcoin is ‘just another currency’ in the Data Asset Transfer Grid, run by Ripple, the Skynet will be complete.

…. digital currency is definitely the next stage in wealth control. It may or may not be bitcoin specifically, but it’s coming fast. If you bet on bitcoin and lose, well, you lose. In my opinion it’s not about trying to make a buck (or bitcoin) it’s about delaying the end game as long as possible. With each new step, the control grid strengthens. Get out of line, click… your wealth has been ‘turned off’. (David Freedom)

This entry was posted in 2013, unity consciousness, visions of the future, waking up, wild new ideas. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Is Bitcoin what we DON’T want?

  1. laurabruno says:

    I have been shaking my head about the disconnect people seem to have with Bitcoin — people who otherwise rail against the NWO One World Everything and yet laud Bitcoin as the solution. Yeah. As in Problem. Reaction. Solution. Hello, there’s an internet kill switch! There’s been a longstanding plan to have a digital currency. Yes, we have funny money now, but there’s still cash and barter. Bitcoin is more virtual and vulnerable than fiat money, because if it gets too powerful (assuming it’s not already or has been since inception co-opted), then the would-be controllers can just turn off the internet like they’ve been wanting to do anyway. Or, they can individually turn off your account access.

    Honestly, I would have self-induced Parkinson’s if I allowed myself to shake my head as often as it has wanted to shake in 2013. Between Russell Brand’s “all you need is love and a socialist egalitarian utopia” and Bitcoin, Pavlov’s dog’s got nothing on the American populace. I don’t even know what to say except “read the agenda before cheering the solution.” If the solution EXACTLY matches the agenda, then it’s not “your” solution. I could go on, but I’m often speechless due to frequent jaw dropping.

    One last tip: in order for Problem-Reaction-Solution to work, that solution needs to look (initially) like an attractive thing that the people are demanding — like, say, the Vatican declaring a debt jubilee whilst simultaneously taking over all aspects of the economy (in daylight instead of behind the scenes) … or “lovey-dovey socialist government payouts for fairness” until everyone becomes so dependent on that government that it now controls everything (and therefore controls you with the threat of unplugging you), or single payer healthcare system now that Obamacare has “failed.” It hasn’t failed. It’s doing exactly what it was meant to do. You can’t fail that spectacularly and wind up with people demanding the very system you wanted to implement to begin with unless you are a) extremely lucky or b) a careful Hegelian dialectic planner.

    As FDR said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” The problem is that most people are so wrapped up in day to day concerns of getting by that THEY don’t make long term plans and stretch out contingencies into the far future. They make the mistake of projecting their own limitations and inherent good natures onto people who live above those concerns and also happen to be extremely emotionally disturbed and power hungry. People need to wake up. Even with one eye open, it’s not difficult to see. Hard to swallow, yes, but if enough people see it and identify it, then, none of us will need to swallow it. If enough people see and identify what’s coming, then (hopefully) there will be adequate motivation to find our own solutions.

  2. ohnwentsya says:

    Reblogged this on Spirit In Action and commented:
    Thank you for posting this and for your insightful commentary. Tho I personally feel that with Brand at least it was more that was how far his own thinking and evolution had taken him when he got to speak out and be heard. Socialism is the band aid for the gaping head wound that is capitalism; it isn’t a solution but a stopgap to slow the bleeding/suffering and dying while we implement the real solutions.
    I’ve been called a reformist for disagreeing with those who feel that we should allow things lije capitalism to play out to their inevitable nasty conclusions thus forcing the clueless and recalcitrant to accept the need for change. I am more interested in alleviating suffering while implementing the deep radical changes than in propping up any form of the hierarchical model but perhaps I am too hopeful about human nature.
    Even Marx himself considered socialism a step toward full anarchism and freedom not an end goal but we can see how well others adhered to his directions:-/
    I have been suspicious of bitcoin from the first I heard of it because I am personally suspicious of money as a system. The worldview and mindset required to engage with such systems is the problem in my opinion.
    Value should not be rooted in tokens of any kind but in love, compassion, community and overall wellbeing of all living beings.
    I know that idea/opinion is likely to be incomprehensible to those who are deeply entrenched in the money based worldview but perhaps enough have transcended that level that it will make sense to some of you:-)

  3. laurabruno says:

    “Even Marx himself considered socialism a step toward full anarchism and freedom not an end goal but we can see how well others adhered to his directions:-/ ”

    Lenin: “Fascism is capitalism in decay.” “The goal of socialism is communism.”

    I truly believe that humanity is not ready for a large scale “compassionate” government, because humanity is still too prone to seeing divisions and to what Larkin Rose recently referred to as a “football team” worldview in which the lesser evil is interpreted to mean “the good guys.” On the local level, getting to know individuals and assessing local needs and solutions, people can practice being human again, after centuries of dehumanization. Maybe then people could recognize an actual global “meritocracy” if one miraculously appeared.

    Until then, I remain suspicious of top down, single, catch-all “solutions” that spill forth from a morally degenerate society that has largely forgotten its own humanity. Since bigger government and virtual reality further anonymize humans and strip away individuality, I don’t see these as viable solutions — at least not until humanity has so strongly reclaimed its own sovereignty that it’s capable of recognizing and respecting true leaders that have its best interests at heart, rather than sociopaths that know how to push the “needy” and “greedy” buttons. Huge difference, but most of society currently has no discernment of that difference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *