Skip to main content

Block chain isn't about democracy and decentralization – it's about greed

With the value of bitcoin has fallen by about 70% since its peak late last year, the mother of all bubbles has now gone bust. More generally, cryptocurrencies have entered a not-so-cryptic apocalypse. The value of leading coins such as Ether, EOS, Litecoin and XRP have all fallen by over 80%, thousands of other digital currencies have plummeted by 90%-99%, and the rest have been exposed as outright frauds. No one should be surprised by this: four out of five initial coin offerings (ICOs) were scams, to begin with.
Faced with the public spectacle of a market bloodbath, boosters have fled to the last refuge of the crypto scoundrel: a defence of “blockchain,” the distributed-ledger software underpinning all cryptocurrencies. Blockchain has been heralded as a potential panacea for everything from poverty and famine to cancer. In fact, it is the most overhyped – and least useful – technology in human history.
In practice, blockchain is nothing more than a glorified spreadsheet. But it has also become the byword for a libertarian ideology that treats all governments, central banks, traditional financial institutions, and real-world currencies as evil concentrations of power that must be destroyed. Blockchain fundamentalists’ ideal world is one in which all economic activity and human interactions are subject to anarchist or libertarian decentralisation. They would like the entirety of social and political life to end up on public ledgers that are supposedly “permissionless” (accessible to everyone) and “trustless” (not reliant on a credible intermediary such as a bank).
Time to regulate bitcoin says Treasury committee report
Yet far from ushering in a utopia, blockchain has given rise to a familiar form of economic hell. A few self-serving white men (there are hardly any women or minorities in the blockchain universe) pretending to be messiahs for the world’s impoverished, marginalised and unbanked masses claim to have created billions of dollars of wealth out of nothing. But one need only consider the massive centralisation of power among cryptocurrency “miners,” exchanges, developers and wealth holders to see that blockchain is not about decentralisation and democracy; it is about greed.
For example, a small group of companies – mostly located in such bastions of democracy as Russia, Georgia and China – control between two-thirds and three-quarters of all crypto-mining activity and all routinely jack up transaction costs to increase their fat profit margins. Apparently, blockchain fanatics would have us put our faith in an anonymous cartel subject to no rule of law, rather than trust central banks and regulated financial intermediaries.
A similar pattern has emerged in cryptocurrency trading. Fully 99% of all transactions occur on centralised exchanges that are hacked on a regular basis. And, unlike with real money, once your crypto wealth is hacked, it is gone forever.
Moreover, the centralisation of crypto development – for example, fundamentalists have named Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin a “benevolent dictator for life” – already has given a lie to the claim that “code is law,” as if the software underpinning blockchain applications is immutable. The truth is that the developers have absolute power to act as judge and jury. When something goes wrong in one of their buggy “smart” pseudo-contracts and massive hacking occurs, they simply change the code and “fork” a failing coin into another one by arbitrary fiat, revealing the entire “trustless” enterprise to have been untrustworthy from the start.
Lastly, wealth in the crypto universe is even more concentrated than it is in North Korea. Whereas a Gini coefficient of 1.0 means that a single person controls 100% of a country’s income/wealth, North Korea scores 0.86, the rather unequal United States scores 0.41 and bitcoin scores an astonishing 0.88.
As should be clear, the claim of “decentralisation” is a myth propagated by the pseudo-billionaires who control this pseudo-industry. Now that the retail investors who were suckered into the crypto market have all lost their shirts, the snake-oil salesmen who remain are sitting on piles of fake wealth that will immediately disappear if they try to liquidate their “assets”.
As for blockchain itself, there is no institution under the sun – bank, corporation, non-governmental organisation or government agency – that would put its balance sheet or register of transactions, trades and interactions with clients and suppliers on public decentralised peer-to-peer permissionless ledgers. There is no good reason why such proprietary and highly valuable information should be recorded publicly.
Moreover, in cases where distributed-ledger technologies – so-called enterprise DLT – are actually being used, they have nothing to do with blockchain. They are private, centralised and recorded on just a few controlled ledgers. They require permission for access, which is granted to qualified individuals. And, perhaps most important, they are based on trusted authorities that have established their credibility over time. All of which is to say, these are “blockchains” in name only.
It is telling that all “decentralised” blockchains end up being centralised, permission databases when they are actually put into use. As such, blockchain has not even improved upon the standard electronic spreadsheet, which was invented in 1979.
No serious institution would ever allow its transactions to be verified by an anonymous cartel operating from the shadows of the world’s authoritarian kleptocracies. So it is no surprise that whenever “blockchain” has been piloted in a traditional setting, it has either been thrown in the trash bin or turned into a private permission database that is nothing more than an Excel spreadsheet or a database with a misleading name.

Source The Guardian

Comments

  1. The only real greed is people from GWD Forestry now employed at Ecocrops Int.

    Other than that Bitcoin follow market cycle just like any other asset. And investing in Bitcoin is for sure much safer than investing into Ecocrops or GWD Forestry.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trumps biomass policy

In 2007 the USA Federal Government passed the US Renewable Fuel Standard which required ethanol blending with domestic oil in large quantities with frequent increases in amounts of ethanol being used.  The bill was passed to reduce the USA carbon footprint and increase the amount of renewable biofuel being used in the USA. Under the Trump administrations, they have been far less supportive of the biomass blending mandate, granting biofuel waivers to major industry players and allowing the trading of biomass credits to develop. Despite the less than active support for biofuel domestically Trump has been pushing his trade negotiators to get big concessions from his Chinese counterparts by asking them to lower their tariffs on biomass in particular biofuel. China's ethanol demand is expected to grow nearly sevenfold as the country prepares to introduce E10 fuel throughout the country next year. E10 fuel is a fuel using 10% ethanol and 90% petrol. U.S. trade negotiato...

Markets just saw the best earnings season since the financial crisis, and nobody cares

Even mildly pessimistic guidance has investors spooked amid macro headwinds Earnings for S&P 500 companies grew by 25.8% in the third quarter, the strongest performance since the third quarter of 2010, when companies benefited from very attractive, recession-era comparable earnings. Nevertheless, from the start of earnings season to the close of trade Friday, the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.22% has fallen 2.7%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.49% 1.1%, and the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -0.15% 5.5%. “Third quarter earnings were outstanding both on earnings and revenue growth, the percentage of companies beating expectations, and the magnitude of those beats,” Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. But the selloff that accompanied these announcements is a testament to the fact that “Wall Street doesn’t care what you’ve done in the past. It’s all about what you’re going to do next quarter,” Arone said. The pairing of r...

Secure your online wallets & be careful with online services

You should be wary of any service designed to store your money online. Many exchanges and online wallets suffered from security breaches in the past and such services generally still do not provide enough insurance and security to be used to store money like a bank. Accordingly, you might want to use other types of Cyber currency wallets.  Otherwise, you should choose such services very carefully. Additionally, using two-factor authentication is recommended. Small amounts for everyday uses A Bitcoin wallet is like a wallet with cash. If you wouldn't keep a thousand dollars in your pocket, you might want to have the same consideration for your Bitcoin wallet. In general, it is a good practice to keep only small amounts of bitcoins on your computer, mobile, or server for everyday uses and to keep the remaining part of your funds in a safer environment. Backup your wallet Stored in a safe place, a backup of your wallet can protect you against computer failures and ma...