"Some analysts have claimed that the United States is interested in maintaining dollar hegemony, so that it can dominate world trade, and is therefore keen to suppress alternate currencies, including Bitcoin.

Stornetta said that the U.S. needs to “realize how to take advantage of the multitude of currencies, rather than viewing it as its sole sovereign right to declare the medium of exchange, the unit of account, and the store of value.”

Stornetta spoke with David Lin, Anchor and Producer at Kitco News, at the AIBC Summit in Malta.

Money and Competition

The future of money is one of competition, which could defy its traditional role as a “medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value,” said Stornetta.

He was also critical of the claim that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), digital fiat issued by a nation’s central bank, can monopolize the monetary system.

“The idea that the existing players of nation state fiat currencies have a monopoly on the system, and simply by adopting blockchain-style solutions for their existing currencies, that all of the non nation state actors will be boxed out, is just a myth,” he said. “It’s way too late in the game for it to go back to being a closed system.”

Stornetta claimed that blockchain technology would play a prominent role in defining money in the future, leading to more decentralization and individual control over money.

“The blockchain is like a money kit,” he stated. “I would call it Fed in a box… the existing nation states and their own fiat currencies, pushed out as CBDCs [central bank digital currencies], are going to have to compete on their merits with other alternative currencies.”

ltlee1, <news:cf39ec5d-f4cd-409a-bc25-f94c284efbden@googlegroups.com>

> "Some analysts have claimed that the United States is interested in
> maintaining dollar hegemony, so that it can dominate world trade, and is
> therefore keen to suppress alternate currencies, including Bitcoin.
>
> Stornetta said that the U.S. needs to "realize how to take advantage of the
> multitude of currencies, rather than viewing it as its sole sovereign right
> to declare the medium of exchange, the unit of account, and the store of
> value."
>
> Stornetta spoke with David Lin, Anchor and Producer at Kitco News, at the
> AIBC Summit in Malta.
>
> Money and Competition
>
> The future of money is one of competition, which could defy its traditional
> role as a "medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value," said
> Stornetta.
>
> He was also critical of the claim that central bank digital currencies
> (CBDCs), digital fiat issued by a nation's central bank, can monopolize the
> monetary system.
>
> "The idea that the existing players of nation state fiat currencies have a
> monopoly on the system, and simply by adopting blockchain-style solutions
> for their existing currencies, that all of the non nation state actors will
> be boxed out, is just a myth," he said. "It's way too late in the game for
> it to go back to being a closed system."
>
> Stornetta claimed that blockchain technology would play a prominent role in
> defining money in the future, leading to more decentralization and
> individual control over money.
>
> "The blockchain is like a money kit," he stated. "I would call it Fed in a
> box. the existing nation states and their own fiat currencies, pushed out as
> CBDCs [central bank digital currencies], are going to have to compete on
> their merits with other alternative currencies."

It's appropriate to recall that the "pioneering" bitcoin currency
was truly legitimized in the US in 2013, when the American SEC filed
a lawsuit against Trendon Shavers (the case known as the very first
bitcoin-fraud case), and explicitly validated legal recognition of
the claim that bitcoins are money.

| .. Shavers argued primarily that the BTCST investments are not
| securities because Bitcoin is not money, and Bitcoin is not, and
| cannot be, regulated by the United States. Shavers also argued
| that his transactions were all Bitcoin transactions, and that no
| money ever exchanged hands .. <https://is.gd/A18hzH>

America's regulators applied some legal penalties to bitcoin-related
businesses before, but those penalties were due to violations of some
registration requirements and the like. There were no cases related
to loss/theft/fraud/etc of bitcoins, - the Shavers case was the very
first where "were all Bitcoin transactions, and no money". And the
Shavers arguing might well be found valid. If something is not money
then the ponzi scheme accusation makes no sense. And I have not found
in the court documents a clear rationale for what makes bitcoin a
money, rather a hint that it shall be considered so simply because it
can be used as money. I.e. the known libertarian style motto: money
is anything people believe / are willing to accept as money (without
specification of what people and how many of them).

I would suggest to think in another direction: just the very fact of
conviction of Shavers was the fateful moment that had made bitcoin a
(real) money.

The latter claim may seem weird, but just think about what would have
happened if Shavers had been acquitted. Those aggrieved ones who
exchanged their legal USD for statusless - but craftfully advertised
as "promising" - bitcoins would have remained sad (and maybe for a
reason, since they chose to pay for some non-legally-binding promises
in a field not regulated by law in any way). But for everyone else it
would become a clear message that bitcoin is not a money, and if you
volunteered to pay for participation in a dubious gamble, then it's
not a state's duty to stand up for you if someone cheated you or the
gamble hasn't somehow met your expectations. Then many would cease to
be enthusiastic about bitcoin.

For various other similar "cryptocurrencies", the Shavers case also
served as an encouraging precedent, because gamblers now might expect
the same logic will be applied in court, "if something goes wrong".

In other words, the point is that if a group of [crazy] people have
arranged a [private] gamble among themselves, under some [private]
rules, and then some of these folks become feeling unhappy due to a
result of their gamble, then it's still not a reason for the state's
judiciary to interfere in their [private] relationships.

Such a state approach would discourage many and turn them away from
participating in non-regulated gambles. But in real life there's also
another side of the coin. The social nature of gambling is so that
there's always some people willing to take risks regardless of a lack
of legal warranties and regulations, and their private gamblings tend
to become less private and cause effects on the whole society. It's
so that a community of gamblers tends to seek to maintain some "law
and order" and "justice" within themselves on their own, and thus it
challenges the state's monopoly on law and order. The kinds of "law
and order" developing around underground casinos and within organized
crime groups are basically known.

So, if a new and attractive kind of non-regulated gambling emerges,
the state is faced with a choice, either to take this activity under
its legal regulation or to suppress it through enforced prohibition.
But if it passively allows it to run non-regulated then the involved
gambling enthusiasts will be trying to regulate it on their own thus
challenging the state's monopoly on law and order. This way the smart
inventors of this sexy gamble based on a statusless entity (bitcoin)
forced the American state to take the gamble in its regulation scope
and so bitcoin had gotten the status of real money.

The emphasis on "status" is due to the fact that any kind of money
that do not carry an intrinsic value is essentially sort of "societal
contract".

Within buying-selling relationships there are always cases causing
disputes. A buyer or a seller may want to cancel a deal due to some
reasons. Also, there's always some scammers who want to cheat.

A monetary system where money is a commodity with an universally
accepted intrinsic value can basically exist and last long without
any institution of supervision. I.e. even if buying-selling parties
behave in bad faith, cheating is a widespread practice and disputes
lead to fights, the money of the kind will, anyway, remain to be a
liquid asset (because of the universally accepted intrinsic value).
But such a money (eg. gold bars) is burdensome to keep and protect.

A kind of money without an intrinsic value can not survive as a
functional instrument without some judiciary to resolve disputes
according to certain laws, and then "trust" is the keyword. If people
see that with some kind of money there's a higher risk to run into
poorly resolvable issues, this money becomes less attractive (a less
liquid asset). The modern national fiat currencies operate within
this logic, where a state monetary body acts as a guarantor.

The newly invented "digital currencies" also don't carry an intrinsic
value, so the concept that in the long run they could become like a
usual regular money, but existing "on their own", out of context of
some supervision and regulation, is either delusion or an intentional
misguidance. And I think it's naive, in general, to believe that some
advanced technology can provide a basis for existence of a money "on
its own" (but promotion of such beliefs may be useful to attract more
newcomers into the gambling). So far such currencies are far from to
be regular money, they attract people mainly as a gambling instrument,
some use them as a medium of exchange in order to make it more
difficult to track transactions and/or in the cases when transactions
of fiat money are restricted by regulators. So far it remains sort of
gray zone, but if the share of these - currently weakly regulated -
currencies within the total money turnover will rise, then it would
be natural to expect governments would tighten regulations.

Then, if "non-regulated currencies" is an utopian concept, a relevant
question may be to what national or supranational jurisdiction these
"digital currencies" should be assigned. For the fiat currencies,
currently there's an established practice of possibility to exchange
them extraterritorially, which means judiciaries of different states
recognize in certain relevant part the force of each other's monetary
laws, and the current turnout of the digital currencies follows this
practice. As long as the new currencies remain "gray zone", the answer
for them is also somewhat "gray", and more relevant question may be
like what national monetary regulator de facto possesses the strongest
leverage on the practice of mass use of such currencies.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:12:37 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:cf39ec5d-f4cd-409a...@googlegroups.com>
> > "Some analysts have claimed that the United States is interested in
> > maintaining dollar hegemony, so that it can dominate world trade, and is
> > therefore keen to suppress alternate currencies, including Bitcoin.
> >
> > Stornetta said that the U.S. needs to "realize how to take advantage of the
> > multitude of currencies, rather than viewing it as its sole sovereign right
> > to declare the medium of exchange, the unit of account, and the store of
> > value."
> >
> > Stornetta spoke with David Lin, Anchor and Producer at Kitco News, at the
> > AIBC Summit in Malta.
> >
> > Money and Competition
> >
> > The future of money is one of competition, which could defy its traditional
> > role as a "medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value," said
> > Stornetta.
> >
> > He was also critical of the claim that central bank digital currencies
> > (CBDCs), digital fiat issued by a nation's central bank, can monopolize the
> > monetary system.
> >
> > "The idea that the existing players of nation state fiat currencies have a
> > monopoly on the system, and simply by adopting blockchain-style solutions
> > for their existing currencies, that all of the non nation state actors will
> > be boxed out, is just a myth," he said. "It's way too late in the game for
> > it to go back to being a closed system."
> >
> > Stornetta claimed that blockchain technology would play a prominent role in
> > defining money in the future, leading to more decentralization and
> > individual control over money.
> >
> > "The blockchain is like a money kit," he stated. "I would call it Fed in a
> > box. the existing nation states and their own fiat currencies, pushed out as
> > CBDCs [central bank digital currencies], are going to have to compete on
> > their merits with other alternative currencies."
> It's appropriate to recall that the "pioneering" bitcoin currency
> was truly legitimized in the US in 2013, when the American SEC filed
> a lawsuit against Trendon Shavers (the case known as the very first
> bitcoin-fraud case), and explicitly validated legal recognition of
> the claim that bitcoins are money.
>
> | .. Shavers argued primarily that the BTCST investments are not
> | securities because Bitcoin is not money, and Bitcoin is not, and
> | cannot be, regulated by the United States. Shavers also argued
> | that his transactions were all Bitcoin transactions, and that no
> | money ever exchanged hands .. <https://is.gd/A18hzH>
>
> America's regulators applied some legal penalties to bitcoin-related
> businesses before, but those penalties were due to violations of some
> registration requirements and the like. There were no cases related
> to loss/theft/fraud/etc of bitcoins, - the Shavers case was the very
> first where "were all Bitcoin transactions, and no money". And the
> Shavers arguing might well be found valid. If something is not money
> then the ponzi scheme accusation makes no sense. And I have not found
> in the court documents a clear rationale for what makes bitcoin a
> money, rather a hint that it shall be considered so simply because it
> can be used as money. I.e. the known libertarian style motto: money
> is anything people believe / are willing to accept as money (without
> specification of what people and how many of them).
>
> I would suggest to think in another direction: just the very fact of
> conviction of Shavers was the fateful moment that had made bitcoin a
> (real) money.
>
> The latter claim may seem weird, but just think about what would have
> happened if Shavers had been acquitted. Those aggrieved ones who
> exchanged their legal USD for statusless - but craftfully advertised
> as "promising" - bitcoins would have remained sad (and maybe for a
> reason, since they chose to pay for some non-legally-binding promises
> in a field not regulated by law in any way). But for everyone else it
> would become a clear message that bitcoin is not a money, and if you
> volunteered to pay for participation in a dubious gamble, then it's
> not a state's duty to stand up for you if someone cheated you or the
> gamble hasn't somehow met your expectations. Then many would cease to
> be enthusiastic about bitcoin.
>
> For various other similar "cryptocurrencies", the Shavers case also
> served as an encouraging precedent, because gamblers now might expect
> the same logic will be applied in court, "if something goes wrong".
>
> In other words, the point is that if a group of [crazy] people have
> arranged a [private] gamble among themselves, under some [private]
> rules, and then some of these folks become feeling unhappy due to a
> result of their gamble, then it's still not a reason for the state's
> judiciary to interfere in their [private] relationships.
>
> Such a state approach would discourage many and turn them away from
> participating in non-regulated gambles. But in real life there's also
> another side of the coin. The social nature of gambling is so that
> there's always some people willing to take risks regardless of a lack
> of legal warranties and regulations, and their private gamblings tend
> to become less private and cause effects on the whole society. It's
> so that a community of gamblers tends to seek to maintain some "law
> and order" and "justice" within themselves on their own, and thus it
> challenges the state's monopoly on law and order. The kinds of "law
> and order" developing around underground casinos and within organized
> crime groups are basically known.
>
> So, if a new and attractive kind of non-regulated gambling emerges,
> the state is faced with a choice, either to take this activity under
> its legal regulation or to suppress it through enforced prohibition.
> But if it passively allows it to run non-regulated then the involved
> gambling enthusiasts will be trying to regulate it on their own thus
> challenging the state's monopoly on law and order. This way the smart
> inventors of this sexy gamble based on a statusless entity (bitcoin)
> forced the American state to take the gamble in its regulation scope
> and so bitcoin had gotten the status of real money.
>
> The emphasis on "status" is due to the fact that any kind of money
> that do not carry an intrinsic value is essentially sort of "societal
> contract".
>
> Within buying-selling relationships there are always cases causing
> disputes. A buyer or a seller may want to cancel a deal due to some
> reasons. Also, there's always some scammers who want to cheat.
>
> A monetary system where money is a commodity with an universally
> accepted intrinsic value can basically exist and last long without
> any institution of supervision. I.e. even if buying-selling parties
> behave in bad faith, cheating is a widespread practice and disputes
> lead to fights, the money of the kind will, anyway, remain to be a
> liquid asset (because of the universally accepted intrinsic value).
> But such a money (eg. gold bars) is burdensome to keep and protect.
>
> A kind of money without an intrinsic value can not survive as a
> functional instrument without some judiciary to resolve disputes
> according to certain laws, and then "trust" is the keyword. If people
> see that with some kind of money there's a higher risk to run into
> poorly resolvable issues, this money becomes less attractive (a less
> liquid asset). The modern national fiat currencies operate within
> this logic, where a state monetary body acts as a guarantor.
>
> The newly invented "digital currencies" also don't carry an intrinsic
> value, so the concept that in the long run they could become like a
> usual regular money, but existing "on their own", out of context of
> some supervision and regulation, is either delusion or an intentional
> misguidance. And I think it's naive, in general, to believe that some
> advanced technology can provide a basis for existence of a money "on
> its own" (but promotion of such beliefs may be useful to attract more
> newcomers into the gambling). So far such currencies are far from to
> be regular money, they attract people mainly as a gambling instrument,
> some use them as a medium of exchange in order to make it more
> difficult to track transactions and/or in the cases when transactions
> of fiat money are restricted by regulators. So far it remains sort of
> gray zone, but if the share of these - currently weakly regulated -
> currencies within the total money turnover will rise, then it would
> be natural to expect governments would tighten regulations.
>
> Then, if "non-regulated currencies" is an utopian concept, a relevant
> question may be to what national or supranational jurisdiction these
> "digital currencies" should be assigned. For the fiat currencies,
> currently there's an established practice of possibility to exchange
> them extraterritorially, which means judiciaries of different states
> recognize in certain relevant part the force of each other's monetary
> laws, and the current turnout of the digital currencies follows this
> practice. As long as the new currencies remain "gray zone", the answer
> for them is also somewhat "gray", and more relevant question may be
> like what national monetary regulator de facto possesses the strongest
> leverage on the practice of mass use of such currencies.

| <https://tinyurl.com/2gusbf4u> zerohedge.com
|
| The world will soon find itself split between regions/alliances of
| influence. A British bank will trust a U.S. bank, where a Chinese bank
| will not. To bridge this gap, we need money that everyone can hold ..
| Gold would be the first choice here, if not for bitcoin. This is
| because gold has several drawbacks .. Gold's physical nature .. is now
| a weakness because it cannot be transported or assayed nearly as
| efficiently .. Lastly, gold is not programmable. Bitcoin is a neutral,
| decentralized protocol that can be tapped for any number of innovations
| .. A form of money that doesn't depend on trust between major powers ..

A pro-gambling sophistry once again. While the cited article includes
some valid arguments, the final conclusion is false. It's easy to recall
that the narrative "bitcoin is digital gold" was being promoted from the
very beginning, ignoring the basic fact that, in contrast to gold, any
"digital currency" doesn't bring an intrinsic value. I.e. it can't be
consumed for a useful purpose outside of the monetary context (while the
latter is what *primarily* defines liquidity regardless of "trust"), and
it's impossible to have a "neutral, decentralized protocol", and innovate
it, outside of the context of social trust fabric. The bitcoin promoters
ardently seek to maintain the image of trustworthiness by resorting to
various arguments, many of which are fallacious.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 4:23:37 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> | <https://tinyurl.com/2gusbf4u> zerohedge.com
> |
> | The world will soon find itself split between regions/alliances of
> | influence. A British bank will trust a U.S. bank, where a Chinese bank
> | will not. To bridge this gap, we need money that everyone can hold ..
> | Gold would be the first choice here, if not for bitcoin. This is
> | because gold has several drawbacks .. Gold's physical nature .. is now
> | a weakness because it cannot be transported or assayed nearly as
> | efficiently .. Lastly, gold is not programmable. Bitcoin is a neutral,
> | decentralized protocol that can be tapped for any number of innovations
> | .. A form of money that doesn't depend on trust between major powers ..
>
> A pro-gambling sophistry once again. While the cited article includes
> some valid arguments, the final conclusion is false. It's easy to recall
> that the narrative "bitcoin is digital gold" was being promoted from the
> very beginning, ignoring the basic fact that, in contrast to gold, any
> "digital currency" doesn't bring an intrinsic value. I.e. it can't be
> consumed for a useful purpose outside of the monetary context (while the
> latter is what *primarily* defines liquidity regardless of "trust"), and
> it's impossible to have a "neutral, decentralized protocol", and innovate
> it, outside of the context of social trust fabric. The bitcoin promoters
> ardently seek to maintain the image of trustworthiness by resorting to
> various arguments, many of which are fallacious.

In theory, bitcoin is as good as gold.
But then accounts in gold could be easily audited by almost everyone.
Just go to this or that bank vault and count the units of physical gold
to find out whether the the numbers match each other.

Bitcoin, in theory, is it audited by every bitcoin miners' programs. The
issue is how far one should or could trust the PROGRAMS.

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:29:46 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> "Some analysts have claimed that the United States is interested in maintaining dollar hegemony, so that it can dominate world trade, and is therefore keen to suppress alternate currencies, including Bitcoin.
>
> Stornetta said that the U.S. needs to “realize how to take advantage of the multitude of currencies, rather than viewing it as its sole sovereign right to declare the medium of exchange, the unit of account, and the store of value.”
>
> Stornetta spoke with David Lin, Anchor and Producer at Kitco News, at the AIBC Summit in Malta.
>
> Money and Competition
>
> The future of money is one of competition, which could defy its traditional role as a “medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value,” said Stornetta.
>
> He was also critical of the claim that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), digital fiat issued by a nation’s central bank, can monopolize the monetary system.
>
> “The idea that the existing players of nation state fiat currencies have a monopoly on the system, and simply by adopting blockchain-style solutions for their existing currencies, that all of the non nation state actors will be boxed out, is just a myth,” he said. “It’s way too late in the game for it to go back to being a closed system.”
>
> Stornetta claimed that blockchain technology would play a prominent role in defining money in the future, leading to more decentralization and individual control over money.
>
> “The blockchain is like a money kit,” he stated. “I would call it Fed in a box… the existing nation states and their own fiat currencies, pushed out as CBDCs [central bank digital currencies], are going to have to compete on their merits with other alternative currencies.”

Nation state currency is always necessary.
Non Nation state currencies would be better if different blocks of countries form negotiated fix-rate exchange systems.
As is, nothing can take the place of the US Dollar despite the unfairness. With the US Dollar as the unipower of currency
among all currencies, the US would take most of the benefits of the system and the rest of the world would
suffer most of the risks and losses.

ltlee1, <news:069dac29-a536-41b7-b504-a90d193a321cn@googlegroups.com>

> In theory, bitcoin is as good as gold.
> But then accounts in gold could be easily audited by almost everyone.
> Just go to this or that bank vault and count the units of physical gold
> to find out whether the the numbers match each other.
>
> Bitcoin, in theory, is it audited by every bitcoin miners' programs. The
> issue is how far one should or could trust the PROGRAMS.

But trust a program is ultimately trust some people.

One needs to trust the developer(s) that produced it. Then, even if
it's a compilation from an open source, then one needs to trust the
developer(s) that produced the compiler. Then, any program implies
running under some operating system, so one also needs to trust the
manufacturer of the operating system. Then, an operating system runs
on some chipset, so one also needs to trust the manufacturer of the
chips. Such a chain of trust.

The Huawei case is right about that, - the US government bans its
equipment for the reason (or the pretext) that the Huawei's firmware
programs cannot be trusted, which essentially means the Huawei team
(the people who design the equipment) cannot be trusted. And it
"works" not just as a legal ban. Some of those who trust the US
government and believe its allegations will voluntarily avoid a use
of the Huawei equipment.

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:50:34 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:069dac29-a536-41b7...@googlegroups.com>
> > In theory, bitcoin is as good as gold.
> > But then accounts in gold could be easily audited by almost everyone.
> > Just go to this or that bank vault and count the units of physical gold
> > to find out whether the the numbers match each other.
> >
> > Bitcoin, in theory, is it audited by every bitcoin miners' programs. The
> > issue is how far one should or could trust the PROGRAMS.
> But trust a program is ultimately trust some people.
>
> One needs to trust the developer(s) that produced it. Then, even if
> it's a compilation from an open source, then one needs to trust the
> developer(s) that produced the compiler. Then, any program implies
> running under some operating system, so one also needs to trust the
> manufacturer of the operating system. Then, an operating system runs
> on some chipset, so one also needs to trust the manufacturer of the
> chips. Such a chain of trust.
>
> The Huawei case is right about that, - the US government bans its
> equipment for the reason (or the pretext) that the Huawei's firmware
> programs cannot be trusted, which essentially means the Huawei team
> (the people who design the equipment) cannot be trusted. And it
> "works" not just as a legal ban. Some of those who trust the US
> government and believe its allegations will voluntarily avoid a use
> of the Huawei equipment.

Zero evidence on Huawei 's firmware programs had caused harm.

In contast, plenty of evidence of cryptocurrency hack:
"In 2020 alone, several cryptocurrency exchanges from around the world were hacked, and they include Altsbit, Exmo, KuCoin, and Harvest Finance.88
The first major cryptocurrency exchange hack happened in 2011, and there have been additional crimes each year since.9
Even though the total value stolen through hacks, fraud, and theft in 2020 was lower than it was in 2019, there continues to be a rise in decentralized finance (DeFi) crime.10
Fraud was the most common form of crypto crime in 2020, with DeFi exit scams being the most common type of scheme.11
Experts estimate that the virtual currencies market loses billions every year because of criminals like scammers and hackers.7
In 2020 alone, several cryptocurrency exchanges from around the world were hacked, and they include Altsbit, Exmo, KuCoin, and Harvest Finance.88
The first major cryptocurrency exchange hack happened in 2011, and there have been additional crimes each year since.9
Even though the total value stolen through hacks, fraud, and theft in 2020 was lower than it was in 2019, there continues to be a rise in decentralized finance (DeFi) crime.10
Fraud was the most common form of crypto crime in 2020, with DeFi exit scams being the most common type of scheme.11
Experts estimate that the virtual currencies market loses billions every year because of criminals like scammers and hackers.7"

https://www.marketplacefairness.org/cryptocurrency/hacking-statistics/