Privacy and anonymity have been reduced to the point of non-existence in recent years. Our personal, private information is stockpiled and sold to the highest bidder like so much inventory at a warehouse. National Security Letters are written to make countless requests for records from our search engines, libraries, and book stores with no court oversight.Email and especially searchable data is practically unprotected from anyone who might ask to have it. All our electronic communications are tapped. Massive governmental data mining schemes are being built to record everything we publish on the web. In many workplaces, employers spy on and control their employees’ Internet access, and this practice is widely considered to be acceptable.
These are dark times. The Fourth Amendment has all but disappeared, thanks to the Wars on Drugs, Porn, Terror and Poverty. Any practicing trial lawyer will tell you that you can no longer rely on unreasonable search to be the basis for excluding evidence, especially fordigital evidence in the hands of a third party. Likewise the First Amendment has been shredded with exceptions and provisos, and is only truly available to those with the money to fight costly (and usually frivolous) court battles against large corporations. In short, you can say what you want so long as it doesn’t affect corporate profits.
How we got to a legal state where all this activity is the accepted norm, I’m not quite sure. It seems to stem from an underlying assumption that our function at work and at home is that of a diligent slave – a single unit of economic output under the direct watch and total control of our superiors at all times; that we should accept this surveillance because we should have nothing to hide from our benevolent overlords who are watching us merely to protect us from evil.
I believe this view is wrong. Moreover, I believe it is time to reverse the tide. This document seeks to provide the means to protect your right to privacy, freedom of speech, and anonymous net access even under the most draconian of conditions – including, but not limited to, both private and criminal investigation (which happens far more often to innocent people than one might like to think). “So what are you saying? That I can dodge bullets?” “No.. What I am trying to tell you is that when you’re ready, you won’t have to.” http://www.infoanarchy.org/en/Category:How_to_Exit_the_Matrix
Here is another test for bitcoin. Does encryption work? Although the FBI seizure was the second most valuable act of bitcoin confiscation ever, the Feds were actually unable to get their greedy hands on the vast majority of bitcoins associated with the Silk Road enterprise. Ross Ulbricht’s personal stash of roughly $80 million worth of bitcoins, that was collected by running Silk Road, remains untouched by the government. Unless Ulbricht hands over his password, the FBI will be unable take possession of the money. But can the government force Ulbricht to hand over a password? Is it possible, that even if Ulbritch is convicted, that the government may never end up being able to seize his riches. Other than torturing him, what other alternative would the FBI have to get its hands on the money? Because of the the design of bitcoin system, a bitcoin cannot be transferred from one user to another, without the first users private key or password to verify the transaction.
There are lots of skeptics out there that think the FBI and NSA can break encryption. For example, the FBI has seized 600,000 Bitcoins (valued at around $80 million), and they assume that they will have no problem cracking the encryption, until they realize that they cannot do anything without the private key or password. That is way I put my trust in bitcoin. So, how did the feds finally catch up with the guy who ran the Silk Road? It wasn’t through technological failure or compromise. Ulbricht, who allegedly ran the site, was just a bit too reckless in throwing around his name and clues to his identity. It has been said, that the investigator on the case traced him through various public postings, connected the dots, and even ran a little sting operation designed to ramp up the charges (supposedly, an agent pretended to be a hit man for hire, and got himself hired!). Interestingly enough, there are still another 600,000 Bitcoin that the feds can’t seem to get. Most likely, that is because the key to Ulbricht’s personal stash is in cold storage on the blockchain and can be accessed only through what’s called a ‘brain wallet’. That means that only Ross Ulbricht himself has the key to access it. What will they do to pry it out of him? To what lengths will they go? Waterboarding? Solitary confinement? Worse?
Intriguing, isn’t it? One year ago, governments were laughing at this digital currency. Almost everyone was. People said it was a fake currency, an internet scam, a Ponzi scheme. Wow, how times change! Now the world largest government is crying out, desperately trying to grab these coins. They consider them valuable assets, which, at $150 a pop they certainly are. Bitcoin … a financial system the government can’t regulate, tax, or control. Encryption and Tor project, combined with bitcoin, can get the government off your back for good!! If done right!!
Donate Bitcoins to help out.. Send Bitcoins to: 1NcTyW4QyYukGwibULSQWLBvQro
Bitcoin open source code is one of the greatest inventions ever made in the history of the entire world. It can’t be traced, stolen, duplicated, hacked or blownup. It is totally decentralized, no governments can control it. It is for the people, of the people, to use as they wish. Decentralization is one of my new favorite words. Government and banks control everything and I mean everything. Bitcoin open source, encryption, 3d printers and also the Tor project can get them off our backs (once and for all) if they are used the right way! We have now entered a Brave New World. Who ever invented the Cryptography for bitcoin is brilliant. It is thought to be someone named Satoshi Nakamoto, although it could be another person or even a group of people. I don’t really care who invented it…could have been the Andromeda council or a mad mathematician. Its simply brilliant!! Crypt-currencies are the wave of the future. I own some bitcoins and litecoins and plan on getting much more. The dollar is DONE!! It’s just a matter of time.
There are dozens of other “AltCoins” – variations of the Bitcoin software and network, with different goals and modifications. I have listed some below.
● NMC – Namecoin
● PPC – PPCoin (Peercoin)
● DVC – Devcoin
● TRC – Terracoin
● BTE – Bytecoin
● IXC – Ixcoin
● FRC – Freicoin
None of these are really as significant as LTC and BTC.
● LTC – Litecoin
● NVC – Novacoin
● FTC – FeatherCoin
● MNC – MinCoin
● BBQ – BBQcoin
● CNC – CHNCoin
● BTB – BitBar
Central bank manipulation of currencies will be over soon, probably within the next 5 years or maybe sooner. One or a few of these Crypto currencies will make it to the big time. The genie is out of the bottle! It’s decentralized so it will be hard for governments to stop it. Especially since the Untied states can’t blow it up. Missiles or drones don’t work here. The Untied States seems to be going hard after exchanges like Mt Gox and others. This crypto-currency system is p2p (peer to peer) just like cash changes from hand to hand. The face to face deals are more important that than the transactions processed using the big exchanges. The Government is trying hard to regulate crypto-currencies to try to get some tax money, because the currency exchanges will be required to register as a money transmitter. They can’t really regulate this, but they may scare some big exchanges for a little while. That will end when the banks go poof in the night.
The individual or p2p is the best way when you trade your money, gold, baseball cards, or whatever.
When the deal is done it goes straight in to your encrypted wallet and nobody is the wiser. And here is the best part, even if the FBI grabs your computer or cellphone. It will take them at best 6 months or so to crack the encryption. And when and if they find it, it will be nothing but a bunch of random numbers that they could never really use against you. Bitcoin keeps you anonymous if you want to be. There are also some other tricks to help you remain anonymous, I will talk about them later.
Satoshi Square, Craigslist, Starbucks, Small exchanges called Satoshi Squares where you can meet people face to face, and work out deals (to me) is the best way. Once the deal is done it’s in the wallet for a small fee, if you want it that way. You can also pick up free bitcoin from the internet, there are lot of giveaways that are not hard to find if you really want some. You will usually only pick up small amounts of bitcoin, but If you are at home with no job, or have a lot of time on your hands then why not go for it. If bitcoin goes up big then than small amount of bitcoins can turn in to something big. It just takes a little hard work. I pickup a lot of bitcoin this way, little by little, bitcoin was around 100 dollars, at the time that I wrote this article. Then I bought a few litecoins, which was around 2 dollars at the time. Litecoin has gone up a little since then around 67 cents, but if it goes to like 10 dollars or so that’s nice money and free money, for just a little of my time. You can also get people to donate to your website or blog. just put your public address with a donate next to and if people like your site they may give you some bitcoin I got some bitcoin that way (thanks, by the way) .
Encryption is the best form of protection for your bitcoin wallet, or for anything else that matters. The government makes it seem like there is no hope of keeping your information protected. Bullshit!! Encryption can help protect you from the Government and hackers. Encryption can keep anyone from stealing your information, if it is done right. This is the most important thing that you can do to protect your bitcoin wallet and it is not hard to do. Banks use encryption so why can’t you. Once people hear the word encryption they panic and think it sounds to complicated. There are some programs out there that can help. Some encryption software is actually very easy to use.
by Mark Matthews here is there link http://letstalkbitcoin.com/separation-of-bank-and-state/
On July 30, 2013 several hundred entrepreneurs gathered in midtown Manhattan for the “Inside Bitcoins” one-day conference.
“This country was founded on a separation of church and state,” said Alan Safahi, founder of the bitcoin start-up ZipZap, “I think we should add separation of bank and state.” This line drew an enthusiastic round of applause. – the Wall Street Journal
Over four decades ago, F.A. Hayek made the same proposal but, at the time, it seemed to have little chance of becoming a reality. He argued for the denationalization of money, an abolition of the government monopoly over the money supply, and the institution of a regime of competitive private issuers of currency. 
Hayek wanted to make it increasingly impossible for governments to restrict the international movement of individuals, money and capital, and thereby to safeguard the ability of dissidents to escape oppression. Another reason was stop the recurring bouts of acute inflation and deflation that result in banks foreclosing on family farms and homes. In addition to that, Hayek wanted to bring a full stop to inflation spending that robs the individual of their labor in order to finance unnecessary wars.
In 1987, James Orlin Grabbe put pen to paper and described “The End of Ordinary Money.” In that two part essay JOG quotes from Hayek and foreshadowed the coming of Bitcoin twenty years before it arrives.
A Brief History of Money
Why did kings issue gold coins with their likeness embossed on them? Some might say this was purely narcissistic. However, Professor David Graeber explains this was done for two main reasons. One reason was a practical matter, the King needed to pay his occupying armies in a foreign land and gold coin was a good way to do that. Secondly, as these coins began to circulate it allowed the King to tax his subjects and maintain control over these new occupied territories.
Ask yourself, is the money we use today so different?
Money has always been the ubiquitous control architecture for every political system. It works best when people under such false authority remain ignorant of how they are being manipulated.
This is true of every a political structure, including the religious variety. In much of monotheism, sin has always been equated with a debt to God. Under the surface of faith the real fiat currency of the church is guilt, and so the fear of hell became every priest’s stock and trade.
The priestly class of the American Empire are those mysterious families who own and operate the Federal Reserve Bank and control the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Leveraging the military might of the United States (and their own huge pools of capital), this unseen hand replaced the gold standard with a digital currency over 40 years ago.
Today every nation of the world now pays for oil in US dollars; however, times are changing. The unseen hand has used the IMF and World Bank to enslave third-world nations with debt, the same way easy-to-obtain credit cards entrap American consumers. It is written, “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.”
When people begin to wake up and ask questions, the control that these political structures have over them begins to weaken. The old system of kings and kingdoms gave way to Republics and Democracies, but as long as monetarism continued so did the oligarchical control. What we are witnessing today is a massive paradigm shift taking place away from fiat currency and this could spell an end for monetarism.
While we don’t think about it, money functions as an artificial intelligence ruling almost every human enterprise, belief and behavior. Money provides control over people, and that is what political structures expect and demand. Indeed, they could not function without their ability to control and manipulate the money supply.
A Look Back at Recent History
In 2008 two significant events took place. A crypto-currency was described in a paper by Satoshi Nakamoto, but at the time this was a non-event. However, what no one failed to notice was the epic failure of the American Empire’s money system. The ubiquitous control architecture of the world’s last superpower was in crisis. At least, that is what we were lead to believe.
People thought the sky was falling and they freaked out.
Senators were even told in a closed section of Congress that without a “blank check” bailout there would be martial law in American. President George Bush told the world our financial structure was in such desperate shape that if Congress did not hand over $700 billion to parties unknown, immediately, the whole structure would collapse.
Looking back at this event five years after the fact, we now know that this “blank check” was actually written out for well over 10 times the amount the American people were originally told. The ubiquitous control architecture by which government maintains power over people was effectively handed over to a few banking elites. Was this the result of poor management on the part of our political leaders or was this simply the consolidation of power by true rulers of the world?
What did they do with all that money? No one seems to know, but one thing this is clear, the ubiquitous control architecture is less ubiquitous and the established money system is now facing a crisis of confidence. People are losing their faith in the system and turning to any alternatives they can find.
When we think about Earth without money it seems as alien to us as a world that knows nothing of poverty and warfare. In the Star Trek universe created by Gene Roddenberry, money stopped being a negative force in the world, poverty ended and nations stop waging war against each other. While most people dream of a peaceful world, the concept of doing away with money altogether is too much for most people to comprehend. It is dismissed as a mere entertainment.
Ironically, it is hard to see how humanity can ever rise above our warlike culture unless and until we rise above what passes for money, namely the ubiquitous control architecture of political structures. That means if we want to see world peace, then we have to be the change we want to see in the world. It must start with our money habits. Mankind must learn to vote with their money–but one that is free from political control.
How might we reinvent money so that 1) it has value like gold, and 2) would not be controlled by political structures that could use it to wage war? This two-fold question is one that few people have ever bothered to ask, much less attempted to answer. While others were still trying reform a failing system, a mysterious hacker actually came up with the answer. From Wikipedia:
Bitcoin (BTC) is a cryptocurrency first described in a 2008 paper by pseudonymous developer Satoshi Nakamoto, who called it a peer-to-peer, electronic cash system. Bitcoin creation and transfer is based on an open source cryptographic protocol and is not managed by any central authority.
Buckminster Fuller once said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” This is exactly what Satoshi has done. Calling Bitcoin a “disruptive technology” is an understatement. Money unmoored from any central authority is the new model. As the old money that political structures depend on becomes obsolete so will the political structures themselves.
Don’t worry- this isn’t going to happen overnight, but I believe it is the trend moving forward. While most people don’t think about it very much, we could say money makes us slaves to the system. That may sounds rather negative, and even melodramatic, but when we re-frame the problem in terms of computer technology, solutions begin to emerge and bitcoin is one very positive answer.
What we are seeing unfold is a world in which political structures of control are collapsing. With Bitcoin, pyramids of power are becoming as flat as a pancake. People are reclaiming their power from false authorities, and individuals are taking back their own sovereign birth-rights.
The bailout of Wall Street initiated in September 2008 was premised on the dire prediction that if major counterparties in the massive edifice of derivative contracts were allowed to fall, the whole interlocking house of cards would collapse and take the economy with it. What if we faced the same banking crisis next year or ten years from now? Just look at the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries and you can see we are heading for troubled waters.
In such a case, would an alternative currency like Bitcoin be allowed to fill the void?
The short answer is no. As long as we keep using words like “allowed” that answer will always be no, absolutely not. The system wants to keep on living, growing and controlling. As long as we are it’s subjects, it is our master. In order to secure our freedom, we must change our minds and the words we use. Stop asking for permission.
Is Bitcoin Money?
What makes bitcoin so different is that it is not political. If one government were to adopt bitcoin as their national currency, then you might called it political, but in such a case people could simply drop bitcoin for another crypto-currency. That is not to say they would a have a reason to do so, but the point is this: even with official endorsements, Bitcoin would not become just another means of political control.
Simply stated, money provides control over people and that is what political structures require. Therefore, non-political systems of exchange are not money, at least not money as the world has always know it. Perhaps it is more correct to say peer-to-peer systems of exchange that make property conveyance possible outside of any political system are the greatest form of money ever invented.
The Open Money Revolution
Yes, the time has come to demand honest government and that means we must demand honest money. Bitcoin didn’t ask for permission to exist, and in the same way we need not look to any false authority for permission to spend it. Make no mistake about it, open source money is a revolution. The only death will be the false authority of fiat money, and the rebellion is being financed by your spending.
This is an important point, so allow me to repeat it. We need government and we need money, we just don’t need one controlling the other. When money controls government then the oligarchy and corporations have undue influence. When government controls money, then the political system can control the citizens. The idea of a Republic is the idea that people control the government, but in order for this to work we need to separate money and state just like we separate church and state.
Those of you who followed the Occupy Movement will remember one predominant theme that emerged was this idea that we need to get money out of political process. This meme was one that resonated with a lot of people. It was thought that, if we could stop Wall Street from buying our politicians, they might reform themselves and become better representatives of WE THE PEOPLE.
When you think deeply about it, you begin to realize the problem is more fundamental. While it is true that K street lobbies have undue influence in our political system, that is not the root of the problem. The large pools of Capital that sit above government is the root of the problem. With the rise of Bitcoin, people like myself have begun to ask new questions and formulate new solutions. Perhaps we need government, but do we need government issued money?
Talking about removing the money from the political process is one thing, but to separate government from money altogether is something quite different–indeed, it is revolutionary. The separation of church and State is a rather new idea in human history, and most people agree it was a step forward. With the rise of financial instruments that are both autonomous and anonymous, the question must be asked: Are we now ready for the separation of money from the State?
The separation of church and State was very controversial but it brought greater pluralism for all. America had a big role to play in that evolutionary process. After the Magna Carta was signed, men of the Enlightenment were no longer content to be ruled by Kings. Today the old oligarchs that once sat behind the king’s throne are still asserting themselves by appointing bankers into political positions once held by elected officials. What we see today is neo-feudalism where the kings have been replaced by few powerful families, each with large pools of capital. They control the political process because the control the money.
What I’m describing is called “the New World Order” and those invested in this corrupt system are pushing a Globalist agenda that forces working people the world over to comply and submit to its all-powerful will without regard to their individual rights. Yes, people complain about this open conspiracy, but they are at a loss to know what can be done about it. Perhaps the answer is a simple one: stop using State issued money.
If people the world over were to adopt various forms of crypto-currency, this would seriously reduce the power of the Super-State to control them and in time it would also render the oligarchy powerless to control the state. Then, and only then, would free people have a chance to reclaim their government and restore a Constitutional Republic that is both accountable and representative of their the best interests.
by Mark Matthews here is there link http://letstalkbitcoin.com/separation-of-bank-and-state/
With these learnings from the Bitcoin experiment, I would like to propose a new model for digital currency. The question is how make the issuance of and access to money egalitarian on the one hand, yet also regulate the money supply in an organic, decentralized way.
A new article by Charles Eistenstein:
“Today’s national and supranational currencies have become a blight on this planet. Created through interest-bearing debt, controlled by financial elites, tracked by the surveillance state, and necessitating endless growth, money as we know it is a primary agent of inequality, injustice, and ecocide.
What to do? One response is to attempt to transform the money system; another is to create alternatives that may supplant it when, as is inevitable, the present system stops working.
The most famous of these alternatives is the digital currency Bitcoin. It was designed to mimic gold in both its sourcing and its anonymity. To “mine” the bitcoins, one must solve computationally demanding numerical problems. This makes bitcoins hard to get, just like gold; total supply is limited as well. Also like gold, bitcoin transactions are designed to be anonymous: one can verify the authenticity of a bitcoin, but cannot trace its transaction history to an identifiable person.
The modeling of Bitcoin on gold was done for at least three reasons:
1. To separate money creation and the regulation of the money supply from politics. In theory, no interested party can manipulate the creation of currency for its own political or financial benefit.
2. To ensure it is non-inflationary. A limited number of bitcoins can be mined, limiting the money supply and making long-term inflation impossible. The hope was that the value of bitcoins would be stable.
3. To allow users to be independent of government control in their economic lives. The creators hoped that “no government will be able to control Bitcoin.” Collection of taxes and the tracking of citizens’ purchases and income would be impossible – a blow to the surveillance state. Furthermore, as with gold coins in the basement, there is no way short of stealing passwords for a third party (such as a government) to know how much bitcoin wealth someone possesses.
The results have been mixed. First let us congratulate Bitcoin on its success. Out of the hundreds of new currency models that have been proposed, Bitcoin is among the few actually in wide use. Some of this success might be attributable to its novelty and to its ideological associations with libertarianism, which encourage people to use it as a statement of political and personal identity. Nonetheless, one can make relatively bug-free, secure transactions with it, totally independent of any national currency. That is quite an accomplishment. If nothing else, Bitcoin has expanded our vision of what is possible. I hope you share my gratitude for these brave and visionary inventors.
Bitcoin has also experienced its share of difficulties, some of which are well-known. For one thing, it is not as immune to government interference as its designers had hoped. Even if it would be hard to enforce tax laws on bitcoin transactions, it isn’t always impossible either when physical or virtual goods are delivered, and in any event, any doubts about its legality drive away many potential users and consign Bitcoin to a marginal status. Indeed, when governments began issuing rulings against Bitcoin, its market value plummeted.
That leads to a second difficulty. Bitcoin’s value has been anything but stable: it has in fact exhibited dramatic fluctuations and commodity bubble behavior. This makes it a questionable as a currency. The fluctuations are mostly due to speculation, which is quite natural when supply is fixed and demand is upredictable. A related and more serious long-term problem is deflation and hoarding. When the supply of money is fixed, it is unable to respond to the economy’s demand for money. If demand for money increases, so does the value of the currency. Goods become cheaper and cheaper. You might think that is a good thing, but the problem is that money becomes correspondingly harder to obtain. People with money hoard it, expecting its value to rise. The result is a slowdown in economic activity and the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. In a system with a central bank like the Fed, the monetary authorities can respond by adding money to the economy. Alternatively, the government can redistribute wealth away from those who are hoarding it and to those who need it through taxation and stimulus spending. Neither of these options is available to Bitcoin. The system is designed to make that impossible.
One of the alternatives to Bitcoin, Freicoin, has an anti-hoarding mechanism built into it. In the Freicoin system, money is subject to a negative interest or “demurrage” charge, so that the nominal value of currency decreases by 5% a year. For example, if you have 100 freicoins in your virtual wallet, in a year’s time you will have only 95. This creates an incentive to spend them rather than hoard them.
This feature makes Freicoin quite different from gold, which unlike nearly any other metal or commodity does not decay with time. Indeed, gold-based currencies suffer many of the same problems that Bitcoin does, including hoarding, deflation, and concentration of wealth. Perhaps Bitcoin is too much like gold. One unintentional parallel is that Bitcoin (and Freicoin) is generated with great computational effort at a high cost to the environment, just as gold mining requires huge mechanical effort and is perhaps the most destructive form of mining on the planet. We don’t really need that gold: some two-thirds of all gold every produced is sitting in vaults. Another huge amount sits in jewelry boxes, worn on rare occasions or not at all. Yes, gold is useful for non-corroding electronics and other things, but at present only about 10% of gold production goes toward industrial uses. With great effort and pollution, we dig gold out of holes in the ground and bury it in other holes in the ground called vaults. Why would we want to model a currency on gold? In an age of climate change crisis, isn’t there a better use of electricity, computer power, and smart hackers than the computation of useless procedures, all to create digital currency that could be created much more easily by some other process?
The reasoning behind the computation-intensive “proof-of-work” process for creating Bitcoin, Freicoin, and others is that it keeps the currency scarce. The thinking goes, there must be some limit on the amount of money created or it inflates and ultimately becomes worthless. Because it is hard to create, the supply of money has a natural limit that politics cannot alter. Or can it? After all, a community of human beings decided on the generating process and upper limit on the number of bitcoins, and that community could also change its mind.
In gold mining, those who, through whatever accident of history or fate, control the gold mines have inordinate wealth and power, power that far exceeds their contribution to society. The same is true of the computational mining of digital currencies. While in theory anyone can do it, in practice it is only people with considerable technical know-how and the means to acquire computing power. Now, I admit that if anyone is to have disproportionate wealth and power, I’d rather have it go to computer hackers than to land barons and mining companies, but I ask, “Why should the money creation process have, at its very outset, disparity of access to wealth built into it?”
With these learnings from the Bitcoin experiment, I would like to propose a new model for digital currency. The question is how make the issuance of and access to money egalitarian on the one hand, yet also regulate the money supply in an organic, decentralized way.
First let us consider the issuance of money. The simplest way to make money creation egalitarian is to issue it in equal amounts to each citizen. To draw on the analogy of gold mining, that would be like sharing the total output of the mines equally among all citizens. There is indeed a strong argument to be made that Earth’s mineral wealth, its forests, oceans, and biosphere should be a commons, and that wealth distributed as a social dividend or universal basic income. By the same token, no privileged minority, whether of bankers or of computer specialists, should be able to enjoy exceptional benefits from their ability to create money: that function should be, perhaps, the “financial commons.”
A digital currency could simply be issued in equal quantity to each user. The technical difficulty is to ensure that each person can register only once – some kind of unique identifier is necessary. This is feasible for a government, more difficult for a private or peer-to-peer organization, especially when dealing with multinational users (U.S. users have unique social security numbers).
Alternatively or in addition, selected organizations could become “backers” of the currency by pledging to sell a certain quantity of goods or services for the currency at a certain price. In return, the issuer would create that quantity of money as a zero-interest loan to the backer. These loans would be a way to finance the development of deserving enterprises; perhaps they might be chosen via a democratic process among the user base. When the loans are repaid, that money disappears; what influences the total money supply is the ongoing level of new lending.
Finally, money could also be created by gift. Digital coins could be issued to volunteers, charities, open source software firms, ecological and social justice organizations, and other people and organizations deserving support. So much important, socially necessary work goes unrewarded today. Issuing an alternative currency via such groups could remove some of their financial hardship once the currency becomes well-established. The recipients of newly issued money could be crowd-selected by the existing user base or some other voting system.
Whether issued to all users or to selected people and organizations, once issued the digital money works just like Bitcoin or Freicoin. Anyone who has set up a digital wallet can use it. The next question is how to regulate the money supply over time.
Ideally, a money system should allow the supply of money to organically grow or shrink in relationship to the economy’s need for money. In our current system (in theory), central banks do this by buying or selling debt instruments, mostly government bonds, on the market, thereby creating or destroying base money. How do they decide how much to create or destroy? They (again, in theory) monitor economic activity, lending conditions, inflation, and so forth to determine whether tighter or easier access to money will serve society. The central bank is supposed to be first and foremost a listening organ that responds to a collective need for greater or lesser flow. As I argue in Sacred Economics, this function is similar to that of a heart.
In practice, of course, this principle is fraught with abuses, but the beauty of the principle suggests that a next-generation digital currency should have a more flexible, organic way of regulating money supply than the simple formulas used by existing digital currencies, which lay out in advance how much money will be created in a given time period. (Most set an absolute limit as well; in the case of Bitcoin, a decreasing amount will be mined every four years until a final limit is reached in 2040.)
How can we design a digital currency to be more like a self-regulating, homeostatic living organism? One way would be to use a more sophisticated kind of formula, one that contains among its parameters feedback from transaction metrics. For example, more new money could be issued as its value relative to goods and services rises, and less could be issued (or some removed) in the opposite, inflationary case. Or perhaps an even better parameter would be the velocity of money. If the number of transactions per “coin” per month falls, indicating deflation, more money could be created. If economic activity starts overheating, money could be removed.
I think, however, that any formula will bump up against real-world exigencies that will create a need to make exceptions and adjustments. This necessarily involves some kind of political process, which is exactly what the designers of Bitcoin hoped to avoid. They wanted money free of political interference, even of their own political interference. This freedom from politics is always an illusion, because money is ultimately an agreement among human beings. Even gold-money exists, in large part, by sociopolitical fiat: societies can shut down gold mines, confiscate gold, or declare something else legal tender. Similarly, Bitcoin could change its rules, increase its money supply, change the process by which new coins are created, and so on. Even the choice to change nothing is a political choice within the Bitcoin community.Politics is inescapable, and we pretend otherwise to our peril.
Granted, the necessary sociopolitical process of money creation and regulation need not be hierarchical or centralized. The dominant money system is, and at the top of the hierarchy are the established elites, themselves beholden to an increasingly desolate ideology of endless economic growth and to the relentless dynamics of debt-based capitalism that enforce it. New digital currencies offer an opportunity to explore new modes of organizational and political decision-making.
To sum up, a next-generation digital currency should have the following features:
- It should be issued in an egalitarian way that doesn’t give undue advantage to any elite, whether political, technological, or financial.
- It should of course be simple to use and secure. Anonymity is probably also necessary in the present milieu of an undemocratic surveillance state. In a more beautiful world, I think all wealth and transactions, especially those of government (whatever that looks like), should be completely transparent.
- It should, like Freicoin, bear a demurrage charge to discourage hoarding and counteract the tendency toward concentration of wealth.
- The addition or removal of money from the system should respond to its need for money, through some kind of homeostatic negative-feedback formula or process based perhaps on price fluctuations or the velocity of money.
- The whole thing should be embedded in a democratic, peer-to-peer political process by which the rules can be changed.
Such a system need not be created from scratch. One of the existing systems, perhaps Freicoin or even Bitcoin, might evolve in this direction. After all, Bitcoin describes itself as an experimental currency. The purpose of experimenting is to learn. The next step is to integrate that learning into a new and bolder experiment.
Practically everyone who is interested in the buzzy digital currency Bitcoin trades at Mt. Gox. It handles more than half of all Bitcoin’s transactions, with roughly $144 million in USD filtering through the system right now, according to Bitcoin Charts.
But Mt. Gox is under increasing legal, federal and technological pressure that appears to be causing traders to lose some faith in the website, as trading volumes on Mt. Gox are slipping.
In the latest development, Symantec researchers discovered that a group of hackers had spoofed the Mt. Gox site and duped users into downloading harmful malware onto their computers — another in a series of attacks aimed at harassing Mt. Gox and some of its users (and perhaps stealing some Bitcoins in the process). A string of malicious DDoS attacks throughout 2013 have caused the website to even shut down a few times to stabilize the currency.
Mt. Gox has also faced legal heat. The website has introduced tighter verification regulations on non-Bitcoin trades, according to Forbes, in order to separate itself from recently shuttered trading website Liberty Reserve (indicted for participating in $6 billion worth of money laundering) and intermediary Mutum Sigellum (seized by Homeland Security for failing to register as a money transmitter). On top of that, Mt. Gox has been hit with a $75 million lawsuit, according to Gawker, by Bitcoin portal CoinLab, after a partnership went sour.
Interestingly, the Bitcoin exchange rate has remained steady throughout it all. The currency has other places to go, and in the event that Mt. Gox doesn’t make it (and there is a growing amount of chatter about that possibility), a new trading post will rise from its ashes.
Currently, 11 different exchanges manage Bitcoin transactions, with the second largest, BitStamp, handling more than $27 million in trades. As unstable as Mt. Gox may get, that escape route is a sign that Bitcoin has outgrown its original trading arena. Article by http://gigaom.com
Last week the Bitcoin world was surprised to learn that Canada’s FinTrac would not hold Bitcoin exchanges to the strict Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer regulations of the financial industry.
This decision was in stark contrast to the US’s virtual currency guidelines, in which Bitcoin exchanges are indeed held to such stringent requirements.
I wrote last week that this was suspect considering that the world essentially runs via “global governance” in which countries are synchronized in terms of laws and regulations.
I submitted that perhaps this was an experiment on behalf of Anglo-American partners to see what unfolded within the two different countries as Bitcoin gained popularity.
Now,one week after the announcement by Canadian authorities, the decision has still only really been reported by a handful of outlets, and the US mainstream media, which over the past two months has covered a lot of Bitcoin developments, has been silent on the issue.
No word yet from CNN, Fox, NBC and so on regarding the ruling in Canada. But, why not?
Could it be that by highlighting Canada’s policies in regards to Bitcoin, the mainstream networks would thus also be highlighting the draconian US policy?
Whatever it may be, there has been very little mainstream discussion regarding the hardline approach to Bitcoin taken by the United States when compared to Canada’s.
Generally speaking, Canada has introduced more widespread socialist programs than has the US, which has been historically a beacon of freedom and, in recent memory, of Capitalism.
But, in their different rulings on Bitcoin, it’s become increasingly obvious that the US has instituted progressive financial policies that oftentimes exceed the Europe’s social-democracies. Article written by https://www.goldsilverbitcoin.com/us-media-blackout-of-canadian-fintrac-ruling
Bitcoin is the enemy of your enemy.
Bitcoin is a bloodless revolution.
Bitcoin is fair trade AND free trade.
Bitcoin is a level monetary playing field for all countries.
Bitcoin is taking back your remote control from ‘big brother’.
Bitcoin is the cry “GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!”.
Bitcoin is power to the consumer AND to the producer.
Bitcoin is David versus Goliath… 195 Goliaths to be precise.
Bitcoin is the “second time in history man’s mind and money were set free”.
Bitcoin is the salvation of generation X, Y and Z from the coming debt bomb.
Bitcoin is freedom from debt AND destruction of debt… vast quantities of debt.
Bitcoin is the ultimate democracy AND the greatest bulwark of republicanism.
Bitcoin is a global leaderless movement for currency independence and personal liberty.
Bitcoin is to money and liberty what the second coming of Jesus is to Christians, it changes everything.
Bitcoin is the ‘starfish’ in the book “The Starfish and the Spider”, the unstoppable power of leaderless movements.
Bitcoin is humanities cry for justice from confiscatory regulations and taxes And Bitcoin is his emancipation proclamation.
Bitcoin is economic equivalent of ‘biological warfare’… with no antidote. If debasing ones currency is the economic equivalent of ‘going nuclear’ on your own economy.
BitCoin is the train scene in Bill Murray’s ‘Groundhog day’, the giddy, reckless realization that “there would be no consequences” in answer to the drunken question “what would it mean if you knew you couldn’t die?”.
Bitcoin is ‘THE RED PILL’… You can take Ben Benanke’s blue pill and wake up tomorrow morning and believe whatever the hell you want to believe or you can take the red pill and bitcoin will show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes. http://bitcoinfever.blogspot.com
By Steve Pavlina
I know many readers are interested in alternative ways of supporting themselves that don’t require becoming corporate slaves. I’ve gone about 20 years without a job now, so let me share some observations and insights to help you succeed on this path.
Adopt Realistic Expectations
I’ve seen many people try to support themselves without a job, usually by starting a small business. They typically last 6-12 months at best and then go back to full-time employment working for someone else.
On the one hand, we could say those people gave it a good shot, and it didn’t work out. But in my view, they weren’t really serious about it to begin with. If they were prepared to give up during the first year, they didn’t understand the level of commitment necessary for this approach to work. Almost everyone gets lousy results during that first year. What matters is whether you keep going or quit.
If you try going jobless for a year and then give it up, that’s dabbling. Now there’s nothing wrong with dabbling. It’s fine to try something without making a true commitment to it… if you only want short-term results and don’t care to build anything that lasts. I dabbled in chess. I dabbled in marathon running. I dabbled in macrobiotic cooking. Those were short-term interests. Is your interest in living without a job short-term as well, or are you wanting to follow this path for many years to come?
It’s hard to succeed here with less than a full commitment. There’s so much to learn and figure out. It’s not as easy as it appears on the surface. The people promoting this as something fast and easy are for the most part, disingenuous. More often than not, this path is slow, plodding, and gradual.
I’d expect nearly everyone to still look like they’re failing by the end of their first year… and the second…. and the third too. This is normal to see.
I lost money for my first 5 years straight. It was only in the 6th year that I finally got a positive cash-flow going. This isn’t unusual.
You may be incredibly brilliant and have everything working beautifully by the end of the first year, but I’d bet against you. The first year is mostly a learning experience.
Clarify Your Desires.
Some people avoid jobs because they dislike working for someone else. Some want to generate some quick cash on the side. Those are okay motivations to get you started, but they don’t have much staying power. If that’s all you have going for you, I suggest you stick with a regular job.
It’s important to dig deeper and get clear about why you really want to live without a job. A job can give you a stable income for a while, you may get to work on interesting projects, and with a good company you can learn a great deal. Jobs are obviously very popular. Most people don’t like them, but they still come back to this solution again and again, so they must find some value in it.
If you’re going to avoid having a job, then why is it? What do you want instead?
For many people the answer is some variation on freedom. There are different forms of freedom though: freedom from and freedom to. I think both are important to clarify.
Without a job you won’t have a boss telling you what to do. You won’t have to commute to work. You won’t have a limit on your vacation time. You can be free from the hassles of traditional employment.
For many people this much is already inspiring. But on the other side, take time to consider the proactive ways in which you could use this newfound freedom. You’ll have more direct control over your time. You can use that time however you see fit. While other people are going to work, you can do something entirely different.
A lot of my motivation comes from the “freedom to” side. I love traveling, and having a typical job would likely get in the way of traveling where I want to go, when I want to go, and with whom. I especially love road trips, and I don’t necessarily want to pick a return date in advance. For instance, my upcoming trip to Berlin is open-ended. After the conference I’ll be doing a road trip with friends through Germany and Holland, but what happens next is still unscheduled. I might pop over to the U.K. and visit London, or I might go somewhere else. I’ll return to Las Vegas when I’m ready. That kind of freedom is one of my favorite benefits of being jobless.
As part of this lifestyle, I like to work when I’m inspired to work. I feel inspired often, so this approach works for me. If I’d rather be doing something else, I’ll give myself full permission to do that something else instead of working. Then when I’m ready to work, I work.
What’s your reason for letting go of a job? What would you want to do with your life if you knew you didn’t have to show up to work for someone else each day?
If you can’t come up with something that stirs your soul, don’t quit your day job. The people I know who are happiest on the jobless path are generally clear about why they’re doing it.
Build a Moat Around Your Work
In the beginning you may see lots of struggle and challenge when you try to go it alone. But if you stick with it and keep learning and growing and don’t give up, the odds are that you’ll figure it out eventually.
Many of your early actions will create lasting benefits for years to come. Every client you add, link you gain, or contact you make can still produce dividends many years later. But you lose those benefits if you cut out early. Staying power is key.
If you stick to your chosen field long enough, it gets harder to fail with each passing year. More people will be aware of your existence than when you first started. You’ll have a bigger toolbox of strategies. You’ll have more clients and customers. Your skills will increase. You’ll have more chances for fortunate opportunities to land on your plate. And you’ll be competing against people with increasingly less experience than you have, relatively speaking.
One of my goals for each business I started was to develop a big moat around my work. For this business that moat consists of my website traffic and the community that’s interested in what I have to share. Individuals within this community come and go, and my level of personal engagement with them changes over time, but the community is always there in some fashion. Having such a moat makes it hard to fail. In fact, to kill my business I would basically have to drain that moat somehow; otherwise there will be too many people encouraging and supporting me on this path.
If you can build a moat around your business or lifestyle, you’ll be established as a fixture in your field, and you’ll find it hard to fail. But when you first start on this path, your moat is probably very small, perhaps consisting of just a few friends and family members — an in some cases, not even that.
This moat idea applies to income as well. I still earn passive monthly commissions from business deals I set up years ago. It’s hard to fail when you keep getting paid for work that was completed long ago. Even if some income sources are relatively small, they add up over time. I’m glad that instead of chasing short-term deals several years ago, I favored moat-building deals that would generate passive income year after year. That way I don’t have to keep chasing new business just to pay the bills. The bills are covered by this safety net of passive income.
Now hopefully this all makes sense logically as to why it works, but I’m also suggesting that you apply this kind of strategy very deliberately. It takes time to build a solid foundation and to create a moat around your work. If you quit after a year, you won’t be around long enough to see those long-term benefits add up. A year is nothing. Quitting during this time means you’re taking your moat-in-progress and draining it. Then you’ll have to start all over again with an empty moat. Good luck with that.
To thrive on this path, you need to balance your work intelligently. Do what you must to pay the bills in the short term, but still invest in long term moat-building strategies that may not pay off for years.
My favorite moat-building strategy is to create and give away lots of value for free. I’ve been doing that for years by writing and publishing free articles, and I do a lot of speaking for free as well. If you add up all the time I’ve spend creating and giving away content for free, you might find it ludicrous — it would add up to many years of my life. And I was already using this approach for many years before I started blogging. The key is not to be stingy with your freebies. Give away your best ideas for free. Then challenge yourself to top them.
How you build a moat depends on your particular path. But generally it takes years to build a good moat. That’s why it’s unwise to quit within the first year when your moat is still just a baby. Try committing to 5 years as a minimum if you really want to make progress.
The funny thing is that once you have a strong moat, it can be hard to shake it even if you want to. I shut down my computer games business in 2006, and I still get letters from old fans, including requests to update my old games for new platforms like tablets and smart phones. Although that old moat has shrunken considerably, it’s still there. This is another reason why it’s important to make a committed choice. You may have to live with your moat for many years to come, possibly even for the rest of your life, so if you’re going to commit, commit to a field you truly love.
The jobless path can be challenging, but it certainly has its rewards. Creating a sustainable lifestyle that you enjoy and that serves others is an achievable goal — if you’re willing to maintain a long time perspective and stick with it.
If you are like me, then you may also get overwhelmed by the amount of clutter that has accumulated in your home. Then you see, on television, a commercial for self storage companies offering an easy solution to all your storage needs. These companies try to entice you with great offers for your first months rental on the storage unit. Some companies offer $1 for the first month or even the first month free. They lure you in with these ads. You begin to think that maybe you can just get a storage unit and move some of your items there. Thus, making your home easier to organize.
However, this does not really solve any clutter problems. It sounds good in theory but, what usually happens it that you end up leaving the items in there longer than you intended. As is the case with most people, once the stuff is put into storage, you tend to forget about it. Out of sight, out of mind. Plus, then you realize that you are always too busy to go and sort through the stuff or get anything out. And of course, you can only go there when the place is open, which also limits the time you have to sort through your stuff.
These storage companies are counting on this happening to most of the people who rent the units. They figure that once people get the items into these units that they are going to leave them there for a long period of time. That is why they do everything they can to convince your to put your items there in the first place. They are hoping that you are the type of person that does not sort through items quickly. They assume that if you were not that kind of person, then you would have sorted through the stuff earlier and, therefore, would not have needed to store these items there to begin with.
I know, because I used to be that type of person myself. It is not easy to change and it is difficult for people to part with certain items, especially sentimental items. These companies also know that when a person finds it hard to deal with all of the clutter (and the emotions that go along with it), that they can easily take advantage of their vulnerability and offer what appears to be an easy way out.
And, as you continue to waste more and more money every month to keep these items in storage, you are just putting off the inevitable. Plus, if you are unable to continue paying on the unit for any reason, then the storage company will then keep all your stuff and auction it off. That is why you see shows like “Storage Wars” popping up on television. It happens so frequently that they actually turned it into a TV show.
The only real solution for your clutter problems is to sort though the items and decrease the amount of things that you actually keep. For more declutter and hoarding articles try http://declutterprogram.com