Many of you will know that I have had my suspicions about blockchain technology for quite some time now, but it wasn't until a moment ago that those suspicions turned to a belief that this technology was nefarious in its conception, and destined to be used as a tool of oppression.
It was not even a piece of evidence that pushed me over the threshold, but simply a few moments of thought. I will be sharing much of my concerns about the technology that was introduced to us with bitcoin in the coming weeks, but today I just want to invite you take part in a little mental scrutiny with me.
There's a commonly held belief -- one that I too held for a time --that Satoshi Nakomoto, the so-called inventor of bitcoin, is a heroic activist who saved the people from the fractual reserve banking system by offering them an alternative. It's also thought by many that anonymity was a key factor being considered when developing these currencies. But what if that isn't true?
As I understand it, there is still no truly anonymous cryptocurrency. A few are close, but as of yet none have managed to achieve this apparent major goal of the entire movement. I mean, the very name "cryptocurrency" speaks to this agenda.
Could the reason this hasn't yet been achieved be that the technology limits itself from achieving the very goal it purports itself to be in search of? Let me explain;
Satoshi Nakamoto is supposedly sitting down, thinking about a way to create a private, secure means of exchanging value, without a middle-man- the banks.
At what point when attempting to develop a secret currency, does one then conceptualize a distributed ledger that records everyone's financial transactions, forever, and cannot be edited or deleted?
What has been achieved here does not seem to me like something that could be obtained during a pursuit of anonymity. No. It seems more like it came about as the result of trying to find a way to record everyone's financial information, forever, and make it immutable.
Or I should say, that is how I wished that it seemed. But we have seen bitcoin's technology advanced upon, and even Steemit is now testimony to the fact that the blockchain can record a hell of a lot more than financial data. And while a few digital currencies appear to be genuinely chasing anonymity, and very likely are, when we look at the differing ways that blockchain technology is beginning to be expanded upon, for example, the internet of people and the internet of things, these all speak towards a goal of connecting everyone and everything together, which is nothing to do with being anonymous or private.
When thinking on this, and on the potential uses of blockchain technology as a weapon of oppression, it seems to me that this technology came about as a result of trying to find a way to record everything, from everyone, at all times.
Someone who would have the foresight to put eight decimal places after the 0, knowing they would all be used, would also have the foresight to see how their technology could potentially be used. And if the agenda was as it is believed to be, to help the people, then when they realised what their technology could potentially be used for, they would not have built it.
I will be sharing some of those potential uses in the coming days, but this is essentially why I now believe that bitcoin was always intended to be the thing that makes us stop using cash, and turn our finances over to computer code that 99.9% of us will never understand. We can choose to break the law with how we spend our money, buying weed for example, but when the law of money becomes blockchain protocol, it becomes unbreakable, and then whoever writes that law has supreme control over everyone's finances.
Such an invention could not have been conceived in the mind of one who sought to liberate. Only in the mind's of those who seek to govern could blockchain technology have been born.
interesting article. when i read i said why not. interesting theory for not use cash.
but i still believe bitcoin was created for decentralization.
and i think monero brings almost full anonymity.
Thanks. I just like to get people thinking, especially now that I believe this is more likely than not something we ought to be keeping an eye on.
Decentralization could have been imagined as a solution to having something not be able to be deleted, if it is stored in so many different locations. I am not saying that this is how it is by the way. Only that with everything I have thought about, it seems more probable to me that this is the case.
I will ask you one thing though. If Monero is the closest to anonymous, and yet, it is still only "almost anonymous," then do these digital currencies deserve the label "cryptocurrencies?"
I would have to say not, and that perhaps this label was also intended just to help sell the idea that they're about anonymity when they are about the exact opposite. There are so many other things in modern society that also serve purposes counter that which is suggested by their titles.
bitcoin is fully transparent and i think it brings more trust to people who use it.
the name is cryptocurrenty because the cryptography methods are used to secure the transactions and also to have control of creation of the currency. so i did not understand why they do not deserve the label cryptocurrencies... it is related to the secure of the transactions
@son-of-satire
I'm sure he'll bring it up in a later article, but Bitcoin is being used by millions of "unbanked" people, meaning people that use cash but do not use banks will use Bitcoin. This will help transition people off of cash and into entirely digital currency. Kind of a reverse psychology.
The thing with these technologies is they are complete game changers.
THE INERNET a perfect means of spying on everybody. All of their communications, all of their shopping, everything. Also, the perfect means to share everything about the govern-cement. When everyone can speak to everyone, lies become apparent. And since, by and large, the govern-cement is the one who is lying, and the one who has always stayed in power by propaganda, well, the internet cuts both ways.
BITCOIN an easy way to send wealth to anyone on the planet. But, it also records all transactions. It has to, in order to say which address has how many tokens. That ledger is now all in one place. Perfect for those who want to know where the tokens are going. But also perfect for all the people that rely on their tokens being theirs.
The govern-cement watches all the internet traffic. They have many man-in-the-middle boxes installed. (and yes, they are black) So, since any token transaction requires a couple communications, then those communications can be used to track a person. Even through a VPN.
The thing is, if it was or wasn't developed by the govern-cement, the cat is out of the bag now. And, all of us honest people who have not much to hide gain greatly from its existence. The govern-cement who wants to stay a dark evil entity cannot stand the light being shined in its corner.
Remember, the IRS is a terrorist organization. All the money you send there gets thrown in a furnace. All they exist for is to keep people in fear, and extort as much of their pay check as possible. If 1% of the people started revolting, they would be too swamped to do anything.
It's interesting that you mention the internet, because I was going to mention that also. The names we use, inter-net and world wide web seem to hint at the original intent was always to capture information. If I had developed the internet, knowing what it does, I feel I would sooner have called it something like the information grid, or communications matrix. Why the need for the words net and web which allude to this sense of trapping or capturing something?
Now, with that in mind, I wonder why the thing we refer to as a blockchain is referred to as a blockchain? Knowing what function this technology serves, would this be the name you would have come up with if you were not looking for it? It seems an interesting decision to call the packets of data "block," and the word chain being used here over string or another word that doesn't imply a type of bondage, also seems rather deliberate.
I thoroughly disagree with this. I hope that you will read the post I am about to write and then we can continue this discussion and see if you still feel the same way about that statement.
Oh yes, I too have reservations about the statement, but I am looking at it from the biggest perspective. In the short run, many people will be hurt by the state. But, in the long run, the honest do not need to fear the truth.
I will read your next post, as long as I have internets.
good post, I really like your post
I look forward to your future articles on this topic. I have had this nagging feeling about crypto and you said it well. Makes sense why Satoshi Nakomoto is a pseudonym.
Someone or something that isn't omnipotent would want this. What's interesting to me is how similar the internet is to the myth of The Akashic (cache), storing memory and transactions. I think, also, that evolution has speeded up so fast that it doesn't seem natural; it wasn't long ago that civilization was ploughing potato with oxen. And then look at the uncanniness of the first gun coinciding with the first central bank! Wierd! And now we have all this coinciding with Jewish supremacy in all the areas that matter. Many say they control the internet. Interesting times, indeed! Oh yes, and how negative interest rates are arising at the same time as the blockchain, all leading to a surveillance economy.
Wait? So bitcoin which was known as the revolutionary currency that would change currency forever, is in fact a ploy used by the government to record permanently everyone’s transactions and history. Therefore creating a record that no one could destroy.
Maybe Satoshi Nakamoto, is in fact the creator behind bitcoin, but he was actually working for the government?
I am merely telling you what I believe. I cannot say it with any level of certainty. But this makes a lot more sense to me given the timing of bitcoin's arrival.
Physical gold and silver are always going to be king. Keep stackin
Great post.
I have been thinkingth esame thing, for a while now.
My reasoning is that government (banks really), have the resources and access to technology, and resources, way before we did.
And they wont be voluntarily giving up control of control of money anytime soon.
..they just need a way for everyone to embrace a cashless society ....mmmm
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
- Albert Einstein