I address that in the book. But the short answer is simply, if the internet goes down, our entire lives will be upended and we won't be able to buy food, gas, and other necessities of life. We won't be able to get our money out of the bank. Our whole world is dependent upon the internet at this point.
So if the internet goes down, bitcoin is the least of our worries.
That being said, if there are localized interruptions with internet access, there are still ways to send and receive bitcoin being developed.
1. The interest rate is not the main factor in determining what constitutes usury. If I have property to secure a loan, including an agreed-upon interest, then it's not usury. In other cases, it is, because the usurer has a claim directly on a propertyless person—on the work of that person's hands, so to speak—and that could be called slavery. That's why the Church, owning property, could borrow money. And that's why lending money to a poor person is like lending money to a friend: you take a certain risk because you have a moral right only to that amount of money and not more. It's been quite some time since I read Zippy Catholic's brochure on usury, but I think he approached it along these lines.
2. Binding interest to profit when lending money to start a business is acceptable. I've read that Islamic banking works this way because, in Islam, usury is forbidden—just as it is in Christianity. Islam seems to be more consistent in enforcing that rule. Again, I think Zippy Catholic claimed that our Church gave up (practically, not doctrinally) on usury, and that this became one of the factors in her decline.
3. Eric says Bitcoin is ungovernable—but is that really a good thing? And is it even true? Because those 20,000 people essentially own the system, albeit in a limited way. What we have is private money. So what happens if it is for the common good to increase the money supply because, for example, production has reached a level where deflation kicks in—not in a good way? Society would expect the government to act, but instead of simply printing more money, the government now faces a problem. Is it really good that something as ubiquitous and important as money is not under the control of legal authority? I would say this is a very American way of thinking. Of course, we live in times of corrupt and outright evil governments that often overreach their authority, so I understand the desire to protect our rights and property. But I think the question of authority over money cannot be dismissed so easily, and the inherent goodness of a limited money supply is questionable.
4. Following point 3, I question the principle of independence. Historically, money may have developed organically, but that does not necessarily mean it developed independently of government activities. Authority also developed organically, so both were probably connected from the very beginning. In more developed societies, coins always bore a sign of authority—such as the head of Caesar—indicating that this is the means by which you pay what you owe to Caesar. That's why summer camp money is not real money, even though it serves as a medium of exchange or even as a store of value. I point this out because it's obvious that Eric works with certain assumptions about monetary theory and economics that might not be true.
5. There is also some talk about money's value as if it were something given. But where does the value come from? People like EMJ (whose view is based on Heinrich Pesch's work) argue that the source of value is human labor, which basically means the time of human life spent on production. If production increases—as it did after the Industrial Revolution—so should the money supply in order to maintain its value. The fluctuation of money's value hurts people, whether through inflation or deflation, and it is the government's responsibility to monitor the national economy and regulate the money supply accordingly. This is essentially an extension of the example from point 3.
So, I have certain reservations about cryptocurrencies. Their proclaimed strengths might indeed be strengths under current circumstances. Under different scenarios, it could be otherwise. But I am no expert, and I am ready to be corrected.
I just bought the book. I would love to know if Eric has an opinion on whether BTC could be a gateway to a social credit system. Whether he’s aware of the NY agreement and hard fork w BTC cash and the issues around SEGWIT2 and how this essentially usurped the decentralized nature of BTC.
To be clear no one in BTC “makes” money. Love it or hate it BTC and gold and even fluctuations in relative values of fiat currencies are pure speculation
I still don’t understand
What if internet goes down?
I address that in the book. But the short answer is simply, if the internet goes down, our entire lives will be upended and we won't be able to buy food, gas, and other necessities of life. We won't be able to get our money out of the bank. Our whole world is dependent upon the internet at this point.
So if the internet goes down, bitcoin is the least of our worries.
That being said, if there are localized interruptions with internet access, there are still ways to send and receive bitcoin being developed.
If the internet goes down or EMPs or cyber attacks disable large areas, gold and paper will still work as a medium of exchange.
How much , what percent of your of your holdings is in Bitcoin?
What if you get someone like Soros who wants to destroy the market?
A couple of points:
1. The interest rate is not the main factor in determining what constitutes usury. If I have property to secure a loan, including an agreed-upon interest, then it's not usury. In other cases, it is, because the usurer has a claim directly on a propertyless person—on the work of that person's hands, so to speak—and that could be called slavery. That's why the Church, owning property, could borrow money. And that's why lending money to a poor person is like lending money to a friend: you take a certain risk because you have a moral right only to that amount of money and not more. It's been quite some time since I read Zippy Catholic's brochure on usury, but I think he approached it along these lines.
2. Binding interest to profit when lending money to start a business is acceptable. I've read that Islamic banking works this way because, in Islam, usury is forbidden—just as it is in Christianity. Islam seems to be more consistent in enforcing that rule. Again, I think Zippy Catholic claimed that our Church gave up (practically, not doctrinally) on usury, and that this became one of the factors in her decline.
3. Eric says Bitcoin is ungovernable—but is that really a good thing? And is it even true? Because those 20,000 people essentially own the system, albeit in a limited way. What we have is private money. So what happens if it is for the common good to increase the money supply because, for example, production has reached a level where deflation kicks in—not in a good way? Society would expect the government to act, but instead of simply printing more money, the government now faces a problem. Is it really good that something as ubiquitous and important as money is not under the control of legal authority? I would say this is a very American way of thinking. Of course, we live in times of corrupt and outright evil governments that often overreach their authority, so I understand the desire to protect our rights and property. But I think the question of authority over money cannot be dismissed so easily, and the inherent goodness of a limited money supply is questionable.
4. Following point 3, I question the principle of independence. Historically, money may have developed organically, but that does not necessarily mean it developed independently of government activities. Authority also developed organically, so both were probably connected from the very beginning. In more developed societies, coins always bore a sign of authority—such as the head of Caesar—indicating that this is the means by which you pay what you owe to Caesar. That's why summer camp money is not real money, even though it serves as a medium of exchange or even as a store of value. I point this out because it's obvious that Eric works with certain assumptions about monetary theory and economics that might not be true.
5. There is also some talk about money's value as if it were something given. But where does the value come from? People like EMJ (whose view is based on Heinrich Pesch's work) argue that the source of value is human labor, which basically means the time of human life spent on production. If production increases—as it did after the Industrial Revolution—so should the money supply in order to maintain its value. The fluctuation of money's value hurts people, whether through inflation or deflation, and it is the government's responsibility to monitor the national economy and regulate the money supply accordingly. This is essentially an extension of the example from point 3.
So, I have certain reservations about cryptocurrencies. Their proclaimed strengths might indeed be strengths under current circumstances. Under different scenarios, it could be otherwise. But I am no expert, and I am ready to be corrected.
I just bought the book. I would love to know if Eric has an opinion on whether BTC could be a gateway to a social credit system. Whether he’s aware of the NY agreement and hard fork w BTC cash and the issues around SEGWIT2 and how this essentially usurped the decentralized nature of BTC.
So, how do those of us late to the game on Bitcoin, get any traction to make wealth/money?
To be clear no one in BTC “makes” money. Love it or hate it BTC and gold and even fluctuations in relative values of fiat currencies are pure speculation