Blockchain as a Force for Good (Part 2)
By Musaddik Ahmed
Part 1 of this paper explained blockchain technology and explored the benefits brought about by public blockchains. Part 2 takes a more critical perspective. Section 4 discusses how public blockchains embody a libertarian sense of justice through alternative seats of authority. Section 5 returns to the criticisms highlighted in the introduction: that cryptocurrencies are “contrary to civilisation”, “poison”, “evil”, energy-intensive and likely to go to zero. And Section 6 applies contractarian theories of justice to blockchain technology. All three philosophies find in favour of the justice of blockchain and thus this paper concludes that blockchain is a force for good.
4. Libertarianism and Nozick’s Multiple Utopias
This section details how public blockchains strongly embody a libertarian sense of justice. For those less interested in libertarian philosophy and more concerned with addressing the concerns raised in the introduction, skipping to section 5 is advised.
Public blockchains embody a libertarian philosophy: a desire to arrange affairs independent of any central authority.[1]This position is illustrated in Bitcoin’s blockchain with the Genesis block (the first block) attacking the UK government’s bailout of banks during the 2008 financial crisis.[2] Bitcoin allows for money impervious to government interference. Ethereum and later blockchains allow for commercial arrangements mediated by the network itself, rather than legal rules. As Primerva de Fillipi and Aron Wright explain, blockchains operate under a system of Lex Cryptographica, in contrast with a system under the Rule of Law. Under Rule of Law systems, the laws of a particular jurisdiction apply, whereas under Lex Cryptographica systems participants only need to adhere to the rules of the blockchain’s protocol.[3]Accordingly, public blockchains capture the libertarian sense of being free from government interference. Justice embodied by freedom from interference is supported by thinkers such as Milton Freidman,[4] Frederich Hayek[5] and Robert Nozick.[6] As Nozick expounded a theory of justice, his views exemplify how a libertarian philosophy readily accommodates the justice of blockchain technology.
In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick argues the most just situation is embodied by the state leaving citizens to build different societies in which they choose to live.[7] Nozick called this condition a theory of multiple utopias, which could emerge when governments don’t stop new forms of organisation separate from government instituted ones. In Anarchy, State and Blockchain Utopia, Dr Thaibult Schrepel persuasively argues the emergence of public blockchains facilitates Nozick’s vision of multiple utopias.[8] In a blockchain system, only the rules of the governing protocol apply. The governing protocol does not take account of any particular jurisdiction. Therefore, judicial measures are largely ineffective in blockchain: a judicial order cannot change the overarching operating mechanism of the system (although judicial measures can be effective against entities building applications that interact with the blockchain, like exchanges).[9] Accordingly, blockchains can be considered an alternative to the state system of governance as adhered to and enforced by banks and other traditional institutions.[10] Schrepel follows Filippi and Wright in labelling this alternative seat of authority Lex Cryptographica, as juxtaposed with the traditional Rule of Law.[11]
According to Nozick, the presence of different ecosystems creates more opportunities for citizens and therefore furthers justice.[12] The existence of a self-governed blockchain based system alongside government systems embodies Nozick’s multiple utopias. The benefits of public blockchains and the efficiency gains brought to private systems vindicate the justice of multiple utopias. As discussed in Section 3, Lex Cryptographica (i.e., public blockchains) has allowed millions across the globe to escape the oppression of corruption, inflation and capital controls brought about by government systems. Moreover, Lex Cryptographica permits new forms of digital art to thrive on the internet in ways a government instituted solution of copyright is unable to provide. Therefore, Nozick appears vindicated: the ability of citizens to choose alternative utopias (i.e., public blockchain ecosystems) brings benefits to society generally.
Nozick’s conception of multiple utopias being beneficial to society is further vindicated by the efficiency gains brought to Rule of Law systems through private blockchains. Whilst public blockchains allow for self-governance and attempt to be impervious to government regulations, they have nonetheless informed the strategy of businesses, banks, and government institutions. For example, a Deloitte Global Survey reports over half the businesses surveyed have blockchain as a strategic priority.[13] Moreover, financial institutions are unanimously taking advantage of blockchain technology. The R3 consortium brings together 100 of the world’s leading financial institutions to develop blockchain solutions for global financial markets,[14] and traditional exchanges such as Nasdaq and the Australia Stock Exchange are moving their back-end systems onto the blockchain.[15] Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) will allow for money to be distributed with fewer reconciliation costs. CBDCs promise huge efficiency gains for economic systems, because there is less need to rely on commercial banks for clearing and settlement and fiat money can be programmed allowing for new innovation opportunities.[16]
All of these private initiatives utilise permissioned versions of Bitcoin’s blockchain technology to bring efficiency gains to traditional markets. These gains would not have been possible had the innovation of bitcoin – an alternative to Rule of Law systems – not been allowed to thrive.
Therefore, the existence of public blockchains, as an alternative to traditional systems, has improving those traditional systems.
5. Utilitarianism and Sen’s Comparative Approach
Though Nozick provides a compelling case for the justice of public blockchains, many would refuse to accept the virtues of less state intervention.[17] A more egalitarian approach to justice is presented by Amartya Sen in An Idea of Justice. Sen argues justice should be concerned with the lives people are actually able to live.[18] Sen agrees with Nozick that a single ideal situation is fanciful, but instead of advocating multiple utopias, Sen adopts a process based approach: enhancing justice requires making comparisons between alternatives that can/have been realized.[19] Sen’s approach derives from thinkers such as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.[20] That is, this comparative approach embodies a utilitarian philosophy: the best outcome is that which brings about the greatest good. On this conception of justice, simply the presence of an alternative that entails less government interference is not enough. Instead, we must ask whether society is better for the presence of public blockchains.
To answer Sen’s query, this section focuses on the risks and dangers of blockchain and attempts to engage in a basic utilitarian calculation: do the dangers of public blockchains outweigh their benefits? Below, I return to the critiques highlighted in the introduction:
- public blockchains go against civilisation,
- risk investors’ money, and
- entail unnecessary environmental costs.
By exploring these critiques, I argue the good blockchain technology has brought is not undermined for three reasons:
- the harms are overemphasised as such harms exist without the presence of blockchain,
- the harms can be mitigated with effective regulation, and
- the harms are necessary for the good they bring to society.
Since the good of blockchains are not outweighed by their risks, blockchains can be taken to have furthered justice on Sen’s comparative approach.
5.1 Market risk (Addressing Andrew Bailey’s “Bitcoin will go to zero”)
5.1.1. Investor risk
The cryptocurrency market is itself susceptible to disappearing completely.[21] For example, the entire blockchain ecosystem will collapse if there is a “run” on stable-coins (coins which facilitate transfer between fiat and cryptocurrencies), i.e., everyone tries to get their money out of the crypto market at the same time.[22] Indeed, in Bitcoin’s short history there have been multiple crashes where investors have lost significant sums.[23] However, these risks are inherent in all markets – wherever price rises in expectation of future value, bubbles are formed which leave investors at risk of huge losses.[24] Yet, the market risk present in cryptocurrency markets is arguably less risky than those which exist in traditional markets. In cryptocurrency markets the losses are borne by those who took the risk.[25]In contrast, the bubbles of traditional markets have created suffering for those who did not profit from speculation. For example, the 2008 financial crash was caused by bankers taking extraordinary risks, yet the costs were borne by the economy as a whole.[26] Whilst the bankers were able to keep their bonuses, the banks had to be saved by taxpayer money which will eventually be paid back through inflation. The process of inflation hurts the poorest in society who do not own any assets and therefore constitutes an injustice.[27] Bitcoin was founded following the 2008 market crash as a counter to the injustice of governments bailing out banks.[28] Once we accept market risk is inherent in markets generally, the fact risk exists in markets created by public blockchains, ceases to be a serious issue. Furthermore, regulations are being rolled out which reduce the severity of this risk, including banking licences for stablecoin issuers.[29]
5.1.2. Hacks and Glitches
Nonetheless, market risks unique to public blockchains do exist. For example, in 2014 the leading cryptocurrency exchange at the time, Mt Gox, was hacked leading to the loss of $450 million Bitcoin tokens.[30] Whilst this crashed the cryptocurrency market at the time, such risk is not exclusive to cryptocurrency as data breaches are not uncommon in traditional ecosystems.[31] In the US alone, in 2017 over 300 million people were affected by data breaches that led to the exposure of credit card details.[32] Moreover, cryptocurrency communities actively encourage the use of cold wallets that are disconnected from any network and act as physical storage of cryptocurrency.[33] The market has also developed decentralized insurance protocols which protect participants against exchange risks.[34] Since Mt Gox, the cryptocurrency market has recovered robustly and newer exchanges have not been exposed to similar risks. Another risk unique to blockchains is exemplified by the hacking of a Decentralized venture fund built on top of Ethereum. The fund was a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) which invested user funds in accordance with voting by members of the fund. However, a bug was exploited which led to the loss of around $60 million in Ethereum.[35] Bugs are inevitable in new technology. Early users trying these new projects despite the risks, is a means for the community to learn about the importance of finding and ironing out such glitches. Moreover, the DAO hack actually revealed the effective functioning of the self-governance of these public blockchains.[36] Following the hack, the Ethereum community decided to “fork” the blockchain, i.e., the miners accepted the validity of blocks that did not acknowledge the stolen funds. Accordingly, the lost funds were returned to their rightful owners.
5.1.3. Blockchain Centralization
Whilst both the Mt Gox and DAO hacks concern applications that interact with blockchains, the DAO hack reveals a risk related to the blockchain itself: the centralization of power amongst core developers and miners.[37] As the original Bitcoin whitepaper highlighted: if over 50% of the miners on a network collude with one another then the blockchain can be corrupted.[38] Whilst the restoration of stolen funds was aligned with the community, a block of miners may collude to change the blockchain in ways that harm the community. However, the risk of a 51% attack becomes less and less likely as the popularity of public blockchains increase as mining becomes more distributed across the globe.[39]Further, a 51% attack is self-defeating. If the miners act without consensus from the wider community it would cause a market crash, with the price of the relevant cryptocurrency plummeting. Therefore, the miners have strong incentives to keep their values aligned with that of the community. With Proof-of-Stake systems the risk of miner collusion is further mitigated.[40]
We should also note that traditional financial instruments are inaccessible to most people, whilst their governance and exploitation are exclusive to the heads of financial institutions and governments. In contrast, cryptocurrencies are designed to be accessible to all and – whilst the learning curve can be steep – the systems offer engagement with governing protocols. Furthermore, cryptocurrency providers are engaged in widescale education programmes to make these new technologies more accessible to potential users.[41]
Overall, the market risks brought by public blockchains are not insignificant. The risks require caution in cryptocurrency usage, an emphasis on effective education campaigns, and the adoption of regulations to mitigate risks. Since the risks and dangers of cryptocurrency markets are largely present in traditional markets, the good that public blockchains bring are not outweighed by these market risks. Investors should always exercise caution.
5.2 Financial Crime (Addressing Charlie Munger’s “contrary to civilisation”)
Arguably public blockchains facilitate financial crime. Indeed, many initial coin-offerings are scams and the first popular use for Bitcoin was on a drug marketplace.[42] Cryptocurrencies have been extensively cited as a means of money laundering and tax evasion.[43] However, these risks existed before the advent of Bitcoin. Many of these scams use absolutely no cryptography, instead they use clever marketing to convince people their schemes will see similar returns to legitimate cryptocurrency projects like Bitcoin or Ethereum. [44] These scams are unrelated to cryptocurrencies, instead they are a manifestation of the same con swindlers have been using for centuries: exploiting people’s innate desire to get something for nothing.[45] The very purpose of public blockchains, reducing reliance on central authorities, requires the users of a network to protect themselves (with organizational protection coming from miner nodes). The founding philosophy of blockchains focus on users providing their own security.[46] If users conduct due diligence to ensure a crypto project has a usable product (such as a digital cash that is actually used)[47] and a verified team of developers building the cryptocurrency ecosystem (such as the Ethereum Foundation) then the risks of being scammed by fake token offerings are heavily mitigated against.[48]
As with scams that abound with or without cryptocurrencies, the same applies to drug trades, money laundering and tax evasion. Firstly, it is not clear digital drug transactions are a harm to society. Prior to using digital cash and having drugs delivered, the only option people had to access drugs was through street transactions.[49] Over the internet, violence is no longer an option for those who operate outside the law. Therefore, a utilitarian calculation might find in favour of digital drug transactions. Further, money laundering has been an epidemic issue prior to the advent of Bitcoin. In Moneyland, Oliver Bullough details how off-shore accounts are used to hide money from authorities.[50] In 2010, James Henry estimated that around $21-$32 trillion was hidden in such off-shore accounts.[51] In 2010, the market cap of cryptocurrencies was only 200 million, 0.02% of money being laundered, and even today the entire market is worth less than 10% of the estimated hidden money. Therefore, money laundering is an issue that exists independently of cryptocurrencies. The same applies to tax evasion. Whilst there are doubtless many cryptocurrency traders who have dishonestly reported their cryptocurrency earnings and thereby avoided tax, the scale of tax loss to society is unlikely to be at the same level as observed in traditional finance. For example, Warren Buffet, who warns that cryptocurrencies are bad for civilisation, pays an effective tax rate of only 0.1%.[52] We cannot deny cryptocurrencies facilitate crime but highlighting the criminals in traditional finance puts the issue into perspective.
Furthermore, steps are being taken to mitigate blockchain-based crime. For example, the FBI has tracked bitcoin drug dealers and stifled the operation of many drug marketplaces.[53] Firms like Chainlysis and Cyphertrace are making progress towards breaking the anonymity of privacy-preserving coins.[54] The emergence of Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks on exchanges and the necessity of banking licences for stablecoins will ameliorate money laundering through public blockchains.[55] The US is investing in increasing the monitoring of exchanges to more effectively enforce tax rules in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.[56]
Overall, it does not seem possible to conclude there is more crime because of cryptocurrencies. Instead, the form of crime has simply changed. Indeed, this shift to digital crime is a natural consequence of the shift to digital ecosystems with an epidemic rise of hacking in general.[57] We should note that the blockchain itself has never been hacked. Therefore, the increased security genuine public blockchains offer to all can be considered good for society. Any new technology gives criminals new illicit opportunities (for example, there was no car theft before cars were invented). The appropriate response is not an attack on the innovation but more creative ways of combatting the newly spawned crime. As appropriate ways to fight crime on public blockchains exist and continue to emerge, and with the realisation that digital criminals are a mere iteration of the eternal game of cat and mouse between law enforcement and criminals, the crime these systems facilitate do not obliterate the justice blockchains engender.
5.3 Environmental Risk (Addressing Janet Yellen)
Finally, some of the most penetrating criticism comes in the form of blockchain’s energy expenditure.[58] Bitcoin itself uses as much electricity as small countries like Malaysia or Chile.[59] However, such statements require nuance. Although Bitcoin needs huge amounts of computational expenditure to ensure the security of the system, not all of the energy comes with environmental concern. Between 40-70% of Bitcoin’s energy expenditure is actually carbon neutral.[60] According to the economics of Bitcoin mining it only makes sense to mine in areas where electricity is cheaply available. Therefore, large mining operations are situated in areas with excess energy. For example, mining hubs in South China use hydroelectric energy and hubs in Scandinavia use geothermal energy.[61] As battery technology has not advanced sufficiently to store such excess energy, the electricity Bitcoin uses in these areas would otherwise have been wasted.[62] Moreover, some Bitcoin mining is even carbon-offsetting since excess natural gas has been used for mining which would otherwise have required additional energy to dispose. Finally, although there are some environmental costs, we must recognise that everything valuable to society comes with energy expenditure. Traditional banking systems maintain powerful servers in data centres that consume huge amounts of electricity.[63] Yet with Bitcoin the energy usage is keenly in the public eye and the crypto community has taken active steps to use more renewable energy sources.[64] Indeed, the climate issue spurred the development of Proof-of-Stake mechanisms which can operate with next to no energy consumption.[65]
With these mitigations in mind, the question becomes: is the energy expenditure Bitcoin necessitates worth the value added to society? For the millions who escape tyrannies of oppressive regimes, the answer will be an unequivocal yes. With initiatives like the Crypto Climate Accord and with conscious awareness of using carbon neutral means of energy production, the environmental risk Bitcoin brings will be mitigated over time. Therefore, the good public blockchains have brought to society are not outweighed by their environmental cost.
5.4 Necessity (addressing Warren Buffet’s “rat poison”)
The nature of new technology is that it comes with risks. The early adopters take on the risks of failure to lay the groundwork for more sustainable systems in the future. Jack Dorsey, an avid Bitcoin enthusiast and the founder of Twitter, has said his main belief in cryptocurrencies comes from the strong community driving it which reminds him of the community-driven early days of the internet.[66] These early communities bear the risks to create new financial ecosystems that are more inclusive, more transparent, and more efficient than incumbents. Indeed, innovation itself necessitates a lack of formal rules and the danger of failure.[67] For example, the inception of Wall Street was informal and decentralized. Innovations in securities started off risky and unregulated but eventually led to a thriving economic system.[68]
The nature of decentralized internet cash necessitates market risk, financial crime, and carbon emissions. Whether these risks are justified, then, depends on whether we think the benefits of decentralized internet cash outweighs these dangers. Section 3.1. of this paper detailed the value of decentralized digital cash. Although cryptocurrencies serve no “core value” to those (like Mr Buffet) who can consistently rely on their banks, such privilege should not allow us to overlook the benefits blockchains bring to those living under authoritarian regimes or the humanitarian work blockchains have facilitated with the UN. For those able to avoid corrupt governments, and access financial systems for the first time, the answer it clear-cut. For those wholly enriched by incumbent systems, digital cash may seem like poison.
5.5 A Note on Economics (Addressing Paul Krugman)
If you have managed to read this far, I do not expect you agree that Bitcoin is “evil”. However, Paul Krugman’s accusation requires particular attention. Krugman’s claims are macroeconomic in nature and therefore they are difficult to reach any formed conclusion upon. Krugman dismisses Bitcoin in the same breath with which he dismisses Gold, i.e., his belief is that money should come only from the government and not be dictated by an objective supply mechanism like mining (digital or physical). Whilst Krugman’s Nobel prize necessitates due consideration of his views, we should also acknowledge that other Nobel prize economists explicitly support a Bitcoin system. In 1984, Frederich Hayek said: “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government….by some sly roundabout way introduce something [the government] can’t stop”; and in 1999 Milton Friedman said “the internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government. The one thing that’s missing but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash.”[69]
Deciding which of these Nobel Laureate’s holds the better economic and moral position is a matter far beyond the scope of this paper. However, Krugman further attacks bitcoin by claiming that whilst gold has some redeeming value because it can be used as jewellery, Bitcoin is worse because it has no core value at all.[70] Whilst true that bitcoin has no tangible “back-stop” of value, Krugman overlooks the value of a fervent community. It has been posited that engaging with cryptocurrencies is akin to voting for a monetary system that relies on the voluntary acceptance of the community rather than the edict of a government. That is, people are choosing to support a new form of money, despite the lack of any “core value”, and paradoxically it is this very choice that forms the core value of cryptocurrencies.
6. Contractarianism and Rawls’ Reflective Equilibrium
Finally, in contrast to the comparative approach advocated for by Sen, there also exists a contractarian approach. Contractarianism emphasizes rationality and voluntary choice. Sen describes this approach as “arrangement-focused” and cites Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls as advocates of this approach to understanding justice.[71] In this section I argue that contractarian theories of justice also serve to vindicate blockchain as a force for good.
6.1 New Social Contracts
The contractarian view stems from Rousseau’s social contract theory: that the authority society exerts on its citizens is justified because citizens hypothetically agreed to the arrangement of society. In a blockchain ecosystem, the social contract is more literal than hypothetical: people who enter these ecosystems have voluntarily chosen to relinquish authority to a system where authority is distributed according to a governing protocol.[72] Whilst public blockchains are currently defined by finance, the founders of this technology are eager to establish use-cases that allow for greater citizen involvement in the systems that govern them. For example, the Brave browser pays users in tokens for choosing to watch adverts – a stark contrast to the Google model which largely removes choice.[73] Meanwhile, Status Network Token is building a chat platform that lets users control who can contact them and dictate the direction of the software.[74] Moreover, decentralized governance systems permit online voting. Tokens can be issued to represent votes that dictate the governance of ecosystem, thereby allowing more visceral engagement (and agreement) with decisions that affect individuals’ lives.[75]
6.2 The Universal Law of Blockchain
On a more fundamental moral level, blockchains embody the deontological philosophy that serves as a counterpart to the utilitarian approach discussed above. Immanuel Kant espoused that good is not found in the consequences of actions, but rather embodied in the universality of the motivation behind an action.[76] That is, an action is good when the maxim of the action is one that at the same time can serve as a universal law to motivate all actions. Arguably, blockchain embodies the Kantian ethic of a universal law: the protocol of the blockchain is a universal law and everyone who participates must, at the same time, will that everyone else who participates follows that same law. Accordingly, blockchains create a system whereby truth is encouraged (given the game theory incentives of block rewards, it always serves to work on the honest chain). Therefore, blockchains are a force for good because they encourage truth – one of the universal goods identified by Kant. This view is further vindicated by the transparency that lies at the core of blockchain technologies.
6.3 Reflective Equilibrium
A leading proponent of contractarian justice, however, is John Rawls. In his ground-breaking book, A Theory of Justice, Rawls laid out a vision for an ideal society which embodies justice. This ideal society calls for the guarantee of basic liberties and for changes to occur only when they benefit the least well-off in society.[77] Later, Rawls adjusted this view and instead of positing an ideal arrangement, proposed a just society is found in reflective equilibrium.[78] According to Rawls, when diverging reasons for a point of view agree with one another, that view represents a reflective equilibrium. If the diverging reasons support one another, then there is strong reflective equilibrium. This paper illustrates that diverging views are congruent in support of blockchain. These views also reinforce one another. The fact that blockchains offer an alternative “utopia” has allowed for the emergence of private blockchains, the efficiency gains of which serve to vindicate the comparative approach to justice. Moreover, by creating a system that encourages truth and establishing an ecosystem where a universal law is in operation, the concept of “user-led organization” is unleashed.[79] The user-led organization of blockchain based systems embody the choice that libertarians so value whilst also promoting innovation that vindicates a consequentialist approach.
7. Conclusion
When Satoshi Nakamoto released Bitcoin, he attacked the UK Treasury for bailing out British banks. In turn, central banks and treasury secretarys attack Bitcoin. Cryptocurrencies have been banned in countries including Turkey, Nigeria, Vietnam, Ghana, Algeria, Bangladesh, and China.[80] When government monopoly over money is at risk, a fight to retain control ensues. Recently, the US passed a bill which aims to increase tax enforcement on cryptocurrency markets. The “crypto-amendment” is very expansive and risks making software developers liable for activity that takes place on decentralised protocols they no longer have control over.[81] This bill indicates that the US may join the list of governments attempting to regulate cryptocurrencies into oblivion. But Bitcoin was designed with government interference in mind. And despite the power of the US, the notion of direct value transfer in an anonymous and decentralized way is a concept that embodies freedom itself. As advocates of liberty, the better approach for the US is to let cryptocurrencies thrive and keep these innovations open to all.
To conclude, blockchain technology has been a force for good, but the good it can unleash is yet to be fully seen. Whilst concerns over cryptocurrency markets are genuine, these should not overly-restrict access to public blockchains. By letting people tinker with and develop this nascent technology, an economy that is more inclusive, more transparent, more efficient and takes full advantage of the internet may emerge. By restricting access, the case for systems outside the purview of government control is only strengthened. Policy will dictate whether blockchains usher a new economy. Policy should be guided, not by blind adherence to incumbent systems, but by an attempt to increase good. Sound policy, then, should start with an understanding that blockchains can be a force for good.
-x-
[1] Thibault Schrepel, ‘Anarchy, State, and Blockchain Utopia: Rule of Law versus Lex Cryptographia’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 12 November 2019), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3485436.
[2] Benjamin Sherry, ‘What Is the Genesis Block in Bitcoin Terms?’, Investopedia, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-genesis-block-bitcoin-terms/.
[3] De Filippi and Wright, Blockchain and the Law. Conclusion
[4] “I think the internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government. The one thing that’s missing but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash.” – Milton Friedman
https://medium.com/@MartinRosulek/14-bitcoin-quotes-by-famous-people-6e7a1a009281
[5] Speaking about sound money in 1984 Hayek said presciently: “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop.”
[6] Martin Rosulek, ‘14 Bitcoin Quotes by Famous People’, Medium (blog), 19 January 2021, https://medium.com/@MartinRosulek/14-bitcoin-quotes-by-famous-people-6e7a1a009281.
[7] Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nachdr. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2012).
[8] Schrepel, ‘Anarchy, State, and Blockchain Utopia’.
[9] ‘AA v Persons Unknown & Ors, Re Bitcoin [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm) (13 December 2019)’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/3556.html.
[10] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 311.
[11] Schrepel, ‘Anarchy, State, and Blockchain Utopia’, 348.
[12] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 311.
[13] ‘Blockchain Survey’, n.d., 28. P. 6
[14] ‘Home Page’, R3, accessed 27 August 2021, https://www.r3.com/.
[15] ‘BBC: Australian Stock Exchange to Move to Blockchain’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://blog.digitalasset.com/news/bbc-australian-stock-exchange-to-move-to-blockchain.
[16] ‘III. CBDCs: An Opportunity for the Monetary System’, 23 June 2021, https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2021e3.htm.
[17] Schrepel, ‘Anarchy, State, and Blockchain Utopia’.
[18] Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (London: Penguin, 2010), 20.
[19] Sen, 17.
[20] Sen, 7.
[21] ‘UK’s Top Banker Warns Crypto Assets Could Be Worth “Nothing” as He Sets out “Tough Love” Regulation | Evening Standard’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.standard.co.uk/business/crypto/bank-of-england-andrew-bailey-crypto-bitcoin-regulation-uk-b940752.html.
[22] Nic Carter and Linda Jeng, ‘DeFi Protocol Risks: The Paradox of DeFi’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 14 June 2021), 14, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3866705.
[23] Neel Mehta, Aditya Agashe, and Parth Detroja, Bubble or Revolution: The Present and Future of Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies, 2021, 44.
[24] Will Kenton, ‘Learn About a Bubble in Economics’, Investopedia, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bubble.asp.
[25] Mehta, Agashe, and Detroja, Bubble or Revolution.
[26] Aditya Shukla, Inside Job (2010 Full Documentary Movie), accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2IaJwkqgPk.
[27] Mahua Paul and Pooja Sharma, ‘Inflation Rate and Poverty: Does Poor Become Poorer with Inflation?’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 4 February 2019), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3328539.
[28] Sherry, ‘What Is the Genesis Block in Bitcoin Terms?’
[29] ‘Cryptocurrency App Circle Files Banking Licence Application with the SEC’, AltFi, accessed 27 August 2021, https://www.altfi.com/article/8202_cryptocurrency-app-circle-files-banking-licence-application-with-the-sec.
[30] Mehta, Agashe, and Detroja, Bubble or Revolution. 48
[31] ‘Apparent Theft at Mt. Gox Shakes Bitcoin World – The New York Times’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/business/apparent-theft-at-mt-gox-shakes-bitcoin-world.html.
[32] Mrinalini Krishna, ‘Equifax Hack: 5 Biggest Credit Card Data Breaches’, Investopedia, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/news/5-biggest-credit-card-data-hacks-history/.
[33] ‘What Is a Bitcoin Hardware Wallet (And Why You Must Use It) | Hacker Noon’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://hackernoon.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-hardware-wallet-and-why-you-must-use-it-3fceeae2b21.
[34] Lucas Campbell, ‘DeFi Cryptocurrency Insurance Projects Compared’, DeFi Rate (blog), accessed 3 August 2021, https://defirate.com/insurance/.
[35] ‘The DAO: What Was the DAO Hack? | Gemini’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#section-what-is-a-dao.
[36] De Filippi and Wright, Blockchain and the Law, 155.
[37] ‘No Such Thing as Decentralised Governance | Outlier Ventures’, accessed 27 August 2021, https://outlierventures.io/research/the-crypto-trias-politica/.
[38] Nakamoto, ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System’, 5.
[39] ‘Bitcoin Mining Geographical Distribution Shifts as U.S. Becoming the Biggest Beneficiary’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://blockchain.news/analysis/bitcoin-mining-geographical-distribution-shifts-u.s.-becoming-the-biggest-beneficiary.
[40] Dev Bharel, ‘How Proof of Stake Renders a 51% Attack Unlikely and Unappealing’, Medium, 12 October 2018, https://blog.qtum.org/how-proof-of-stake-renders-a-51-attack-unlikely-and-unappealing-ddebdc91a569.
[41] ‘Crypto Education: A Growing Trend’, CoinMetro Blog – Crypto Exchange News, 22 May 2019, https://coinmetro.com/blog/crypto-education-a-growing-trend/.
[42] Mehta, Agashe, and Detroja, Bubble or Revolution.
[43] Hailey Lennon, ‘The False Narrative Of Bitcoin’s Role In Illicit Activity’, Forbes, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/.
[44] ‘Crypto Scams: Fake Cryptocurrencies & Ponzi Schemes’, Gemini, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/bitconnect-one-coin-scam-social-engineering, https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/bitconnect-one-coin-scam-social-engineering.
[45] J. R. Weil and William T. Brannon, ‘Yellow Kid’ Weil: The Autobiography of America’s Master Swindler, 1st Nabat ed (Oakland: AK Press/Nabat, 2011). Detailing scams predicated on taking advantage of greed.
[46] Schrepel, ‘Anarchy, State, and Blockchain Utopia’, 360.
[47] ‘Latest Blocks – BITCOIN – Mainnet | BlockExplorer’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://blockexplorer.one/bitcoin/mainnet.
[48] ‘Ethereum Foundation – Employees, Board Members, Advisors & Alumni’, Crunchbase, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ethereum/people.
[49] ‘Drug and Violent Crime’, 15 December 2014, https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/drug-and-violent-crime.
[50] Oliver Bullough, Moneyland: Why Thieves & Crooks Now Rule the World & How to Take It Back (London: Profile Books, 2018).
[51] Bullough, 49.
[52] Dan Mangan, ‘Bezos, Buffett, Bloomberg, Musk, Icahn and Soros Pay Tiny Fraction of Wealth in Income Taxes, Report Reveals’, CNBC, 8 June 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/bezos-musk-buffett-bloomberg-icahn-and-soros-pay-little-in-taxes.html.
[53] Nathan Reiff, ‘Who Is Ross Ulbricht?’, Investopedia, accessed 28 August 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/tech/ross-ulbricht-dark-net-pirate/.
[54] ‘About Us’, Chainalysis, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.chainalysis.com/company/.
[55] ‘The 2021 Guide to AML and KYC for Crypto Exchanges & Wallets – GetID’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://getid.ee/aml-kyc-crypto-exchanges-wallets/.
[56] Sarah Hansen, ‘Biden Tax Enforcement Plan Includes Crypto Reporting Crackdown’, Forbes, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/05/20/biden-tax-enforcement-plan-includes-crypto-reporting-crackdown/.
[57] ‘INTERPOL Report Shows Alarming Rate of Cyberattacks during COVID-19’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2020/INTERPOL-report-shows-alarming-rate-of-cyberattacks-during-COVID-19.
[58] Katie Martin and Billy Nauman, ‘Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem: “It’s a Dirty Currency”’, Financial Times, 20 May 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/1aecb2db-8f61-427c-a413-3b929291c8ac.
[59] Amanda Shendruk McDonnell Tim, ‘How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Use?’, Quartz, accessed 3 August 2021, https://qz.com/2023032/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-use/.
[60] Nic Carter, ‘How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Actually Consume?’, Harvard Business Review, 5 May 2021, https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actually-consume.
[61] Ibid
[62] ‘Sichuan Rainy Season to Give Bitcoin Hash Rate a Much Needed Jolt’, Cointelegraph, accessed 3 August 2021, https://cointelegraph.com/news/sichuan-rainy-season-to-give-bitcoin-hash-rate-a-much-needed-jolt.
[63] Gilder, Life after Google, 123.
[64] King and Nadal, ‘PPCoin: Peer-to-Peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Stake’, 6.
[65] King and Nadal, 6.
[66] ARK Invest, The ₿ Word | Live with Cathie Wood, Jack Dorsey, & Elon Musk, accessed 3 August 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwx_7XAJ3p0&t=6s.
[67] Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Paperback, The Management of Innovation and Change Series (Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press, 2016).
[68] De Filippi and Wright, Blockchain and the Law, 98.
[69] ‘14 Bitcoin Quotes by Famous People | by Martin Rosulek | Medium’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://medium.com/@MartinRosulek/14-bitcoin-quotes-by-famous-people-6e7a1a009281.
[70] ‘Bitcoin Is Evil – The New York Times’.
[71] Sen, The Idea of Justice, 7.
[72] ‘Governance in Blockchain Technologies & Social Contract Theories | Ledger’, accessed 3 August 2021, https://ledger.pitt.edu/ojs/ledger/article/view/62.
[73] Gilder, Life after Google, 179.
[74] De Filippi and Wright, Blockchain and the Law.
[75] Mehta, Agashe, and Detroja, Bubble or Revolution, 81. Tezos (https://tezos.com/) is an example.
[76] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, n.d.
[77] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Rev. ed (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999).
[78] Norman Daniels, ‘Reflective Equilibrium’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2020 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2020), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.
[79] Nations, ‘Blockchain and Sustainable Growth | 联合国’.
[80] Prableen Bajpai, ‘Countries Where Bitcoin Is Legal and Illegal’, Investopedia, accessed 28 August 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/041515/countries-where-bitcoin-legal-illegal.asp.
[81] Tanaya Macheel, ‘Lawmakers Fought over Crypto’s Place in the Infrastructure Bill. Here’s What’s next for the Industry’, CNBC, 11 August 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/11/crypto-lawmakers-fought-over-the-infrastructure-bill-heres-whats-next.html.