<nettime> Bitcoin, the end of the Taboo on Money

Carsten Agger agger at modspil.dk
Mon Apr 8 01:29:56 PDT 2013


Florian Cramer wrote:

> What I fail to understand is why you consider this a political gain
> (to quote your paper):

Felix Stalder wrote:

> Or, if you see "the state" inherently tied to dominant interests and
> therefore working against the interests of the majority. And then, the
> current state of affairs would be merely a more open display of what
> which is normal, though usually less well visible. This is, basically,
> the anarchist/libertarian position.
>
> If you believe the latter, then I think one of the difficulties lies
> in how to fight "the state" (say, through promoting bitcoin) without
> falling onto the trap of promoting the market as the alternative form
> of marco-coordination (which is what US-type libertarians advocate).

First of all, the problem of no state control and of taxation will soon be 
moot, I think. For the moment Bitcoin exists in a legal limbo, but as  
their value and importance continue to increase, states will start  
treating them as assets with a market value which must be declared - as  
some sort of digital gold.

When it comes to that, bitcoin transfers may still be anonymous and  
untraceable, but people will be legally required to declare the amount of 
Bitcoin they receive for services rendered, and they will be subject to 
taxation. I think this is quite inevitable, unless the use of Bitcoin is 
banned (which I also don't see coming).

This means that in the long run, Bitcoin can't be used to avoid taxes, on 
any financial transactions or anything else - at leat not legally so. The 
fact that it's easier to avoid taxes by using Bitcoin is beside the point - 
what matters is that it will be illegal and punishable by law. The current 
legal limbo of Bitcoin is only due to the fact that it's not only not 
officially acknowledged as legal tender, it's not even acknowledged as 
valuable assets.

So what will be left when it comes to that is a currency which is not  
controlled by any state, and which can be spent anonymously as if it were 
cash, but digitally. And that's still worth a lot. I'm sceptical, though: 
It's not possible to create fake Bitcoins, but since Bitcoin is build on 
free software, it wouldn't be too hard to build an alternative network 
based on the same protocol . In fact, thousands of such networks could be 
built, and that could end up undermining Bitcoin's uniqueness, thus causing 
a crash. I.e., I'm still suspicious that Bitcoin might end its days as a 
pump and dump scheme, which will be fortunate for those smart enough to 
sell their stock at the right time.

As monetary alternatives, I find the idea of local currencies like the  
Puma in Sevilla (https://monedasocialpuma.wordpress.com/, and hundreds of 
other LETS schemes) much more interesting, as they rely on building a real 
community of people geared towards helping each other. I see Bitcoin as 
something that's pulling more towards a Randian free-for-all.

best,
Carsten


--
http://www.modspil.dk


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list