Zerocoin reduces proof size by 98%, plans to release as altcoin

A few months ago an extension to Bitcoin called Zerocoin was proposed. 

As you know, Bitcoin is the first digital cash system to see widespread adoption. While it offers the potential for new types of financial interaction, it has significant limitations regarding privacy. Specifically, because the Bitcoin transaction log is completely public, users’ privacy is protected only through the use of pseudonyms.  Zerocoin would change that. 

Yesterday, Matthew Green from Zerocoin project posted this tweet:

Matthew D Green on Twitter

Zerocoin

“We designed a new version of Zerocoin that reduces proof sizes by 98% and allows for direct anonymous payments that hide payment amount.”

“We’re going to release it as an alt-coin. It will take a few months to get it to that point. Bitcoin can do what it wants.”

“We need a few months to clean up the code. We plan to release the client and an alt-chain.”

“Hide payment amount from anyone but the Payer/Payee is the goal. It’s not anyone else’s business.”

In August,  I wrote Cyrpo-Keys are Free Speech and in that article touched on Zerocoin when I wrote:

Bitcoin may seek favor with government regulators and opt for more transparency, but then some other crypto-currency could implement the Zerocoin protocol. We might see LiteCoin or FeatherCoin go full-throttle in the direction of total anonymity, and if that happens the debate (about privacy) will be over. It seems inevitable that at some point one these emerging forks in the Bitcoin road will become an anarchist’s wet dream

For those who are uninitiated, Zerocoin is not intended as a replacement for Bitcoin. It’s actually a separate anonymous currency that’s designed to live side-by-side with Bitcoin on the same block chain. Zerocoins are fully exchangeable on a one-to-one basis with bitcoins, which means you could use them with existing merchants.

Look Out #1, Here Comes ZERO

In the beginning…  the idea was to add the Zerocoin protocol to the blockchain making it possible to redeem Bitcoins anonymously.  Just as paper currency once gained its value from being redeemable for gold, Zerocoins wold gain their value from being redeemable for Bitcoins. It now seems this model may be changing and Zerocoin may soon coin itself.

The problem was that the proofs needed for Zerocoin took a lot of processing power. In addition to the computation cost being high is also seemed Zerocoin required too much storage space to be practical. With the announcement this week that there has been a 98% reduction in proof size, that means Zerocoin is now lightweight enough to be implemented into Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency). 

The big news is that Zerocoin is now talking about moving forward as it’s own alt-coin, perhaps as early as a few months from now. This is a radical chagne from the “road ahead” published on the Zerocoin website, it still reads, “Get someone [to] integrate it into bitcoin/litecoin/*coin.”  

Yesterday, Matthew Green said, “Bitcoin can do what it wants.”  

This makes perfect sense because this isn’t a simple change in the Bitcoin protocol. It’s a huge, all-encompassing change, which definitely deserves its own crypto-currency. Having said that, some serous thought need to be given to this new direction. 

The Heat Is On The Street

In the past those individual who were behind eGold and Liberty Reserve were both “done in” by government money laundering laws. In the case of the Liberty Dollar the crime was imitating the USD and in the Post-9/11 World this is also called a form of “domestic terrorism” (whatever that means). The point is Matthew Green needs to lawyer up.

Ross Ulbricht, even if the charges of hiring killers and laundering funds that were held in escrow were dropped, he also allegedly ran a site that facilitated anonymous communication between dealers and users, and he is absolutely in deep water from that, because he knew that that is what was going to happen on the site he created. All he did was create the site, and as a result of everyone using it, he will be charged for helping enable those crimes. The owners of Liberty Reserve were in spain at the time they were arrested too so the US definitely has long arms. Liberty Reserve was also used for many legitimate uses, as what happens with all money, but Zerocoin is very specifically tailored to strip identity from it’s transactions and Bitcoin can and will be able to ensure a high level of privacy, but it doesn’t have the total anonymity that criminals desire, so that means that Zerocoin’s main useful feature is going to be to facilitate illegal activity.

Now Bitcoin also enables crime, but the creator is nowhere to be found, the bell can’t be unrung, the Bitcoin genie is out of the bottle and there’s no-one to blame, and so all that is left is to arrest those that do use it for crime. Satoshi is long gone, unharassable, unarrestable. Matthew Green however, knowing fully well his alt-coin would be used to instigate all manner of illegal activity is actively creating an untracable currency, not a feature of Bitcoin, but his own currency, which means he will be the creator, issuer of coins and the facillitator when this thing goes live.

If this were just math, simply a protocol integrated into Bitcoin (or MegaCoin) then it would be the tens of thousands of miners that would essentially be the issuers, facilitators and creators of this anonymised coin. However, if Zerocoin becomes it own alt-coin then the creator is likely to experience some real serous government heat.

CoinValidation vs Zerocoin

Meanwhile, CoinValidation efforts are gaining steam. Basically, the idea is to build a centralized service that ‘redlists’ (blacklists) every Bitcoin addresses not authorized by this system. In effect, keeping good coins out of the hands of bad people or tagging other coins for having ties to criminals, hackers, and drug dealers. Proponent of such a system will help “keep the bitcoin economy from being a hotbed of crime.”

This CoinValidation and blacklisting taint, are both completely against what Bitcoin was designed to be and the ideals it was founded upon. The more I read about it the worse it sounds. Some have started to call this CoInvalidation based on this Reddit post. This misguided movement to “taint” Bitcoins with even less privacy features isn’t likely to fade away. Some people argue that even the limited anonymity of Bitcoin is too much, calling this its only flaw. The debate is getting quite heated.

How It Works

Here is quote from zerocoin.org

The Bitcoin payment network offers a highly decentralized mechanism for creating and transferring electronic cash around the world. Unfortunately, Bitcoin suffers from a major limitation: since transactions are stored in a public ledger (called the “block chain”) it may be possible to trace the history of any given payment — even years after the fact.

So here is the problem, since the Bitcoin ledger is public, any party can recover this information and data mine to identify users and patterns in the transactions. In other words: Bitcoin transactions are conducted in public. The most common solution to this problem is to use Bitcoin laundries – services that mix together many users’ bitcoins in order to obfuscate the transaction history. Laundries suffer from a number of potential drawbacks, however, as they must be trusted to return coins. Moreover a compromised or malicious laundry offers no anonymity.

Zerocoin achieves this by creating a separate anonymous currency that operates side-by-side with traditional Bitcoin on the block chain. Zerocoins can be thought of literally as coins. They’re issued in a fixed denomination (for example, 1 BTC), and any user can purchase a zerocoin in exchange for the correct quantity of bitcoin. This purchase is done by placing a special new “Zerocoin Mint” transaction into the block chain.

Here is a link to Matthew Green giving a talk about this. As he explains, this system uses standard cryptographic assumptions and does not introduce new trusted parties or otherwise change the security model of Bitcoin. Matthew details Zerocoin’s cryptographic construction, how he envisioned it would be integrated into Bitcoin, and he examines its performance both in terms of computation cost and impact on the Bitcoin protocol.

Dark Wallet

“We believe Bitcoin is fundamentally subversive” said Cody Wilson, “We here to force the conflict.”

In a recent episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser interviews Cody Wilson about living in a trifecta of disruptive technologies as a citizen of the future in which bitcoin means a thousand silk roads and fanfare for the common man. If you want to understand the impact the Zerocoin is going to have on the world, watch this interview:

 

Bitcoin Price Hits $500, a 50x Increase in Just 12 Months

Those bitcoins that made you gasp at $300 just a couple of weeks ago? They were a bargain — the value of 1 BTC has now passed $500.

Prices hit this record and landmark figure at 11.50am GMT on 17 November, and at the time of writing were trading at $503.10 on Mt. Gox.

That means: if you bought a stash of bitcoins at their absolute highest peak price of $266* in April 2013 and then felt nauseous as the price plunged to $65 the same week, you have now almost doubled your investment. Provided you didn’t cut your losses and sell prematurely, that is.

Image

The bitcoin value began rising again almost immediately after that, breaking through the $100 mark again before May and hovering around that region throughout the northern hemisphere summer. It broke through $200 in late October and since then the price charts have been close to vertical, hitting $300 on 6 November and $400 on all exchanges by 15 November.

————————————————–

There are currently 12,003,175 bitcoins in existence. The total market cap is $5,581,140,286 according to the Bitcoin Price Index, with 1,212,833 bitcoins changing hands in the past 24 hours. An average of 50,535 bitcoins are transacted every hour.

bitcoin price hits $500
The bitcoin price has reached $500 on Mt. Gox. Source: Bitcoincharts

————————————————–

Why is this happening?

Bitcoin has survived some bumps in that time, most significantly the shutdown of the Silk Road online black marketplace and a number of chilly statements from government representatives. That it has continued to rise despite these setbacks could well be pushing values even higher, as investors sense a more resilient asset than previously thought.

The FBI seized a total of 171,955 BTC from Silk Road in October 2013, an amount so significant there were rumors it could influence bitcoin’s value. It is still unclear what the Bureau intends to do with its haul, if anything.

Nearly every piece of bad news about individual cases heralded more expectations that bitcoin would pay the price.

An asset with more significant value has also meant higher-profile hacks, scams and thefts. Companies like Australia’s Inputs.io found themselves out of their depth as its now considerable deposits came under attack.

What had been worth a few thousand in 2012 was suddenly worth millions, and people with plenty of experience finding naive security holes wanted it.

Rather than face their customers’ wrath, the proprietors of such businesses simply took fright and ran away. As recently as last week, the (supposedly) Hong Kong-based GBL also disappeared, along with its customers’ funds.

Yet the value never fell. Nearly every piece of bad news about individual cases heralded more expectations that bitcoin would pay the price. That it has continued to rise despite these setbacks could well be feeding back and pushing values even higher, as investors sense bitcoin is a more resilient asset than previously thought.

The government has been paying as much attention as the hackers and scammers. The US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) will begin hearings on Monday 18 November with representatives from five wary federal agencies and representatives from the bitcoin advocacy community. Another Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs will also hold a bitcoin hearing on Tuesday 19 November.

Again, the news of these hearings have had no negative impact on bitcoin’s value.

Silk Road shutdown effect on bitcoin
Silk Road’s shutdown on 2 October 2013 caused only a small dip in the bitcoin price.

Around the globe

BTC China Bitcoin Exchange
ate 2013 also saw an axial shift towards Asia, as BTC China became the highest-volume bitcoin exchange with its own record-setting prices. Reports of media attention and rampant mining activity have made some wonder if China is driving the rise. Even in April, when most gave credit for the bitcoin rise to government bank account confiscations, the factories of Shenzhen were busy cranking out mining hardware and selling it to locals.

The two week shutdown of the US Federal Government in October 2013 over a debt ceiling dispute did little to boost faith in government-backed money, especially the one acting as the world’s reserve currency. Every time the word ‘default’ is even mentioned in this context, no matter what the expected outcome, eyes begin to search for alternative assets.

There have been other alternate theories, including the one that bitcoin value is being driven up by the unfortunate millions desperately acquiring the currency to rid themselves of CryptoLocker malware.

Bubbles

The air in April was thick with the gloating of digital currency cynics and attempts even by technology media to analyze the factors behind bitcoin’s ‘fate’ and look for alternatives. But bitcoin has proved to be more Amazon.com than Pets.com and if it’s a bubble, it is one with a tendency to respawn.

Now, as $1,000 will get you only two bitcoins, the cries of ‘bubble!’ have not gone away.

Garrick Hileman, economics historian at the London School of Economics, said it’s too early to tell whether we’re seeing a bubble in bitcoin. He believes lots of factors are driving the price increase, including pure speculation, increased media coverage and attention from regulators.

“The growing regulatory attention which bitcoin is receiving is likely having a positive effect. This may seem counterintuitive, but to go mainstream, bitcoin needs more regulation, not less.”

Hileman said the US Senate hearings next week will not only bring more publicity to bitcoin, they may also lead to additional regulatory guidance.

“The lack of legal clarity is arguably the single most important issue facing bitcoin right now. For example, banks are scared of bitcoin, and reluctance by banks to work with the growing bitcoin ecosystem is a significant barrier to wider adoption,” he added.

Suggestions of a bubble will probably continue to increase and it’s wise to not get to carried away simply by a rising price. It might be equally prudent to stay ready to pounce on another price drop to $65.

Or we may be laughing at this story a year from now — not because the price has crashed, but because it has soared to even more unimaginable levels. Someone from November 2012 would probably find the idea of $500 quite hilarious too.

* Prices on BTC China were actually over the equivalent of $300 in April 2013, but the exchange trades only in Chinese RMB.

Everything You Know About Money Is Wrong

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Barter-Chickens_for_Subscription.jpg

 We Can’t Fix What We Don’t Understand

Bloomberg notes this week that the conventional theory of why money was created is wrong:

There are, broadly speaking, two accounts of the origin and history of money. One is elegant, intuitive and taught in many introductory economics textbooks. The other is true.

The financial economist Charles Goodhart, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, laid out the two views in a 1998 paper, “The Two Concepts of Money: Implications for the Analysis of Optimal Currency Areas.”

The first view, the “M View,” is named after the Austrian 19th century economist and historian Karl Menger, whose 1882 essay “On the Origins of Money” is the canonical statement of an argument that goes back to Aristotle:

As subsistence farming gives way to more complex economies, individuals want to trade. Simple barter (eight bushels of wheat for one barrel of wine) quickly becomes inefficient, because a buyer’s desires won’t always match up with a seller’s inventory. If a merchant comes through the village with wine and all a farmer has to offer is wheat, but the merchant wants nuts, there’s no trade and both parties walk away unfulfilled. Or the farmer has to incur the costs of finding another merchant who will exchange wheat for nuts and then hope that the first merchant hasn’t moved on to the next village.

But if the merchant and the farmer can exchange some other medium, then the trade can happen. This medium of exchange has to be what Menger calls “saleable,” meaning that it’s easily portable, doesn’t spoil over time and can be divided. Denominated coins work, shells and beads also fit the bill. So do cigarettes in POW camps and jails and Tide laundry detergent for drug dealers. This process, Menger argues, happens without the intervention of the state: “Money has not been generated by law. In its origin it is a social, and not a state institution.” [Menger’s view is the commonly-accepted theory of  money.]

Goodhart points out, however, that Menger is just wrong about the actual history of physical money, especially metal coins. Goodhart writes that coins don’t follow Menger’s account at all. Normal people, after all, can’t judge the quality of hunks of metal the same way they can count cigarettes or shells. They can, however, count coins. Coins need to be minted, and governments are the ideal body to do so. Precious metals that become coins are, well, precious, and stores of them need to be protected from theft. Also, a private mint will always have the incentive to say its coins contain more high-value stuff than they actually do. Governments can last a long time and make multi-generational commitments to their currencies that your local blacksmith can’t.

But why oversee money creation in the first place? This brings us to the second theory of money, which Goodhart calls the “C View,” standing for “cartalist” (chartalist is a more common spelling). To simplify radically, it starts with the idea that states minted money to pay soldiers, and then made that money the only acceptable currency for paying taxes. With a standard currency, tax assessment and collection became easier, and the state could make a small profit from seiginorage.

The state-coin connection has far more historical support than Menger’s organic account. As Goodheart points out, strong, state-building rulers (Charlemagne, Edward I of England) tend to be currency innovators, and he could have easily added Franklin D. Roosevelt’s taking the U.S. off the gold standard in 1933 or Abraham Lincoln financing the Civil War with newly issued greenbacks. The inverse is true too: When states collapse, they usually take their currencies with them. When Japan stopped minting coins in 958, the economy reverted to barter within 50 years.  When the Roman Empire collapsed in Western Europe, money creation splintered along new political borders.

If money came about independent of states, as according to the M View, one would think it would outlast transient political structures. Historically, however, this tends not to be the case, a strong argument in favor of the C View.

Anthropologist David Graeber – who has extensively studied the history of money and debt – agrees:

There’s a standard story we’re all taught, a ‘once upon a time’ — it’s a fairy tale.

***

Rather than the standard story – first there’s barter, then money, then finally credit comes out of that – if anything its precisely the other way around. Credit and debt comes first, then coinage emerges thousands of years later and then, when you do find “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow” type of barter systems, it’s usually when there used to be cash markets, but for some reason – as in Russia, for example, in 1998 – the currency collapses or disappears.

***

Taxes are also key to creating the first markets that operate on cash, since coinage seems to be invented or at least widely popularized to pay soldiers – more or less simultaneously in China, India, and the Mediterranean, where governments find the easiest way to provision the troops is to issue them standard-issue bits of gold or silver and then demand everyone else in the kingdom give them one of those coins back again. Thus we find that the language of debt and the language of morality start to merge.

***

How did this happen? Well, remember I said that the big question in the origins of money is how a sense of obligation – an ‘I owe you one’ – turns into something that can be precisely quantified? Well, the answer seems to be: when there is a potential for violence. If you give someone a pig and they give you a few chickens back you might think they’re a cheapskate, and mock them, but you’re unlikely to come up with a mathematical formula for exactly how cheap you think they are. If someone pokes out your eye in a fight, or kills your brother, that’s when you start saying, “traditional compensation is exactly twenty-seven heifers of the finest quality and if they’re not of the finest quality, this means war!”

Money, in the sense of exact equivalents, seems to emerge from situations like that, but also, war and plunder, the disposal of loot, slavery. In early Medieval Ireland, for example, slave-girls were the highest denomination of currency. And you could specify the exact value of everything in a typical house even though very few of those items were available for sale anywhere because they were used to pay fines or damages if someone broke them. But once you understand that taxes and money largely begin with war it becomes easier to see what really happened.

Graeber provides an example:

We tend to forget that in, say, the Middle Ages, from France to China, … money was … whatever the king was willing to accept in taxes.

Graeber also notes that the first word for “freedom” in any language is the word for “debt-freedom”, and that much of the language of the great religious movements revolved around forgiveness of debts.  And the founders of the Christian and Jewish religions focused on the importance of debt jubilees.

In addition, most Americans don’t realize that our current money system does not serve the public good, but instead continuously sucks the prosperity and vitality out of our economy.  As Henry Ford noted:

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Some claim that public banking is the answer. Others look to gold or Bitcoin as a saner alternative to fiat currencies.

As we noted in 2011, maybe we should get beyond all systems which keep track of exactly to the penny who owes what to whom … in the manner required for warfare and slavery:

Graeber hints at one possibility [for a way out of the money-debt trap]:

[French anthropologist Marcel Mauss] was one of the first anthropologists to ask: well, all right, if not barter, then what? What do people who don’t use money actually do when things change hands? Anthropologists had documented an endless variety of such economic systems, but hadn’t really worked out common principles. What Mauss noticed was that in almost all of them, everyone pretended as if they were just giving one another gifts and then they fervently denied they expected anything back. But in actual fact everyone understood there were implicit rules and recipients would feel compelled to make some sort of return.

What fascinated Mauss was that this seemed to be universally true, even today. If I take a free-market economist out to dinner he’ll feel like he should return the favor and take me out to dinner later. He might even think that he is something of chump if he doesn’t and this even if his theory tells him he just got something for nothing and should be happy about it. Why is that? What is this force that compels me to want to return a gift?

This is an important argument, and it shows there is always a certain morality underlying what we call economic life.

In other words, in communities or webs of human interaction which are small enough that people can remember who gave what, we might be able to set up alternative systems of money and credit so we can largely “opt out” of the status quo systems of money and debt measurement.

I’m not arguing for becoming Luddites and living in mud huts (but that is fine, if you wish to do so). Nor am I suggesting that we all have to become selfless saints who give away all of their possessions without any reasonable expectation of something in return.

I am arguing that it might be possible to empower ourselves – and create our own systems for keeping track on a local or people-centered basis, and create our own vibrant economies using the resources we have – by moving away from the national and global systems dominated by the biggest banks and oligarchs, and towards a system where we “spend” resources and goodwill into our local communities in a way in which trust is built from the ground-up, and the energy of trade and commerce can be re-started. [Trust is – after all – the basis for all prosperous economies.]

Postscript: Mainstream economists will argue that we need a universal, fungible type of money in order to trade on a global basis. But because currencies are now unpegged from anything in the real world and are traded on the currency markets, their values fluctuate wildly in the modern world. In other words, one of the essential characteristics for money – that they represent a universal, fixed yardstick – has disappeared. And fiat currencies have a very short lifespan. So how valuable are they, really, for anyone but forex speculators?

Until we learn what money, credit and debt really are, we will remain victims … getting poorer and poorer.

Postscript: The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil.  On the other hand, the father of modern economics (Adam Smith), Ronald Reagan, economist Milton Friedman, Wall Street titan Ivan Boesky and students who take economics classes all say that greed is good.

Both are naive.

Money and currency are good to the extent that they help create abundance for ourselves and our communities.  They are bad to the extent that they are used to promote warfare and slavery, and that they suck prosperity out of the system.

Big Banks Are Not Really In the Banking Business

Everyone thinks of banks as holding our deposits safe, and extending loans based upon the amount of deposits they hold in their vaults.

This is no longer true.

The big banks currently do very little traditional banking. Most of their business is from financialspeculation (which, sadly, metastasizes into manipulation and criminal behavior).

For example, less than 10% of Bank of America’s assets come from traditional banking deposits.

Time Magazine gave some historical perspective in 1993:

What would happen to the U.S. economy if all its commercial banks suddenly closed their doors? Throughout most of American history, the answer would have been a disaster of epic proportions, akin to the Depression wrought by the chain-reaction bank failures in the early 1930s. But [today] the startling answer is that a shutdown by banks might be far from cataclysmic.

***

Who really needs banks these days? Hardly anyone, it turns out. While banks once dominated business lending, today nearly 80% of all such loans come from nonbank lenders like life insurers, brokerage firms and finance companies. Banks used to be the only source of money in town. Now businesses and individuals can write checks on their insurance companies, get a loan from a pension fund, and deposit paychecks in a money-market account with a brokerage firm. “It is possible for banks to die and still have a vibrant economy,” says Edward Furash, a Washington banks consultant.

Indeed, even though the taxpayers have thrown trillions of dollars at the “too big to fail” banks, they largely stopped loaning to Main street … and it was only the smaller banks that kept making loans.

Benjamin Franklin, William Jennings Bryan on monetary reform

This is part five of an eleven part paper written by Carl Herman.

**********

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was a Founding Father of the United States and one of the most accomplished inventors and brilliant minds in human history. Among his achievements was contributing to the discovery of how to fund a government without taxes and its successful implementation in the colony of Pennsylvania.

“There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.

Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.” – Benjamin Franklin, A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of Paper Currency, 1729.

Although Aristotle clearly wrote that money is a function of law [31] and not of commodity value, many people were confused how to manage the creation of money. The American colonies had almost no gold or silver, so were driven to fiat currency by necessity. The colony of Pennsylvania would lend money to land owners at 5% interest. The money would provide the essential government service to facilitate trade. Because only the principal was leant, the government could create and spend the interest on public goods and services without taxing their citizens. For an encyclopedic summary:here and here.

The result was stable prices and economic prosperity without direct taxation.

Contemporary economist, Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations:

“The government of Pennsylvania, without amassing any [gold or silver], invented a method of lending, not money indeed, but what is equivalent to money to its subjects. [It advanced] to private people at interest, upon [land as collateral], paper bills of credit…made transferable from hand to hand like bank notes, and declared by act of assembly to be legal tender in all payments…[the system] went a considerable way toward defraying the annual expense…of that…government [low taxes]. [Pennsylvania’s] paper currency…is said never to have sunk below the value of gold and silver which was current in the colony before the…issue of paper money.”

In agreement are famed Princeton economist Richard Lester in his book, Monetary Experiments: Early American and Recent Scandinavianand Stanford’s Hoover Institute’s Senior Fellow Alvin Rabushkain his paper, Representation without taxationThis prosperity continued until the British government ended the colonies’ power to issue its own currency through the Currency Act of 1764. Peter Cooper, born one year after Franklin’s death and colleague of Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, wrote:

“After Franklin had explained…to the British Government as the real cause of prosperity, they immediately passed laws, forbidding the payment of taxes in that money. This produced such great inconvenience and misery to the people, that it was the principal cause of the Revolution. A far greater reason for a general uprising, than the Tea and Stamp Act, was the taking away of the paper money.”

From Franklin’s memoirs: “The difficulties for want of cash were accordingly very great, the chief part of the trade being carried on by the extremely inconvenient method of barter; when in 1723 paper-money was first made there, which gave new life to business, promoted greatly the settlement of new lands (by lending small sums to beginners at easy interest, to be repaid on installments) whereby the province has so greatly increased in inhabitants, that the export from hence thither is now more than tenfold what it then was; and by their trade with foreign colonies, they have been able to obtain great quantities of gold and silver to remit hither in return for the manufactures of this country. New York and New Jersey have also increased greatly during the same period, with the use of paper-money; so that it does not appear to be of the ruinous nature ascribed to it.”

“Experience, more prevalent than all the logic in the world, has fully convinced us all, that it (paper money issued directly by government) has been, and is now of the greatest advantages to the country.” – Benjamin Franklin, The American Weekly Mercury, March 27, 1729.

“The utility of this currency became by time and experience so evident as never afterwards to be much disputed.” – Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, page 65.

William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) was an attorney, one of the nation’s most popular public speakers, and the Democratic Party’s choice for President in three elections: 1896, 1900, and 1908. He served as Secretary of State in the Wilson administration; he resigned in protest to Wilson’s support of the Allies in WW I which he saw as leading to US involvement in a war where national security was not threatened:

Bryan’s political populism centered on American monetary policy. He supported an expansion of the money supply in response to a national depression in the 1890’s by rejecting the gold standard, a limitation on currency based on a fractional reserve of gold holdings. We discussed Peter Cooper’s presidential ambition with the Greenback Party, who campaigned for “greenbacks” to be created directly by the federal government for public projects and jobs. This policy compromised into the “free silver” movement to include silver with gold as a legal fractional backing for money. His powerful stand for monetary reform is clearly expressed in his “Cross of Gold” speech in accepting the Democratic Party nomination for President in 1896, quoted below (click here to listen to Bryan’s reading of the speech 25 years later).

The Wizard of Oz (oz. for ounces of silver), was a political allegory of this history, with Bryan portrayed as the lion with a loud roar but no power[32]. Author Frank Baum, hopeful for the wisdom of monetary reform becoming the nation’s monetary policy, wrote that the lion eventually beheaded the great spider, representing the overreaching financial monopolies of Wall Street. Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt walks readers through the details of the history and Oz allegories, in one of the most-read books on monetary reform (I highly recommend it to understand this trillion dollar issue). Bill Still’s The Secret of Oz is an excellent documentary.

Bryan’s brilliant and concise statement for monetary reform:

“We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes…Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing business… When we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other reform will be possible, but until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished.”

– William Jennings Bryan, Cross of Gold Speech, 1896.

———————-

This is part five of an eleven part paper written by Carl Herman for The Center of Process Studies’ conference, Money-Creation in a Finite World:

  1. Monetary and credit reform: full-employment, end of debt slavery
  2. Thomas Edison, Thomas Jefferson on monetary reform
  3. President Andrew Jackson, Peter Cooper on monetary reform
  4. NYC Mayor John Hylan, House Banking Committee Chairs on monetary reform
  5. Benjamin Franklin, William Jennings Bryan on monetary reform
  6. Charles Lindbergh Sr., 86% of Great Depression economists on monetary reform
  7. What should the average citizen know about US War Crimes?
  8. What should the average citizen know about US war history?
  9. What is the leverage point for Occupy’s victory?
  10. What does monetary and credit freedom look like?
  11. My personal history of the 1% choosing to kill a million children each month

Monetary and credit reform is a policy objective to end transfer of trillions of the “99%’’s wealth to an oligarchic “1%.” The US banking collusion only and always co-exists within a larger oligarchy with government for legal protection, and media for public propaganda. This paper presents histories in monetary reform and US government crimes in war suppressed by today’s US corporate media’s history texts and news journalism. When the oligarchy’s voice is professionally exposed as obviously and egregiously lying in omission and commission in claims of central importance of the past and present, government and corporate media loses credibility in an “emperor has no clothes” transformation. Refutation of the oligarchy’s voice with objective and independently verifiable facts, especially in light of current War Crimes and Constitutional destruction, supports our policy goal for monetary and credit reform because the public will seek alternative voices to build a brighter future. To support our goal of upgraded economic policies, we should be open to synergy with ecological and resource-based economic models, and network with Occupy.

Good for Bitcoin: BRICS Countries Build New Internet to Avoid NSA Spying

BRICS countries are close to completing a brand new Internet backbone that would bypass the United States entirely and thereby protect both governments and citizens from NSA spying. This could also mean Bitcoin will have a new way to reach the world which can not be shut down by the U.S. Government.

BRICS countries are close to completing a brand new Internet backbone that would bypass the United States entirely… 

The so-called Emerging Economies – the BRICS countries – have decided to build their own Internet infrastructure, circumventing American and European wiretapping points. While this is mostly skillful geopolitical play, it spells opportunity for civil liberties online that should be harnessed.  www.privateinternetaccess.com… 

They say it is to stop U.S. spying but it more than that. The BRICS cable was already in development months before the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden first became public in June. It is clear there is a huge shift in power coming…. these emerging economies want more autonomy and this is the logical place to start. 

This is good news for Bitcoin. 

It means the U.S. Government won’t be able to shut down the crypto-currency and could led to its wider adoption. If Bitcoin really does become a threat to the dollar, and the dollar were displaced, the world would be better off as a result. Money would be returned to the market whence it came and leave the grasping hands of the political and financial elite who use their monopoly to exploit the rest of us. No more inflation, no more business cycles, no more multi-trillion dollar bailouts. Money would be private property, with a complete separation between money and the state.

Whether the U.S. Government likes it or not, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are the future of money. Just as email and texting displaced the U.S. post office, and cell phones have displaced the wall phone the government used to install for us, cryptocurrencies could become the preferred medium for conducting exchange in the age of the Internet. Indeed, with the BRICS new Internet, that prospect has been a certainty. Capital is more mobile than ever and will, over time, tend to seek out liberal jurisdictions over those that regiment every aspect of commerce. 

The U.S. has a very bad habit, one that stands in complete contradiction to the very idea of liberalism. Its most fundamental tenet is that anything that is not heavily regulated probably should be completely illegal. The notion that stuff should just be permitted to happen and take its own shape in the course of trading and competition and the like is just not part of the mindset of an imperial paranoid state like the U.S.. 

The U.S. can slow down the trend but it can’t stop it. Cryptocurrency will find a home and it will be the one that is most welcome. The nations that punish it will die and those that welcome it will thrive. Ultimately, cryptocurrency could erase borders and free humanity from the chains of state economic control. Look to those regions like these BRICS countries that are, for now, open to genuine progress.

————–

In light of revelations that the National Security Agency hacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone, in addition to recording information about 124 billion phone calls during a 30-day period earlier this year, the fallout against the NSA has accelerated.

Brazil is set to finalize a 34,000-kilometre undersea fiber-optic cable by 2015 that will run from Vladivostok, Russia to Fortaleza, Brazil, via Shantou, China, Chennai, India and Cape Town, South Africa.

According to the Hindu, the project will create, “a network free of US eavesdropping,” which via legislative mandates will also force the likes of Google, Facebook and Yahoo to store all data generated by BRICS nations locally, shielding it from NSA snooping.

“The BRICS countries have the muscle to pull this off,” notes Washington’s Blog. “Each of the BRICS countries are in the top 25 largest economies in the world. China has the world’s second largest economy, India is 3rd, Russia 6th, Brazil 7th, and South Africa 25th.”

However, some privacy experts fear that this will do little to stop the NSA, given that it has tapped undersea cables since the Cold War era. Others are more positive.

“Any alternative would be a positive thing, writes Michael Dorfman. “The more choice you have, the better. Yet no-one can say for sure whether this new Internet will be safer than its US counterpart and will be able to protect the rights of regular users, including the privacy of personal data and free access to resources, more effectively.”

The BRICS cable was already in development months before the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden first became public in June.

In September it emerged that the NSA had been spying on Brazilian government communications as well as Brazilian oil company Petrobras. Spooks hacked into the firm’s computer network to eavesdrop on conversations between CEOs.

The current Internet architecture is dominated by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), which is largely controlled by the United States.

Other entrepreneurs are also fighting back against NSA surveillance. Tech maverick John McAfee recently announced that he was to fund a $100 gadget named Decentral that would sync up with a modem to thwart NSA spying and provide total anonymity.

Asked what he would do if the US government banned the product, McAfee responded, “I’ll sell it in England, Japan, the Third World. This is coming and cannot be stopped.”

News Anchor Completely Loses It For The Best Possible Reason

Well folks, here is somebody else speaking up about the truth of our great country. Please listen, pause and think about what he is saying.

How do we get money out of politics?

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.