A little volatility, the little miner’s friend.

For many, a truly decentralized digital asset (cryptocurrency) requires that the processing power of the underlying system be just as “decentralized” or rather, equitably distributed.

Often blamed on the rise of ASIC-based mining hardware, and their manufacturers, the relative consolidation of mining capacity or “hash power” by large mining farms has lead many to cry foul and and fed into the practical and existential debate over bitcoin and others.

But how do you regulate, or even impose upon systems that are devoid of central control other than the math upon which they are built?

Blockchain shackles

One of the idealistic proposals put forth for using cryptocurrency and blockchain technology for “good” is to leverage it to provide credibility and access to those who are not included in present financial frameworks.  This could be applied to the “unbanked” and undocumented, including refugees, migrants, and the impoverished in general.

There have been several instances where the “good” is clearly demonstrated.  But for every light there is a shadow.

Dispelling Disinformation

It seems I can’t hardly put time toward finishing my “introduction to”-type articles before someone gets themselves into the news spewing negative claims about bitcoin and cryptocurrency.  Everyone is entitled to speak their opinion, and present their argument.  But shouldn’t those arguments make sense?  After all, aren’t these people supposed to be experts when it comes to financial matters?  Aren’t the news agencies reporting reputable and well versed?  Well if that was the case, I probably wouldn’t be so motivated to write any of this.

Time to get wreckin’.  Come along with me, won’t you?

Is Bitcoin an Investment?

The vast majority of negative press regarding bitcoin and cryptocurrency surrounds the question as to whether or not it is a sound investment.  Many from the traditional financial investment sectors, I need not say their names, continue to shout “fraud” and “bubble.”  I will work to dispel those claoms at a later time, and in fact, time will likely render judgment on these anyway.

Much of their detraction seems to come from what I can only see as an inability to step away from the lens of the investment world.  Everything to them is either “money” or an “investment” and since they refuse to let themselves dare to even consider cryptocurrency to be money, then they only leave themselves with the latter option.

What is an investment?

Regulation Possibly Good for Bitcoin?

For a while, one axiom of cryptocurrency has been absolute freedom from regulation.  After all, the whole point is to let people determine the value and exchange it and trade it free from interference.  However, with ubiquitous access as the goal, and ultimate success depending on recognition and adoption, popularity is the name of the game.

As with all things that become popular, the siren call to capitalize is hard to ignore.  Many legitimate services have arisen to facilitate entry into and use of cryptocurrency marketplaces.  Then like everything that has a basic and decent use, it quickly can be corrupted by one word: investment.

Cryptocurrency vs Legal tender

Jamie Dimon is setting himself up to take some more heat.  In a video interview, that I was finally able to find on CNBC, he made several remarks, in his typical fashion, about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general.

At this point, arguing about “creating money out of thin air” is somewhat tired.  He states that such a process is “very different … with government backing.”  And this is the line that most outlets, including The Cointelegraph and others, have picked up on, and so many continue to fester over.

Mr. Dimon presented many of his statements in a subdued, matter-of-fact way.  Not sure if he is simply pedantic, patronizing, or if he has rehearsed this in the mirror a hundred times.  Who knows, he may actually believe what he says.  But I find interesting another seemingly off-the-cuff statement that he makes in the interview after a bit of stuttering.

“It says, ‘legal tender’, you have to take this as payment”

His contention has been that eventually governments will shut cryptocurrencies down, which is, again, a different discussion.  Here, though, he is arguing the superiority of FIAT currency, and uses the aforementioned statement to hastily attempt to overcome the interviewer’s charge that the only real major distinction of FIAT is central bank control.

His remark implies that FIAT currency must be accepted as payment.  Is that really so?