A Butthurt Rant on Insufficient Outsider-Criticism of Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies | Pt. 1/2

I am a big proponent of trying to find the catch in any- and everything we deem to be solid and legit. Be it the systems we grew up in, the alleged ideals of our cultures or alternative narratives to the mainstream. And if we dig long enough we can find some great circumstances to help us play devil's advocate even about the newly uncovered idea or promising paradigm we thought was the solution to existing problems. We find their catch through solid evidence.

In this regard, cryptocurrencies are especially interesting and significant. The technology behind systems like Steem or EOS may fundamentally change the lives of many people for the better and offer us a path to true self-governance and sovereignty, out of the remnants of the old control structures.

That said, I'd like to think I have been keeping a close eye on the developments in this space ever since I entered it, in order to be able to see if we are in fact running towards a dead end nobody has really considered when we first got into it all, because we simply missed it among all the excitement.

And while I have not directly found the major catch in these new systems with certainty yet, there are critical voices out there relaying ample warnings of getting overly excited about the field of cryptocurrencies, blockchains and the resulting changes for society as a whole because it may just turn out to be a trap. And they try to make a case against cryptos as a whole...

The problem I have with all the "critical" programs and videos I have listened to thus far: Most of these truthseekers have little to no knowledge what they are talking about on any tangible level, something easily discernable if you have been in this space for more than a week. Sadly.

It's not like there aren't good points to be made against cryptos and blockchains...

...it's just that the interviews I have listened to scream incompetency and a lack of understanding! I get it, some things in this space do indeed appear questionable on first glance from the outside and need to be studied and followed up on - maybe the catch can be found there with enough diligence and patience.

For example, as was pointed out correctly: Many critical interviews about the crypto space point to the apparent discrepancy between "awake" people actively fighting the debt-based monetary system and at the same time "uncritically jumping on the bandwagon for these new cashless systems".

Heck, I had been doing activism for the Zeitgeist Movement myself for years, talking about the inherent problems with the scarcity-perpetuating fiat money systems, their detrimental effect on individual and societal freedoms, as well as the problems with a society that runs solely on privately issued electronic money - a moneyless society is not the same as a cashless society. And a cashless society does have ample problems compared to a system where one can move relatively freely with cash.

It's not like these mechanisms are unknown to me - quite the contrary. And still I do see the merit of certain projects within the cryptospace, their technological benefits and their broad ramifications for the future, as well as the eventual positive effects for a life of self-determination provided we keep paying attention and don't let the powers that be steer it in a malicious direction before we can create something new that actually works for the benefit of humanity.

Question is, can we find a way to discern between different projects within the space or do we really have to label and treat them all as differently colored steps of the same allegedly nefarious agenda by some ominous AI overtaking all of human existence through smart contracts?

I don't get what your problem is dude!

My problem is that while great points could be made against projects like XRP being mostly in the hand of those who started it, the vast amount of wasted energy for proof of work algorythm coins or the dubious etymology of many terms in certain projects of this space pointing to dominance precursors like the Holy Roman empire such as in Ethereum.... I mostly hear babble in crypto-critical interviews that does its best to relate the space as a whole to some alleged truth found outside the mainstream.

Just because the Vatican and certain governments are starting to look to establish cryptocurrencies of their own does not mean the whole space was started by knights of Malta. It could DEFINITELY be a possibility but blanketly associating Binance's move to Malta and their logo with the knights of Malta seems like a huge leap for me, I expect way more in terms of a solid connection. Now I am not one to deny when there is a connection, but the conclusion comes way too prematurely. Businesses in Malta can make use of different regulations on the world stage than if they were located somewhere else on Earth, and while it is essential to remain critical and watchful the correlation to an ancient secret society is not automatic.

Many digital nomads I read about use Malta in the same way Binance does and nobody claims that they're all associates of the knights of Malta or secret Vatican agents... Neither would anyone be were he ever to choose to found a company there for financial reasons, instead of founding it somewhere else.

While a reasonable case could be made that IOTA and their mission may not be in the interest of a self-determined life but instead a continuation and expansion of the remotely controlled steering of our existence through absolute automation and the interlinking of any- and every bit of technology we use on a daily basis, I instead hear blanket claims about blockchains leading to people implanting microchips into themselves voluntarily until our complete DNA eventually ends up on the blockchain and everything is ruled by AI inherent in the system for the detriment of humanity...

Say what?! Aren't we throwing everything in one pot here? I certainly think so.

I get it, people do choose to implant themselves with these microchips already due to not recognizing the huge abuse potential of these technologies in an age where centralization of power and decision-making still resembles a feudalistic top-down society, but to claim that one (Bitcoin) somehow leads to the other (all our DNA stored on the blockchain for which we have to produce power with our bodies in slavery) is preposterous. Preposterous because it paints an undifferentiated picture for all those 'critical thinkers' outside the crypto space who rely on these interviews to gauge the validity of things like the crypto space as a whole.

Could our DNA eventually end up on the blockchain and would that be a worrying development? Certainly yes. But to even infer that any and all projects in the space somehow point in this direction, and to imply that it's the overarching agenda from the beginning, well that's a great idea if there were any actual evidence for it. Which is of course not presented but instead we hear further associations linking geoengineering to bitcoin because some corporation online wants to start a coin for weathermanipulation or has a caged globe in their logo.

I just have to crack up when I listen to an interview about the alleged dangers of cryptocurrencies to our freedom when there are constant remarks like: "I really don't fully understand it yet, I'm no expert.""

Well alright, nobody really is an expert and being an expert is neither a guarantee for an actual understanding nor for an all-encompassing ability to correctly analyze and find the flaws in any idea - quite the contrary, it often blinds us. Specialization usually leads to blind spots that are more apparent from outside, not from within the circle of 'experts'. But why then - if you admit you really don't have much grasp on the space and its technology - would you choose to give an interview about the unrecognized dangers inherent in the technology?

When I do hear an interview with the prospect to lay open the trap-character of the crypto space I do expect a certain level of grasp on the fundamentals that go beyond reading 5 articles on some website writing about cryptos and then taking their take on it as an accurate representation of what is actually going on in this space.

It's like watching SOME random youtube channel and listening to a few stupid videos where someone incites violence against some specific group of people to then proclaim that "ALL people on youtube are haters and dangerous". No, that one dude may be but that has absolutely zero bearing on other channels and dudes on the platform. Misrepresentation of the information and portraying someone's ill-informed blog entry as representative of the space as a whole is simply inquirer beginner level 1, just like giving your own interpretation to a question you can't really answer factually because you are lacking the relevant information and have not done your homework.

It's the same thing mainstream media does all the time in order to shape opinion and propagandize those who don't think for themselves: Misrepresentation of the actual arguments, ideas and mechanisms, and then relaying that scrambled, insufficient interpretation to the masses.

You may think I am doing the same thing here, but sadly the majority of opinions I have gathered about the crypto space from outside the crypto space show similar leaps in judgment and undisclosed speculation.

So when I read things like the following I start to cringe.

"Few people realize that the blockchains that run cryptocurrencies and smart contracting (the way of the future) use massive amounts of energy and are therefore not "sustainable" as we use that word today. The blockchain that supports Bitcoin uses more energy annually than a small country! Will blockchains of the future rely on human energy harvesting for their support? That's my bet"

Are you f****** kidding me? If you have been in this space for longer than 3 weeks you will certainly see the problem with statements like this. Such a stark case of incrimination demands that I at least am able to explain what a smart contract is to my audience, or what Bitcoin is and how it is different from centralized fiat money, the possible problems with it, the alternatives to it and why there are alternatives to begin with not to be judged by the same template as grandpa BTC.

But if a beginning inquirer without any grasp gets all their information from some random blog proclaiming to be an information site on blockchains in general, well then really they are the fool and might as well get their blockchain information from the nightly news. It would have about the same level of poignancy as citing some random blog when I have little knowledge of my own about what I am actually claiming and why, and yet I choose to inform people about what I think all blockchains probably are and mean for the future of humanity...

It's a testament to the absolute surface-level analysis that is neither helpful nor accurate. Yes BTC wastes tremendous amounts of energy, as does Eth and other proof of work blockchains, and it's one of the plausible reasons why alternatives such as proof of stake and delegated proof of stake systems were conceived and are widely adopted already. And anyone capable and willing to dig a little deeper before coming to a premature conclusion and recklessly throwing it out there to other people without an actual grasp of the fundamentals is really doing the control structure a huge favor under the guise of educating people, provided blockchains could potentially give power back to the people.

Likewise it is highly dubious to portray your early investigations into the "serpent pit cryptospace" by detailing how you initially stumbled upon the bitconnect website and what a scam it apparently seems to be. Duh. It's not like half of the space hasn't extensively warned about that project ever since it started for months but that is somehow left out of the report, inferring that scams like bitconnect are representative of the space as a whole and that we all fell victim to the powers that be by participating in 'such things'.

Keeping people away for reasons that may apply to single projects but not to the space as a whole.

I simply have a hard time taking seriously what is being concluded from these insufficient surface-level analyses. Constantly being reminded that "I am no expert in this" does not help my motivation to keep listening either, and it certainly doesn't help the interviewee's credibility or believability when they are doing a show purporting to talk about the hidden aspects of this technology. I may as well listen to a first grader trying to tell me about algebra while constantly reminding me that he is in first grade only. Then why am I learning from a first-grader?

If these shows really wanted to get a better understanding of the space and ask some tough questions at the same time, they could have simply invited people like the Crypto Lark (@larksongbird), who (in my view) regularly displays a great level of insight into the problems plaguing the old system of centralized fiat money and data management, while at the same time being knowledgeable enough to be able to question broad assumptions made in such speculative interviews. Because he actually has a grasp on the technology as someone who is heavily involved in the space himself, and for far longer than a week, but is also willing to criticize a project he sees as questionable.

I really didn't want this rant to be so extensive, but I will have to continue this regardless. There is more and it wants out. If you don't like rants, skip my blog tomorrow <3

_{Image sources:
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com}

Thanks for stopping by <3