저자: Dr.CraigWright · 외국인
요약 보기
비트코인 패널 토론. 라이트는 정부가 BSV/비트코인 노드(채굴자)를 통해 압수·검열할 수 있다고 주장하며 2020년 비트코인 압수 예측을 언급. 토케니제이션·실물자산 온체인에 회의적. 루비니는 크립토는 교환매개·가치저장 수단으로 부적합하고 탈중앙화보다 중앙화가 크다고 비판하며 핀테크(AI·빅데이터)가 금융 혁신을 주도한다고 주장. 두 사람 모두 개별 자산의 가격 방향에 대한 구체적 예측은 하지 않음.
다듬은 글
Between organizations, the information asymmetry extends to CDs and large swap issues. It extends to government bonds, so no one actually knows the existence of most bonds. They don't know how they're traded or consolidated, and they end up being black swans, because information is difficult and expensive and can be siloed.
Absolutely, I would agree with that. Even the idea that money should be traceable is totally ridiculous. Your money should be your property, and it shouldn't be traced. No one should tell you how you can spend your money, and that's not what tracing actually is.
Yeah, absolutely. Unfortunately, we have this concept here: tracing means people can tell us what to do.
Actually, no. I think tracing, you mean, the fact that we track that there's no inflation and hidden inflation of money? Is that what you mean by tracing?
No, I don't. I mean the legal term of tracing. It means that the government, or somebody with a single node, like on the BSV chain, can just censor your transactions.
Actually, you can censor anything in Bitcoin. The thing that he likes not to look at is that there are a small number of economic players, all of which can easily stop it. Hope it doesn't. I'm fighting this panel, and I'll give you a little prediction that I have a little bit of insight into: in 2020, there's going to be Bitcoin seized by government, and those miners are going to help them. Why? Because only nodes matter. Section five of the white paper, nodes, and nodes are miners. They validate blocks. The system is designed that way. When we're talking about proceeds of crime, if you look at Liberty Reserve, 42 countries interacted to take down a distributed system. Wild networks, etc. Billions of dollars, hundreds of banks, 15,000 nodes taken down in a day. Bitcoin next year: there are three, and I'll say three, fentanyl dealers in China. They know the addresses, and they have been told by people like Tone that their money is safe.
Craig, I kindly suggest we stay very concise here, because tomorrow you'll be given the chance of defending yourself in a dual called "if it may remind me, does Bitcoin have any value or not." Craig will be facing face to face, one to one, just like Professor Roubini will be doing with Roger Ver after the break. He'll be taking on the strategy man, Mike Bieber. I think he's sitting over there, yes. That's going to be really exciting, because Bieber is very anti-crypto but very pro-blockchain.
Okay, so we have a chance of expressing your views. I would suggest we now go more generic, as possible, without going down into these petty squabbles among the crypto trans. Let's put it this way: there is a fiat world, and there is a crypto world. How do you think cryptocurrencies, if at all, are on the table, might help bridge the gap, and how could they be instrumental in solving these problems? If I may ask, Brock is ready to go. So the important thing is, could crypto be seen as a solution, or is it just something very epical and very unsubstantial that will go? That's exactly what Professor Roubini maintains. What is your take on this? Could that be a solution?
Yeah, well, there's no question that the technology has applications for central banks and governments as well. Tether was, I was one of the founders of Tether. Tether was my idea: to put a real-world asset on the blockchain. Obviously I've not been involved with that business since not long after its creation, for liability reasons more than anything else. Unfortunately it hasn't performed in the ways I intended, but it did accomplish its mission of demonstrating that there is demand for putting real-world assets on the blockchain. In the original business plan I presented to Sequoia and others, this was something central banks might want to use as a technology platform for currency issuance, as a mechanism to move money faster, more efficiently, and more securely. So I clearly think this technology has applications at a government level.
That's fine. Comment on that, sorry. There might be demand for real-world assets on the blockchain, but to me that makes absolutely no sense, because having real-world assets on the blockchain actually does nothing, since those real-world assets could be confiscated by the government. If the New York District Attorney wins the case, they can just call the bank and collect all of the underlying dollars of Tether. So I see zero use case for real-world assets that can be confiscated being put on the blockchain. It just creates more inefficiency.
I agree to that. I'll give you a real example. In China, real estate transactions are controlled by the government, buy, sell, like all the rest, I'm sure, like all the rest of the domains. So imagine you have real estate on the blockchain, and you own the private key to that unit, or that allocation of real estate on the blockchain. But having the private keys is meaningless, because the actual real estate could be confiscated, or forbidden to be transferred to someone else. So when you use blockchain private keys to represent external assets, you still have that trust issue, and if you can't solve that trust issue, then it's meaningless. That's why I like Bitcoin: Bitcoin itself is not based on anything else, and it's not backed by anything else.
I'd like to pass the question to Professor Roubini, because I don't think anybody in their sober mind would think that all is well. We're not talking about the overall micro-economic situation the world is facing now. I'm talking about, if I go to a bank for example, we've got accounts at banks, and I have no idea what the bank is doing with my money, at a corporate level or a private level. I don't know. We have an account at a French bank. I'm not going to name the bank, but it's one of the top five banks in the world, and even so I can see no traceability. I don't know who's charging my money, what the interest rate is, what sort of charges. It's all wrapped in a shroud of mystery, let alone the fact that every time one makes a transaction, it goes through a process of transmitting the data one by one, and who can guarantee that throughout this journey the data doesn't get lost, stolen, or whatever? That's a big challenge, I would have thought, for the financial system as we know it today. Do you think that problem could potentially be solved by using cryptocurrencies, or is it absolute rubbish?
First of all, I'm not a defender of the traditional financial system. I wrote a whole book analyzing the role the financial system had in the financial crisis: excessive leverage, excessive risk-taking, not enough capital, not enough liquidity. So I'm the first critic of it. The question is what the solutions are. I would say some of the inefficiencies of the financial system are being addressed by what I call the fintech revolution. The fintech revolution has pretty much nothing to do with crypto or blockchain. It's a combination of AI, big data, and IoT, and it is revolutionizing payment systems, revolutionizing credit allocation, asset management, insurance, even some capital market activities. With Bitcoin you can do five transactions per second; with Visa you can do 25,000 transactions per second. You have things in China like Alipay or WeChat Pay that billions of people use every day for billions of transactions. In India you have UPI systems. In Africa you have M-Pesa. In the US you have Venmo, PayPal, and you name it. So there is a revolution in payment systems, very low-cost transactions, all money is digital now, and those things are leading to competition with traditional financial institutions.
There's a lot of talk within blockchain and crypto about revolutionizing financial intermediation. Cryptocurrencies are a misnomer. They're not a unit of account, they're not a means of payment, they're not a stable store of value, and nobody's using this kind of stuff. By the way, conceptually, if you think about it, a world in which everything is tokenized is a world of barter. For every good and service I have to use a different token. I have to be able to have a single numeraire to know the relative price of a can of Coke as opposed to a can of Pepsi. If there's a Coke coin and a Pepsi coin, it's chaos, total chaos. So talking about tokenization, having a token for everything, is returning to the Stone Age. Even the Flintstones had a more sophisticated financial system than crypto: they used shell dollars to avoid barter, while you want to go back to barter. If you know any basic monetary theory, a currency has to be a numeraire, a single unit of account. It has to be stable, a store of value, a means of payment, scalable, and secure. Existing financial systems are centralized, but they're scalable and they're secure. If I lose my credit card, I call, and in a second it's replaced and I get my money back. If you lose your private key, or somebody steals it, your money is gone for good. There's no scalability, there's no decentralization. Everything is centralized in crypto: miners are centralized, exchanges are centralized, developers are centralized, wealth is centralized. The Gini coefficient in Bitcoin is worse than North Korea's. Talking about decentralization, you're assuming centralized. We don't have to get all worked up about decentralization. Sounds like you're getting all worked up.
Let me ask you a simple question, for your ideal currency. Should a currency, in your opinion, be asset-based or debt-based, and what does that actually mean?
He says asset-based or debt-based. It's a question. Would you mind answering? If you don't understand the question, I can explain it, but please go ahead.
To me it's a meaningless question.
Meaningless? Wow. I agree, wow. You differentiate between debt that you owe and assets you have? You think that's meaningless? A credit card, the amount of limit on your credit card, I assume you have a credit card. Are you whiter? I'm not going to engage on this, sorry.
No, but seriously. Okay, academic question: should currency be asset-based or debt-based in your opinion, which is better?
No, I'll do what, what do you have on this? Please go ahead. It's very simple. You don't understand. Gold-based currencies have existed. Understand the concept. What? And they all had debt. What money? I don't... What, you have an asset-based currency? Who has a PhD on money, man? Money has to be a unit of account, has to be a numeraire, has to be a means of payment, has to be a stable store of value. Okay, that's the definition of money. Tell me, asset-based or debt-based? How many people, in your opinion, can buy their home without a home loan? You would have to be expecting something of the sort. How many people buy their car without going into debt? This is probably... it's almost like a jewel. Look, when you have gold-based currencies, like we had in the...
댓글 0