You are on Facebook wrotethat “the sensible poor do not put anything in the crypt because they have nothing and never will, because they usually have a negative budget.” However, soaring living costs due to inflation affect mainly the poor. Do you not believe that it could help them in the long run to have, for example, part of the income in bitcoin?
Bitcoin has become fun for the rich. If someone claims that the poor can save in bitcoin, then they should, have and will certainly be right for the next few years. The problem, however, is not in the opportunity to save, but in the possibilities, ie to have extra money, which I can afford to keep out of the family budget for a long time. The bitcoin appreciation period takes about three years, and I know that most poor people just can’t keep their bitcoin savings for so long. Many poor people heard this advice and during the bear market were forced to transfer their savings from bitcoin and spend on food and rent at a worse than buying rate.
Jurassic libertarians have no discernment about what poverty means. That is why they claim absurdities such as “stack saty” (sat is an abbreviation of the smallest unit of bitcoin called satoshi, it corresponds to roughly one penny, ed. Note) so save (save) small amounts. This advice goes to the middle class, which is relatively rich. The richest layer of society stores more significant volumes in bitcoin than satas. Here, too, the rich get rich and the poor pull down the inflation. So that longevity is the Achilles heel of poverty.
Do you see the potential in some other cryptocurrency, which, in your words, might not become just a toy for the rich?
All cryptocurrencies are now toys for the rich. The vast majority of all cryptocurrency holders treat them as if they were betting on horses. Some cryptocurrencies can also be used for more meaningful activities than these cryptocurrencies, but bitcoin is desperately uninspiring. Including people who do not admit that there are other, more technologically advanced concepts. Bitcoin has lost some of its original features, such as anonymity or cheap transactions. These functions are perfectly fulfilled by other cryptocurrencies.
There is no point in highlighting any specific ones, so I personally do not perceive the sphere of cryptocurrencies as a football league. Therefore, I do not prefer any specific in the long run and I do not support it. I use several currencies quite actively and each for different purposes. Likewise, in seven years of being so-called all in in the crypt, I had to find my ways of dealing with money. When you cancel bank accounts, you have nothing else left.
–
–
What is the biggest obstacle to greater adoption of cryptocurrencies – is it the user interface of digital wallets with non-intuitive address formats…?
I perceive a few brakes, but the biggest is the general factor of fear of the unknown and reluctance to learn new things. When we opened Parallel Polis more than seven years ago, bitcoin was supposed to be just an alternative currency. It worked great for the first few years. Great especially for those of us who have decided to selflessly educate visitors. With the gradual clogging of the blocks and the subsequent increase in fees, we got into a hopeless situation, because the visitor paid 50 crowns in bitcoins for our educational coffee, but had to pay on average once more as a fee for his transaction to be included in the block. Even though we tried to do our best and Parallel Polis always has the greatest crypto experts, it was not possible to reverse this phenomenon.
How did you handle the situation?
We were forced to switch to the younger brother of bitcoin, litecoin. That’s why I still can’t allow litecoin, because its flexibility allows its users to pay without problems, just like in the beginning of bitcoin. The payer then doesn’t care about the arguments of bitcoin maximalists, because he is only interested in a problem-free payment.
Doesn’t the Lightning Network secondary bitcoin layer for instant fast payments provide something like that?
It would be unfair of me not to mention her. However, this innovation in bitcoin, which could solve the fee problem under certain conditions, is currently going through postpartum pain. He is gaining trust with me only very slowly, even though in Parallel Polis LN is attended by people at the highest level and my skeptics are definitely not shared. Another problem with adoption is the very reluctance of people to spend cryptocurrencies. The deranged phrase HODL persists for many years. Although this term actually means something different today than at the beginning, the essence remains. That is, the user of the cryptocurrency is basically just holding on and, thanks to the expectation of endless growth, he will not even spend satoshi. Sure, there are exceptions, but they won’t speed up adoption.
We also solve the basic problem of adoption, which is why crypt users should spend their stuff. The basic premise is that it pays off for them, and with the conventional approach, that is, simply holding cryptocurrencies, it will not come so soon. What will happen in many years, we don’t care much now, because it’s like prophesying from a crystal ball. Anything can really happen.
–
–
Nevertheless, you certainly have some expectations from the future. How do you see it at bitcoin?
Bitcoin as such is here with us. Even if state corporations probably want to stop it, or at least weaken it, it will not disappear. What I am afraid of is the exact opposite, that bitcoin will be accepted by institutions, or rather its properties will be gradually legislatively crippled when corporations or banks come and find a way to tame bitcoin completely together with the states. Paradoxically, the biggest weakness of bitcoin is its transparency. At first, bitcoin didn’t interest me in itself, but as a free market payment tool. If there is a renaissance of free markets, ie P2P markets, where it will be very difficult to enforce taxes on earned profits, then cryptocurrencies and perhaps bitcoin will get their second chance to change the paradigm of international trade. The feature that bitcoin still retains is its fast, intercontinental P2P transfer of funds outside the banking network. Another huge threat to bitcoin and its credibility is artificial intelligence. It is only a matter of time before advanced algorithms will use transparent blockchains to completely trace the movement of coins, including marking them with an official certificate.
How big of a threat to bitcoin do states pose?
I think that trading bitcoin freely will be very dangerous over time, even retroactively. Thanks to advanced algorithms, it is already possible to trace the movement of specific coins over the network, and it is not a question of whether, but when, a free-spirited user will make a security mistake. At that moment, you can read the entire network of his transactions, evaluate profits or suspicious, unofficial transactions, and you have Berňák and other state organizations around your neck, which have three letters in their name.
So I see the future of cryptocurrencies and their users relatively dystopically. Just look at some of their promoters and famous users. See the names of Ross Ulbricht, Julian Assange, John McAfee, Cody Wilson and others. They are prosecuted, imprisoned or dead, and not necessarily cryptocurrencies. For many people, cryptocurrencies are still an instrument of defiance and rebellion against regimes, systems and states, and states have unlimited resources to fight with whom or what they want.
Videoprofil Romana Týce
––
–
–
Videoprofil Romana Týce • VIDEO Gabriela Martinčeková
–
–
Is the focus of Parallel Polis generally changing towards less popular cryptocurrencies?
The parallel Polis was created as a meeting place for like-minded people in order to find possible alternatives to social order to nation states. Cryptocurrencies belong to this issue and will belong. At the same time, however, I must state that specifically bitcoin began to concentrate a special, unpleasant, even toxic group of people around itself.
How did it turn out?
An interesting contrast gradually occurred in Parallel Polis, when one group of people tried to educate the public in order to be able to handle a decentralized currency for the purpose of economic emancipation from the state. For us, the secondary feature of cryptocurrencies – their appreciation – has centered a relatively uncompromising assortment of semi-investors in Parallel Polis, who are not interested in civil society, but only in their own enrichment. Some of them see this wealth as evidence, or rather an argument, for their claim that the free hand of the market is the only possible solution for the functioning of society.
During the time that Parallel Polis existed, bitcoin became mainstream, so fast that, unlike other countercultural phenomena, it virtually skipped the underground phase. As if the Sex Pistols were performing for a year, and in ten years, clear on their heads would be a common fashion accessory for television announcers. Eventually, in Parallel Polis, cryptananarchists became financial advisers, without exaggeration. Ethical hackers took off their hoodies and put on their jackets. Not everyone, of course.
–
–
In response to the “failure” of bitcoin, do you reconsider your political views, or your views on the possibilities of social change? For example, have you come to the conclusion that you have so far relied too much on technology in Parallel Polis as a tool for positive change?
We generally and constantly re-evaluate. This is and should be the meaning of a critical society. Technologies are evolving so fast that today it is no longer possible to rely on you to use what you learn in technology in a year. This is not the case with some technologies, but in the area of cybersecurity, for example, the speed is incredible. It is a de facto war in which you must develop weapons that will withstand the invaders, who constantly attack with a degree of more effective equipment. Parallel Polis and its direction also affect people, their focus, and especially naturel. A year ago, Sara Polak, a leading expert and popularizer of artificial intelligence, joined Parallel Polis. After returning from her studies at Oxford, she wandered a little between institutions, until she finally settled between us. It turned out that she found her soul mates with us. She now grabbed the rudder of Parallel Polis and aimed our black ship toward artificial intelligence. But what we understood above all is the concept of interdisciplinarity, ie not to emphasize only technologies, but also the interdisciplinary meeting of technologists, scientists and artists.
This spark gives Parallel Polis ignition and power. Yes, we still believe in technology as a tool for positive change, but also as a tool for preserving digital freedom. As no one is surprised today, digital freedom is as important as freedom in the traditional sense. If we do not protect ourselves from unwanted entry of third parties into our communication flows, and this means not only hackers but also, for example, government officials, then we will be under the constant supervision of third parties who will evaluate data about us more and more effectively. Misuse of this data is only a matter of time. This also applies to the holding and transfer of cryptocurrencies.
–
–
–
–
– .
