First Bitcoin is a Ponzi, then it is “for drug dealing”, then “it can’t scale to VISA levels” and now “its for tax evasion”. No one claims any more, that Bitcoin doesn’t do exactly what it was designed to do, and that any of its characteristics are inherently catastrophic for Bitcoin. I suppose its progress that these absurd objections have faded away, however there are new angles of assault beginning to emerge that attack Bitcoin on a technical level because its enemies have had to concede defeat in their hopeless propaganda war against it.

Someone just pointed me to an article on the PBS Newshour website, written by a man who is a lecturer in the Program on Ethics, Politics & Economics at Yale University and a senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, (which out of interest is where the notorious and noxious Edward Balls [real name] has wound up).

First things first. You will never get analysis on what a disruptive and entirely beneficial and transformative idea Bitcoin is from PBS Newshour or someone from Yale; two of the most conservative Statist organizations imaginable. The men there are exactly the sort that Murray Rothbard described, the “Court Intellectuals”, who are used to set public perception and steer the conversation on everything.

This tactic of court appointed intellectual opinion shaping used to work in the past, but it cannot work in the Software Age. Ideas expressed in software have effect in the real world, and are not inert. They can spread like lightning, do not need explanation to have effect, and the force they exert in the affairs of man cannot be contained, explained away or lied about. We are beginning to see this in the spread of end to end encryption in popular chat applications. but for a picture of how this will work as a permissionless money phenomena in Bitcoin, all you need to look at is software piracy.

No matter what these think tank people think about intellectual property (the state created fictional right) hundreds of billions of files are shared globally, and there is nothing that anyone from Yale or any institution in the anointed Intellectual Class can do to stop it. They have not been able to do anything about file sharing since the advent of the modem and home computing, which is now in its 40th year.

This is exactly what is going to happen with Bitcoin.

As I type this, MIT has just made a proposal to force Bitcoin miners to introduce KYC/AML on all transactions they write to the Blockchain. This is a perfect example of the completely delusional thinking of the Yale/MIT type; that America is the only country with computers connected to the internet and software developers, and that everyone will reflexively obey them, against their own interests, globally.

The fact of the matter is that Chinese miners or any rational miner anywhere on Earth, when they mine Bitcoin, make a profit in doing so. They have no incentive to bear the expense and liability of maintaining a list of Bitcoin users and then mine only those transactions, and because Bitcoin is an open network, anyone who goes down the route proposed by MIT will simply lose out on the opportunity to mine transactions and they will be picked up by others. Essentially, MIT is asking miners not to collect money. And this is on top of the impossible to enforce global protocol change that would be required to cripple Bitcoin in this way.

This is how insane, insular, delusional and parochial these hopelessly naïve people are. They really believe that they are the literal centre of the universe, and everyone and everything, even math itself, is nothing more than a particle subject to their gravity. They are gravely mistaken.

The fact of the matter is that the direction of travel not only in Bitcoin but in all software and communications, is the opposite of what MIT are proposing. Services like WhatsApp, with its 1 billion monthly active users has just gone totally private, Apple has famously locked out all authorities globally from their phones, and other services are following suit. The “privacy wave” is gaining momentum; soon, there will be no messaging or email that is not encrypted, it will be normal and totally accepted, and in this world, MIT want only Bitcoin to be subject to total surveillance? You can begin to get a sense of how utterly stupid and short sighted their proposal is.

Improvements to Bitcoin are taking place right now that will make it completely opaque and private. Once this happens, hundreds of billions of dollars will pour into it, where not only can it not be seen who “owns” what, but from where it can be spent anywhere on Earth, without permission. This is inevitable, and no matter what MIT proposes, all it takes is for companies outside the USA to mine all transactions without artificial restrictions for the toxic MIT compliant mines to be avoided. This is removing the fact that they need consensus for their changes to be workable in the first place, which they will never ever get.

Everyone becomes a global bank with Bitcoin; there is no third party to act as policeman on transactions. This is “The Transformation” that makes PBS/Yale/MIT types soak their beds with sweat at night. It is the end of the bedrock of their world; Central Banks, fiat currency, licensed banking and violence as the glue that holds their society together. They are desperate to propose anything to stop Bitcoin from being useful. Their lies about its true nature have failed. Their lies about its technical capabiliites have failed. Their attempts to centralize it by changing the protocol have failed. Now they are trying to permanently de-anonymize it, and this too will completely fail, crash, and burn whilst being universally mocked.

What you are now tasting is the most delicious schadenfreude. The people who kept claiming that Bitcoin could not ever succeed are the ones failing at every hurdle, just as they tried to claim that Bitcoin failed at every hurdle. It is they who are failing, not Bitcoin, and as they become more and more desperate, we are going to see increasing numbers of absurd proposals like this one from MIT, that have no chance of ever being adopted.

And then… we win.