My email to Lew Claasen on the Bitcoin Foundation Manifesto

Dear Lew,

Thanks for your message.

Please see my comments to the Manifesto.  I appreciate the effort put into it, and I thought I would give you my remarks.  Would be happy to discuss further.



Claudio Migliore


I can recognize the intentions in this manifesto and some are hard not to agree with.  Nevertheless, I would give another whirl to it:

  1. The listed truths are arguably correct, although they range between timeless principles and contingents short term facts
    1. You could argue that the first statement is confusing, since gold backed money is not strictly fiat
    2. Even when there was some gold “standard” around the world, governments happily debased their currencies and then they played around with words to get some legal cover.
    3. The statement about the gold standard is very US centric and is only good to cling to often repeated stats about the loss of dollar purchasing power.
    4. Truths 3 to 7, while significant, refer not to systemic economic issues but rather to the contingent state of financial intermediaries
    5. The huge truth that is not mentioned at all is that:
      1. The Internet has subverted and continues to subvert all connections between humans, making intermediaries generally unnecessary
      2. Crypto makes permissionless transactions possible
  2. The word “accordingly” suggests that the Foundation beliefs somehow derive from the listed truths, which I do not think to be the case.
    1. All the listed rights probably derive in cascade from the principles already established (if routinely trampled upon) by the constitution and laws of most of the world and not from the before mentioned “truths”
    2. More in detail:
      1. Although politically correct, it is debatable whether the expression “transactions harming no others” has any real meaning
      2. The right to economic participation is also a PC term.  There could be mention to economic freedom, but this also entails the right of anyone NOT to transact with anyone else.
  3. About the MISSION:
    1. The Bitcoin Foundation cannot coordinate any efforts of free people.  It can only attempt to, based on intellectual leadership and personal effort of its members.  The statement contrasts with the factual observation five lines up about the different views within the ecosystem.
    2. The mission could, and does not, address the issue of scientific study and understanding of the cryptocurrency phenomenon from and economic and technical point of view.  Past the simple though substantive statements  in Nakamoto’s paper, little has been done regarding understanding the ramifications of Bitcoin adoption, with the irony that a legacy institution of dubious neutrality like the Bank of England has been a major contributor in this field.
  4. About the VISION:
    1. I think it is a bit narrow.  I believe Bitcoin will play a crucial role as global money, but it is naïve to assume that there will be no third parties.  In fact some initiatives within Bitcoin are creating third parties.  Third parties will always exist in any advanced free economic system since anyone can attempt to, and may succeed in, adding value in a transaction chain.  The point of Bitcoin is permissionless access, not lack of intermediaries.
    2. The vision should, I believe include the contribution of Bitcon to freedom and economic progress
  5. About the values:
    1. PC at work again.
    2. “Guaranteed financial access”?  Who is guaranteeing? What is financial access?
    3. What is “financial access” and how is it different from financial inclusion? Why is one guaranteed and the other is not?
    4. What does the word “Autonomy” mean?

Stable money supplies (Plural?) is very vague.  It sort of tries to reassure inflation hawks.  I am one, by the way, and am not reassured.


Tip me in Bitcoin.

If you need to know what Bitcoin is go here

If you need bitcoins, go here

temporary Wrodpress tip address