For this episode on the eve of the Bitcoin white paper’s 10-year anniversary, Nathaniel Popper and Paul Vigna, reporters who cover Bitcoin and crypto for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, respectively, and who have written books about it, discuss wide-ranging questions regarding the first cryptocurrency. We explore why it succeeded where previous digital currencies failed, what role the financial crisis and Satoshi’s disappearance played in its success and how it compares to the development of the internet. We also look at the “blockchain, not Bitcoin” debate, the scaling debate and the merits of on-chain governance, and how scandals involving centralized services such as the Equifax hack and the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica breach will affect its development. Finally, we discuss its potential as a global reserve currency, potential abuse of crypto assets by bad state actors, and whether and how regulators can regulate decentralized technologies. Plus, Paul and Nathaniel give their thoughts on the next 10 years.
Thank you to our sponsors!
Abra: Click this special link for a free $25 in Bitcoin! https://www.abra.com/unchained
Onramp: http://www.thinkonramp.com
WeTrust: Donate in crypto and have your donation matched by WeTrust through Giving Tuesday, November 27! http://wetrust.io/unchained
Episode links:
Bitcoin white paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Nathaniel Popper: https://twitter.com/nathanielpopper https://www.nytimes.com/by/nathaniel-popper?8qa
Digital Gold: https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062572066/digital-gold/
Paul Vigna: https://twitter.com/paulvigna https://www.wsj.com/news/author/7296
Age of Cryptocurrency: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250081551
The Truth Machine: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250114570
Edward Bernays’ Propaganda: http://www.igpub.com/propaganda/
CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz’s speech discussing how they would prosecute illegal prediction markets: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaquintenz16
Transcript:
Laura Shin:
Hi, everyone. Welcome to Unchained, your no-hype resource for all things crypto. I’m your host Laura Shin. If you’ve been enjoying Unchained pop onto iTunes to give us a top rating or review that helps other listeners find the show.
Sponsor:
WeTrust is a new fundraising platform that allows you to donate crypto to nonprofits. WeTrust will match your donation through Giving Tuesday on November 27. Go to wetrust.io/unchained to make your donation.
Abra is the easiest way to invest in crypto. Their all in one exchange and wallet provides access to 28 cryptocurrencies, and BIT10, the only crypto index product available to everyone everywhere. Get started with 25 dollars in Bitcoin at Abra.com/unchained.
Your branding and website are the first things your audience will see. In the ever-expanding world of ICOs and blockchain startups, you need to stand out from the pack. OnRamp is a full-service creative and design agency that will help you amplify your brand with the perfect website, logo, collateral, or custom design project. Get big results in no time by visiting thinkonramp.com.
Laura Shin:
The topic of today’s podcast is the 10-year anniversary of the Bitcoin white paper, which is tomorrow. Here to discuss are two reporters who cover crypto, Nathaniel Popper, of the New York Times, and Paul Vigna, of the Wall Street Journal. Both of whom have written books about Bitcoin and crypto. Nathaniel wrote Digital Gold, and Paul co-authored both the Age of Cryptocurrency and the Truth Machine with Michael Casey, also a previous guest on the podcast.
Welcome, Nathaniel and Paul.
Nathaniel Popper:
Thanks for having me.
Paul Vigna:
Hi.
Laura Shin:
I’m just going to start with a really broad question. Ten years after the Bitcoin white paper what are the main thoughts you have about Bitcoin or crypto in general?
Paul Vigna:
Well. Let’s see. Nathaniel, do you want to share what you’re going to be writing for the 10-year anniversary?
Nathaniel Popper:
I don’t have anything planned currently. I guess maybe I should get going on something, but I mean…I think in the biggest picture it’s sort of been more successful, obviously, than anybody could’ve imagined when that white paper came out and the first people were reading it, but I think it’s gone in all of these different directions than, I think, the white paper would’ve indicated, so it’s sort of been successful but in different ways than I think people might have anticipated, and the ways in which things go and take their own form and go in their own direction is I think one of the most interesting elements of it to me.
Paul Vigna:
Yeah, one thing I think is very interesting is people like to compare Bitcoin to the internet and they always talk about the dot-com boom, and I think what they kind of miss about that is if you think about the birth of the internet, and the birth of Bitcoin and then track their timelines out 10 years. Well, the birth of the internet was the late ‘60s so 10 years on from the internet, the late ‘70s nobody had heard of it. It was still basically a project in a lab. The difference with Bitcoin is that Bitcoin went viral and it became this phenomenon and it became this big thing, and I think that’s why people kind of compare it to the dot-com boom, so I think that brought a lot of expectations with that that weren’t necessarily fair.
I don’t think 10 years on from Bitcoin being born as an idea you should’ve expected this thing to become a fully-fledged…we can argue about what it was supposed to be. I mean, personally, I think it was just supposed to be digital cash. What it was supposed to be. I don’t think that 10 years on it necessarily…that you could’ve expected it would’ve been that fully formed and done, and ready, and it’s out there, but I also think that because of that mania that a lot of expectations got heaped onto it and I don’t think it was. I just don’t think it was necessarily fair to have some of those on, but they existed, they were there. You had this big speculative boom and now everybody…now there’s however much money is involved in this sector right now is involved in it, and people have expectations of it, so I think it…kind of like what Nathaniel said, I think it kind of became more than people expected but not exactly what people expected.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, actually, I’m going to ask you about that in one second, but I actually also just want to answer my own question a little bit, because what you were saying about how…this comparison with the internet 10 years afterward, nobody had heard of it. Obviously with Bitcoin the internet already existed, and so I feel like that’s partially why the timeline got sped up, and then the other thing is that when I just think back to the very beginning where this white paper was quietly released on this mailing list that nobody cared about, very obscure, and even on the mailing list not that many people were interested in it, and then here you have…on the eve of the 10-year anniversary of the white paper you’ve got Fidelity saying okay, we’re going to enable institutions to trade it. You have this new venture continental exchange backed that’s coming online, Goldman’s investing in BITCO. I feel like there’s this crazy validation that just I feel like is so unlikely that anybody would’ve predicted back when people were paying 10,000 dollars for two pizzas. Sorry, 10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas, so I was curious, actually, because for both of you I know that you covered, I think, financial things before so I was just curious, just as reporters, how does Bitcoin compare to what you’d been covering before previously?
Paul Vigna:
Well. I had been covering bits before that, so the mornings were crazy, and _____00:06:03, and certainly back when I was doing it…I mean, from 2005 to 2013 until I heard about Bitcoin, I saw a lot during that time, so it’s hard to say that…it’s not hard to say. Bitcoin is definitely unique from what I was doing beforehand, as big as what I was doing beforehand was, you know what I mean. The financial markets are obviously a huge global story, but they are very different. I mean Bitcoin was just like nothing I really experienced before, and I doubt it’s like anything I’ll ever experience again, you know, kind of have this front row seat at something being born, at something just coming together organically on this global scale. It’s sort of underworld but it’s also sort of Silicon Valley. It’s a rebel currency but it’s also this big tech innovation.
Just all the aspects of it, and they were kind of the things that once I grasped that that was immediately why I wanted to write a book about it, but I think it is like nothing I ever was around before, in terms of a story to tell.
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah, I mean, I was covering, actually, similar stuff. Financial markets, Wall Street, and I think the biggest difference from a reporters viewpoint, for me, was that there were institutions and authorities in the market that I was covering before, and you sort of knew where to go to get good data and get good views, people with historical knowledge of things who could put things in perspective, and I think one of the things that’s been so hard for reporters with Bitcoin is that it’s not at all clear who is in charge, obviously, because to some degree nobody’s in charge, but particularly early on it was just so hard to know who you could trust, and not just sort of who had a good perspective but who even was…there was no background. People didn’t have reputations on the line so that they could…somebody could come in and lie about what was happening or what they were doing, and they didn’t have as much to lose as somebody who covered the financial markets and had a job that they would lose if they were lying.
People didn’t have jobs in 2013 in this space. There was nothing to lose and so it was therefore much harder to know who to believe, and I think trying to piece that together over time has been really hard. It continues to be one of the hardest parts of this job is just who can you trust.
Laura Shin:
I relate to that on so many levels. Going back to what Pau8l was mentioning, Bitcoin is something of a Rorschach test. As Paul mentioned, he thinks that when Satoshi wrote the white paper, he was proposing digital cash. I mean, obviously, it does say that in the subtitle of the white paper.
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah, in the title. Right.
Laura Shin:
And now people, maybe…or at least now the more likely narrative that you’re going to hear is that its digital code. Some people also really push this motive of using it to transact outside the legacy financial system, or to evade their oppressive financial regiments, or capital controls, so what do you think is…
Nathaniel Popper:
Or police.
Laura Shin:
Yes. What do you think is the main value proposition for Bitcoin.
Nathaniel Popper:
I’m a big believer in the idea that the one place where this has really had a functional application is in the dark markets. It’s funny, my book is called Digital Gold and I think some people have assumed that meant that I buy into that narrative that it’s this thing you can invest in, and it’s a reliable investment over time. I think it’s not particularly good at that. I chose that title as more of a sort of storytelling element than a statement of what I think Bitcoin is, but it’s terrible at holding its value. I mean, it goes up and it goes down. I think in terms of that, the digital gold use, like the online money investment, I think, it’s more like just a new digital lottery where you can…or a new digital gambling parlor where you can bet on this thing and hope it goes up and hope it doesn’t go down, but it does both of those things, so I don’t think it’s particularly good at being digital gold but it wants to be digital gold.
I think the one place where people have really used it to do things is to buy drugs, to pay ransom, and that’s the one enduring usage of it, and obviously you’ll hear a lot about why it’s maybe not good for that, because police can track it, but the reality is it’s pretty good at that. Yeah, people get caught when they’re sloppy but it works for that, whereas a lot of the other things that people talk about, remittances, investments, sort of some of the more blockchain centric things of tokenization they just haven’t really worked, they haven’t really taken off, so to me…and part of what interested me in the story of Bitcoin was going back how tied in the success of Bitcoin was with the Silk Road and a lot of the darker uses of it.
Laura Shin:
Paul?
Paul Vigna:
Yeah. No, I agree, Nathaniel, and I think the interesting thing is you look at Silk Road, you look at it used in the drug bazaars, if you want to call it that. Not if you want to call it that, but I think what it did show is that Bitcoin did actually work at the one thing it was initially designed to be, which is digital cash. I personally think that was the best goal for it, and I think it’s still the best goal for it. As constructed as it exists right now, I don’t think it is a particularly good store value. I think any of the benefits that it does have as that, that people talk about, are completely outweighed by the volatility, the speculative trading around it, the fact that it can go up or down in such wide arcs I don’t think it’s a good store value right now.
It could be a good store value if it had use as a currency, and if it had a daily underlying utility beneath it. If you had x amount of dollars passing through it every day because people were using it as a currency that would give it a base, hat would give it something to build a store value argument on top of, but right now it doesn’t have that. I really think all it is right now is a speculative asset. It’s a betting market, really, on the price of Bitcoin. I mean, I think that’s all it is right now. That said, we’re talking about 10 years of something that, as I said at the outset, is probably going to take a lot longer to build and figure out exactly what it should be, so I don’t think that that’s all it ever can be, but I really think it’s best use would probably be as a form of digital cash, and if that doesn’t happen I don’t know that it is ever really going to become a good store value.
Laura Shin:
I actually think on a long enough time scale it can be, which is what everyone talks about HODLing all the time. If you think of the Bitcoin ledger as sort of like this digital real estate and you grab a piece of it and you just hold on and wait for the price to rise, I think that’s what people are doing. You’re right, obviously, there is volatility year to year, but I think a lot of these people, especially the wealthy ones who got in early, they’re the ones who, I think, are like oh wow, I turned my million into 100-million and whatever, a year from now it’s going to be…not a year from now. A decade from now it’ll be a billion.
So, I actually wanted to also ask…and we’re just sort of level setting for the rest of the conversation, but I’m so curious, just along the way, as you’ve been reporting, what are some of the biggest things you’ve changed your mind about?
Paul Vigna:
Bitcoin?
Laura Shin:
Yeah, when it comes to Bitcoin.
Paul Vigna:
I will tell you honestly, the very…this was, I guess, early 2013. The very first time somebody suggested to me that we should write about Bitcoin I flat out said no. I said no.
Laura Shin:
What year was that?
Paul Vigna:
It was 2013. It was early 2013. I had heard about Bitcoin.
Laura Shin:
Wait. Was it Michael Casey?
Paul Vigna:
No, it wasn’t Michael.
Laura Shin:
Okay.
Paul Vigna:
It wasn’t Michael it was somebody else.
Laura Shin:
Your co-author.
Paul Vigna:
I forget exactly who. I will say I was a little bit ahead of Mike. I was maybe a couple of weeks ahead of Mike in catching on to the fact that this was a good story, but Mike…
Laura Shin:
And now he’s all in.
Paul Vigna:
And now he’s all in, yeah. My first reaction was that the word Bitcoin should not even be associated in any way shape or form with the Wall Street Journal. To even put it on the Wall Street Journal’s website was a…I swear to God I’m not kidding. That’s what I thought. I thought that it’s a mistake.
Laura Shin:
That’s a very snobby attitude.
Paul Vigna:
Well. Listen, I didn’t think it was legitimate. I thought it was a scam. I thought it was a con, and I didn’t think that we should be giving it any credence, so the biggest thing I changed…I’m being honest with you. The biggest thing I changed my mind on was Bitcoin itself. It didn’t take long by the way.
Laura Shin:
That makes sense. What about you Nathaniel?
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah. I mean, certainly for the first year I think I was in a similar place where I felt like this could just disappear at any time, and it took me, I think, a while to believe that this had any staying power, and I think for me I…probably it’s a mark of my similar snobbishness. It was kind of hearing the first academics and some of the first serious BCs in Silicon Valley who had really dug into the code and who felt like this was…there was something really new here, and I think for me it was some of that institutional validation, people who had some history. I mean, for me so much…I just find it very important to be able…to have people who have looked at things like this that haven’t worked to see how this is or isn’t working, and it took me a while, I think, to be convinced of that.
I mean, I think since then I think my opinion is constantly shifting about where this could be useful more broadly. I think that there is some germ of a new really interesting idea, but what that means more broadly I think I’m actually constantly still reevaluating and changing my mind and is it going to have some…is it going to really break out into the world in some broader way? I think we’ve talked about the fact that I don’t think it really has yet, and I think I’m honestly frequently changing my mind on how likely it is that that’ll happen.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I’m with you on that, and in particular how it will happen. So, let’s walk through some of the main historical events in Bitcoin’s life, starting with the moment that the white paper came out, which was in the midst of the financial crisis. Do you think that was just a coincidence or…and also, do you think that Bitcoin would’ve taken off if it had been released either earlier or after?
Paul Vigna:
No, and possibly no. I definitely don’t think the timing was a coincidence. From what little we do know of Nakamoto we believe he had been working on it for a tear, so I think he had said that he started in 2007 working on it, and I’m sure he was probably thinking about it beforehand, so I don’t think he came up with it overnight. I think he had been developing it, he had been building it. It seems fairly reasonable to me to suspect that he saw what was going in the world and saw this as an alternative to the system that he didn’t like, I’m assuming he didn’t like it, and he got it built and put it out as soon as he could, because he saw what was going on in the world. I think the timing was definitely deliberate.
In terms of whether it would have made it not, I mean, that’s impossible to say, but what I do think I can say with some confidence is I think the fact that it came out when it did and what was going on in the world did help it without a doubt. I think people were obviously hurt by what had happened. I think a lot of people had suffered. I think people were fed up, I think people were open to the idea of some kind of an alternative and here comes an alternative, and I think a lot of people were open to it, and I think a really underappreciated aspect of the Bitcoin story is the degree to which it is a social movement, the degree to which people were disgusted with what was going on and looking for something to latch on to and latched on to Bitcoin passionately, and I’ve said this a few times. I think Bitcoin is essentially the third big reactionary movement to the financial crisis, and I think the tea party was one, I think the occupy movement was another, and I think Bitcoin was a third. I think to a large extent it is as much a social movement as a technological movement and that absolutely is because of the financial crisis.
Laura Shin:
That’s interesting. What about you, Nathaniel? Do you think it was a coincidence?
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah, that all sounds right to me. Yeah. I mean, when you think of the financial crisis this came out right after Lehman went bankrupt but the problems had been going on for months already, the problems at Bear Sterns, and so there was a lot of time for people to see what was evolving in the banking system and the problems there in order to get this thing out in response to that, and so I think yeah, it was probably a pretty conscious response to the crisis, and yeah, over time this has just played into…I mean, a lot of the audiences that have bought into this have been people who were disenchanted because of the financial crisis, so I think that really did lay the groundwork for it.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I have had a few sources tell me that that was one of the reasons they were motivated to learn more about it and why they latched on and started working in the area, but I wouldn’t say it’s as many as you would expect, so that’s kind of an interesting question, but another question, do you guys think that Bitcoin would’ve succeeded even if Satoshi hadn’t disappeared?
Nathaniel Popper:
I think that that has definitely helped Bitcoin. I mean, the anonymity, the whole nature of Satoshi I think has been enormously helpful to Bitcoin and has ironically, unexpectedly increased, I think, the trust that people have in it because there isn’t a person there with all of their human frailties that you can attach this to, and attach those frailties to Bitcoin and it sort of made it a blank slate that I think people could attach their own visions, ideas to.
Laura Shin:
And Paul what about you?
Paul Vigna:
I mean, you’re definitely right about that. I wonder though. I really do wonder. I think Nakamoto disappearing while it does kind of leave Bitcoin open as this thing for anyone to reinterpret as they desire, I also think when he left you can start marking…if you want to talk about the Bitcoin industry sector, community, whatever you want to call it, losing its focus. I think it started there, and I think once he left you ended up with a lot of people competing to make Bitcoin…to reshape Bitcoin in their own image and that eventually turned into the scaling debate and the scaling war and you had a big fight over it, and I think that…I personally think that kind of hurt Bitcoin.
I think if he had stuck around you would have had a more cohesive vision for what this is supposed to be even if he had remained anonymous or not anonymous, and I don’t know. I tend to think it was more of a problem than a benefit, Nakamoto disappearing.
Nathaniel Popper:
I mean, on the sort of leadership question I think there have been a lot of problems that have come up because Bitcoin hasn’t had a leader to guide it and I realize a lot of people in the Bitcoin community think that’s a good thing and that those problems are good problems, but I think it is worth noting that when Satoshi left there was a leader and it was Gavin, Gavin Andresen, and I think Gavin did a pretty good job of keeping everybody together for the next two or three years. I mean, Bitcoin was a pretty coherent community and I think Gavin was, I think, a pretty good opensource leader and being willing to recognize his own failings and letting other people win arguments. He wasn’t at all…he called himself a benevolent dictator in the same style of Linus, the head Linux, and I think it was really when Gavin stepped back that I think a lot of the problems came forward, so I think there is…there are problems that come when you don’t have leaders.
As I mentioned, I think a lot of people think those problems are good problems for Bitcoin, they’re kind of a challenge that Bitcoin has to overcome, but I think those challenges really started more when Gavin stepped down than when Satoshi did.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I actually want to return to this governance question because I do agree with you that yeah, I think since Satoshi did have this successor, which was Gavin that kind of prevented this power struggle from taking place, and then afterward I think Gavin did not really appoint somebody, and so that was when the political issues took over. So, one other question is there have been, obviously, many previous attempts at creating a digital money. Obviously, many of them failed. In fact, they all failed prior to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin itself there have been all these price crashes, and there have been all these people who’ve declared it dead, and there’s all these attacks from people, and there’s forks, and these other blockchains and everything, but why do you think Bitcoin has survived and not just survived but as I mentioned earlier, come from nothing to being worth six thousand dollars, or whatever it is today?
Paul Vigna:
I mean, I think one simple answer for that is it’s pretty well built. I mean, for what its core function is, which is allowing two people anywhere on the planet, as long as they have an internet connection, to exchange value directly without an intermediary. It works, I mean it does that. If I had a wallet and Nathaniel has a wallet and I wanted to send him five bucks I can send him five bucks. I mean, that absolutely works, and I think that it’s built well to do that. I think another good feature of its software is that it is self-sustaining. I mean, he built it so that it could “run” on its own. Obviously, there are people running the software but essentially the network runs on its own. That aspect of it also works, and I think those two things together are a big reason why it survived, and I think those are big reason that people saw so much potential in it and were willing to put in the time to try to make it better, or put in the time to try to come up with an alternative that was even better, and you see the communities to come around to do that, so I do think…for what it is I think it’s a very elegant system and I think it works well.
Nathaniel Popper:
I focus more on the community element that Paul mentioned earlier. Again, I think Bitcoin survives as long as people want to use it and want to support it and want to plug into it, and I think the idea that it’s this decentralized thing, also the opensource element of it, but also going back to Satoshi the idea that there is no leader. There’s no sense that somebody else is in charge gives everybody a sense that they really have a stake in this, and that sense that people have a stake in it they’re willing to invest in this. I mean, it’s just makes people want to use it and makes people want to keep using it because once they have them they want them to be worth more, and so it sort of turns everybody into marketers for the whole thing, and I think just getting people to market your product for you is brilliant, and to some degree it’s also what Ponzi schemes do. Once somebody’s bought in, they want it to keep going because they want o keep benefiting from it, and you’ve got those sort of incentives, right.
I’m not necessarily saying it is a Ponzi scheme but it kind of shares some of the things that make Ponzi schemes work, and that’s just getting people in who want to keep working.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I had a small thread about that in my TEDx talk and I saw that…I think it was Kyle Samani on Twitter tweeted something about how Bitcoin’s like Ponzi. It might’ve Ari Paul, I forget. It was one or the other, and people got really, really angry, but you’re right that it does have that element.
Paul, what were you going to say?
Paul Vigna:
I was going to say, I think…piggybacking off of that I think another aspect of this is the fact that for what Bitcoin is it really does kind of fit in with the way we live our lives now. Our lives are lived online. Our lives are lived digitally. Through that, we are able to communicate around the world. I mean, I’m old enough to know that when I was growing up my friends were all people I knew in town, maybe…I didn’t have pen pals, but if you knew anybody in another country, they were probably a relative or a pen pal, and now kids are growing up and they have friends all over the world because they’re online. Their lives are digital, their lives are mobile, and I think Bitcoin really fits in with the way our lives are going, the direction that our lives are going, and whether or not it ends up being Bitcoin I do think that eventually there is going to be an accepted internet money.
I just think that that is…again, I think that’s the direction we’re moving in and something is going to fill that need. It could be Bitcoin, it could be something else, but I think that’s another reason why it works is I think people intuitively get it because of the way our digital lives have evolved.
Laura Shin:
We’re going to discuss decentralization, Bitcoin as a global reserve currency, and more but first I’d like to take a quick break for our fabulous sponsors.
Sponsor:
Unchained listeners can receive 25 dollars in Bitcoin just for getting started with Abra at abra.com/unchained. Abra’s all in one exchange and wallet lets everyone everywhere easily and securely invest in crypto with 28 cryptocurrencies available and the BIT10, the first easily accessible index. With as little as five dollars a month in BIT10, you can invest in an index of the top 10 cryptocurrencies, professionally rebalanced every month. Get started with 25 dollars in Bitcoin at abra.com/unchained.
OnRamp is a full service creative and design agency that has helped numerous companies, including many in the blockchain and crypto space, maximize their brand awareness, gain traction, and accelerate growth. Whether you’re a startup company launching a new brand or an established brand exploring a new campaign OnRamp has you covered. OnRamp has a passion for boosting business results and can help with everything from logo and website design to full creative execution. Focus on your core technology and leave the rest to OnRamp. To learn more and see how they’ve helped passionate entrepreneurs achieve their dreams go thinkonramp.com.
WeTrust helps you make the world a better place. WeTrust is a new fundraising platform that allows you to donate crypto to nonprofits that are changing the world for the greater good. WeTrust connects you to organizations you care about most, so you can support their work. To inspire you to give WeTrust will match your donation through Giving Tuesday on November 27. Go to wetrust.io/unchained to make your donation. If you want your crypto donations to go farther go to WeTrust.io/unchained and donate through November 27.
Laura Shin:
I am speaking with Nathaniel Popper, of the New York Times, and Paul Vigna, of the Wall Street Journal.
So, there was this period when the mantra on Wall Street was blockchain, not Bitcoin. What do you guys think of that idea now and what do you think the impact of blockchain technology applied to existing industries will be compared to Bitcoin and crypto assets?
Paul Vigna:
Do you want to go first, Nathaniel? That’s a good one.
Nathaniel Popper:
I mean, I think one of the difficulties that I’m having with the whole blockchain conversation as a reporter is that it’s really hard to tell what are the blockchain elements that somebody is putting into place and whether those elements are really the thing that is making this new system that somebody’s creating work, so I think one of the biggest announcements on this front has been Walmart forcing its suppliers to use their closed blockchain to trace food, and I think it’s just going to be really hard to tell how much they are just…they’ve just updated their databases and now have a database. You can have distributed databases before the blockchain. You can have people updated databases from different places before and it wasn’t a blockchain.
Now that may not be…Walmart may not have had that, and they may just be bringing something like that into play, and it’s really…really honing in on what is the blockchain element of it, what is this that distinguishes it from another kind of database and determining whether that is the thing that makes it successful rather than just somebody creating a better database. I mean, I think, at minimum Bitcoin and this conversation is clearly making everybody reevaluate their databases and put money into it because it seems cool now, and so I think stuff will come out of that. Companies will have better ways of tracking information, and that’s probably going to be big, and may be big in the near term. It’s just going to be really hard to tell how much the blockchain element of what they’re doing is the thing that makes it different, and I think it’s going to be useful to try to come to some agreements that we’re going to have to figure out ways of determining whether it is really a blockchain that’s making a difference in these context, but I do think there is real…I’m not one of these people who says blockchain doesn’t matter, that it’s just all hype.
I think there is something valuable to distributing databases, finding a way to create consensus around databases. There is something valuable and new there. It’s just really hard to tell how much new in blockchain is really in there.
Paul Vigna:
Yeah. It’s interesting too because I think it really gets to the very heart of what all this technology is about, and I think that that blockchain, not Bitcoin mantra started coming out, I think it was about 2015. Probably on Wall Street is where I first heard it, and I think at the time they thought maybe there’s something here. We don’t want to deal with Bitcoin but we can take the underlying code and we can rewrite it and make it our own thing and we’ll save some money on the back office, and this is going to be easy, and let’s do it, right, blockchain not Bitcoin, and I think as they tried that they realized that it was actually a lot harder than they thought to use this technology in a centralized…within a centralized infrastructure, and I think that’s really kind of the heart of it.
There is definitely something valuable in this technology. There is definitely something that it provides that we have not had before, a level of transparency that I think is really important, but figuring out how to do that within industries that have been built for generations, and generations upon centralized infrastructures where that information is not always not shared, that information is not always open that is a real point of friction, that is a real point of contention, and I think the banks figured that out quickly. They thought that they would just use it, and they’d save money in the backend. Oh, we can make everything digital, and we can record it, and it’s faster and cheaper, and we’ll fire some bean counters and that’ll be great, and then they realize that actually to do it properly involved providing a lot of information that they had never provided before and they didn’t want to provide, and I know a lot of the early blockchain efforts they fell apart because of that, because of the transparency and what the banks didn’t want to share, and now they’ve all kind of gone through an entire second generation of trying to figure out this technology and doing it in a way that that information is still protected even within a permissioned blockchain, even within in a closed loop blockchain, and I think they’re starting to get there, but this is going to be a really interesting thing to watch and this is going to play out over a very long time, is can we start to have a marketplace that is based more upon decentralized practices and infrastructures, whatever words you want to use, as opposed to the centralized ones we’ve always had, and that’s a lot about just changing people’s mindsets, and that’s probably more difficult than the technology, frankly.
Laura Shin:
Yeah. I said this in a recent episode where I answered listener questions, but I think ultimately blockchain applied in existing industries is just sort of fundamentally not revolutionary in the sense that if you’re just making what they already do more efficient then it’s just…they’re going to continue doing what they’re doing, whereas with Bitcoin and crypto assets you have these use or own delete or list networks with this crypto asset that’s incentivizing behaviors on the network. We haven’t seen that before. However, I do agree with you that I don’t know if we can say for sure that those will succeed. There’s been this idea put out there and there are a lot of projects that are trying to get such a network going, but it’s not clear yet how it will work or if it will work.
Let’s move on to governance, which came up before. That’s obviously been this huge point of contention in Bitcoin, which we mentioned about the scaling debate and stuff, so what lessons do you think are to be learned from that, and then leading from that there are all these blockchains that are trying to do on chain governance, what do you think the prospects are for those?
Nathaniel Popper:
This kind of taps back into that question you asked about where you changed your mind. I mean, I think one of the things that’s amazing about Bitcoin is how it has survived. I don’t know if you could say thrived but survived the lack of leadership. I mean, I definitely thought that that civil war was going to kill Bitcoin or lead to some new leadership, somebody taking over the miners, insisting on new developers. The way I understood the incentives I thought the miners had more control than they did, and I think, again, this goes back to the community element and the fact that users really did seem to like this leaderless structure that the new core devs after Gavin has brought in. They like the idea of this leaderless movement and sort of pushed for it and kept Bitcoin software under the core of the core developers without a clear leader.
I think it’s worked a lot better than you might have expected, or it’s kept its following better than I might have expected but that has come with a bet that moving really slowly is going to be a good thing, and so far moving really slowly doesn’t seem to have hurt Bitcoin that much relative to other cryptocurrencies, but I do wonder if at some point that’s going to become a bigger problem if some of these things move faster and do start working and being able to do more than Bitcoin can. I mean right now Ethereum is still confronted by a lot of the same scaling problems, a lot of the same issues with growing that Bitcoin has. It hasn’t figured that out but they’re working very quickly to solve that and as are many others, and I just wonder if some of those succeed will Bitcoin still keep its place. Will slow development still be the best option, so I think that’s still an open question, but I feel like on these governance questions you just…it’s one of these areas where I am humble enough to say you just really…I’ve learned from expecting one thing and seeing a different thing enough times that you just really don’t know how these things are going to work out.
Laura Shin:
Yeah. Paul?
Paul Vigna:
Yeah. It’s funny, as you were talking Nathaniel, I was thinking about it and one thing that really just randomly popped into my head right now is there is a guy named Edward Bernays. I don’t know if you guys have ever heard of him.
Laura Shin:
No.
Paul Vigna:
Do you know who I’m talking about?
Laura Shin:
No.
Paul Vigna:
Okay. I am going really far field here, but I promise you I will come back. He was a PR man in the 1920s and he was kind of one of the creators of the modern public relations industry and he wrote a book called propaganda, and his whole point of the book was that democracy without a…without leadership democracy is complete chaos and you have to have people in charge, and in his mind propaganda was a tool to be used to keep people…to keep control and to keep democracy from just spinning out into chaos with a million people with a million opinions. You had to have a way to control people’s opinions. You had to have governance is what he was really talking about.
I think Bitcoin can survive without having one person in control, or even five people in control, but what it does need to have is…in any of these projects you need to have a clear vision of what it is, what it’s trying to achieve, and you have to have people dedicated to making that happen and who have the skills to keep that on target, and those people can change over time, the tools can change over time, but there has to be some idea where this is all going, and I think Bitcoin after Satoshi, certainly after Gavin, I think it splintered on where it was going and what4 it was going to be, and that was a problem, and I think that is a problem, and yeah Bitcoin survives, Bitcoin is still here. It’s not going anywhere but is it ever going to be anything? Is it really going to grow, and I think that’s going to be interesting over the next year because now you are starting to see the institutional interest form, right. You’re starting to see it become real things.
Fidelity is going to start trading it and they want to have a trading desk, and the backed project, but is anyone going to buy it, is anyone going to be interested, are they building anything that is going to be valuable to people? Are people going to be willing to buy this for any reason other than speculation? I don’t think we know what Bitcoin is going to be yet and I think that if you don’t have a group of people dedicated to that and building that out then it’s a problem, so I don’t think you need a dictator, but you need to have somebody who’s dedicated to building something valuable. Any project that doesn’t have that I don’t think is going anywhere no matter what the governance mechanism is however clever it is that they come up with.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I look at some of the governance chains and I wonder if, in a way, they’ve recognized this fundamental issue, which is that I do think these networks are like little mini political economies, I guess you could call them, or something.
Paul Vigna:
Right. Yeah.
Laura Shin:
People have compared the formulation of governance for any particular one of these crypto networks as formulating a constitution. Obviously, famously EOS did that, but I’ve heard some lawyers I know in this space say that watching the governance issues play out reminds them of what they learned in law school about the founding of the country and stuff, but then I do wonder oh, if they do succeed in formulating governance via the blockchain then are we going to end up in these situations where the US is in right now where you veer from one direction and then the opposing party gets control and then you veer in the direction, and back and forth, but I guess we’re a super long way from seeing whether or not that will happen.
Paul Vigna:
Yeah. I mean, look, do you have people that are dedicated to whatever the vision and the goal is and are willing to work towards that or do you have people who are interested in their own wealth, their own…using it for their own purposes and are they bending it to that? One’s a good governance, one’s bad governance.
Laura Shin:
Right. Yeah. Well, we’ll see.
Nathaniel Popper:
I mean I think it’s worth…this goes to one of my main questions at this point, which is all this is…we’re sort of talking here about whether these blockchains and the tokens on them can incentivize people to certain kinds of behavior, and the governance conversation, can these things be governed by voters. In some sense people making decisions on blockchains as a result of incentives you’ve set up, and I think one of thing that’s sort of worth recognizing at this point is there is very little evidence that the incentives used…that you can set up incentives, right, in order to create the behavior, you want, to create the governance system you want. I mean, doing that is so far from where we are today, and economists have been studying this for decades, like market design.
How do you create incentives to get the behavior you want, and it is so hard, even in a human governed system where you’re just trying to control for one element. There have been markets set up for kidney/liver transplants, and for charter school entry, and those are really hard to get right in a very limited sense, so the idea that you’re going to set these things up and create incentives and then everybody is going to behave the way you want them to is just really, really hard to believe because we can’t do that in the world. It’s never really been done in the crypto world.
The only thing the incentives have worked for so far is you give people money to hook their computers into the network, they will hook their computers into the network. That’s what the incentives in Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, have done so far and that’s a pretty crude incentive. The idea that you’re going to get specialized enough that you can create incentives so that people will do this as developers, and they won’t…these other people who are stakeholders will be able to vote on…I mean, it’s just like these are really complicated systems and we have very little evidence that they will work.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, this is why I always laugh when I think about how so many people before any of the big hard forks said, oh we’ll all just upgrade because everyone will go along with the main blockchain, and then Ethereum be the doubt…the hard fork happened, and obviously, that did not occur. So, I actually want to switch to decentralization.
You guys may not have read Carlota Perez’s book, but it doesn’t matter if you haven’t. Technology Revolutions and Financial Capital, but in it she talks about how new technologies generally enter and become successful at times when the previous technologies have matured, and the downsides of that technology has become evident, and so obviously in recent years we’ve seen stuff with centralized services being prone to hacking and manipulation, like with the Equifax hack and the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica examples being some of the most notable. On the other hand, as we’ve just talked about decentralized services are not necessarily easy to get off the ground and make successful, and then on top of that people have to, for instance, become their own bank, manage their own security, and so far people have been pretty happy to sign away their rights for convenience, so how much do you think that these issues we’re seeing centralized services could help the growth of Bitcoin, or do you think that people dot’ care enough?
Nathaniel Popper:
I can start and say that I think that it will not matter at all. It will not help Bitcoin at all. People want services that work and if your service doesn’t work…if it doesn’t work better than the competitor, I don’t think privacy is going to be the deciding factor other than for .5 percent of the population. There is a group that wants to use Signal, that wants to use PGP mail. Even that number is…that technology has sort of failed to take off. It’s amazing how even in a privacy community people can’t get other people sending crypto email to them, so it’s just like…I think there is an audience for that. It’s tiny, and other than that if you dot’ have a better product you’re not going to win. If you don’t have a product that works better, it’s not going to win.
I don’t see people…I mean, I think people distrust Facebook and may move off it to other kinds of services but they’re going to not move off to decentralized services. They’re just going to move off to things that seem a little more trustworthy to them.
Paul Vigna:
Right. You’re absolutely right, and it comes down to define better. To most people better is going to just mean faster, easier, more intuitive, something more convenient.
Nathaniel Popper:
More fun. Yeah.
Paul Vigna:
Fun. Right. If you’re someone out there listening to this and you think privacy is a big issue and you want to build a better Facebook make it better in terms of privacy and make it better in terms of usability, it has to be both of those things, and if you did that then yeah maybe you could have it work, but if you built something that is really secure, and private and no North Korean hackers could ever get your information out if it but it sucks in terms of the user experience no one’s going to use it. No one’s going to use it.
Laura Shin:
So, this next question is a little bit long. It deals with regulation, but I happened to see this speech that one of the CFTC commissioners, Brian Quintenz, gave recently, and he was dissecting how the CFTC might regulate some of the illegal activity that might happen on these decentralized networks and he kind of talked about how there are different people who, for instance…do the example he gave was prediction markets where there might be illegal prediction markets, and so he broke it down into the people who contributed to that market, which would be the core developers who created the protocol, so in the case of Augur that would be, I guess, the Ethereum developers. Then he said miners and users of that protocol, so miners and users of Ethereum.
The third group was the developers of the smart contract code, so I guess that’s the developers of Augur, and then fourth were the people who create the individual prediction markets, and then he said that the appropriate question is whether these codevelopers could reasonably foresee, at the time they created the code, that it would likely be used by US persons in a manner violative of CFTC regulations, and he says, in this case, the code was specifically designed to enable the price type of activity regulated by the CFTC, and no effort was made to preclude its availability to US persons, so in that case a strong case could be made that the codevelopers aided and embedded the violations of CFTC regulations and so the CFTC could prosecute those people.
What do you make of that interpretation and how do you think regulators can and should regulate smart contract code that is just sort of running on its own?
Nathaniel Popper:
I will say for myself I am not nearly enough of an expert in the law or smart contracts to know. Although, I think you’ve been hearing that kind of thing from lawyers for a while, so the fact that people are so surprised by it is, to me, a little surprising. I mean, he kind of narrowed in on a very specific question, which is you didn’t just create the system that the contracts run on but you created the contract and it sort of goes to the most extreme example you create a contract where you can plug in a name and say if x person is killed by this date this contract will pay out this. I think it’s like who wouldn’t expect that law enforcement would go after the person who wrote that contract.
Even if there was no specific law governing that of course people would…of course law enforcement would try to go after that. They would try to find a way to discourage people from doing that. I think if you work backward from that example, if you create a contract that allows you to bet on something that you’re not allowed to bet on in the United States, I mean, of course, law enforcement’s going to come after you and they’re going…I mean, they’re going to try to stop this. Maybe a judge will ultimately decide that’s free speech and you can do it, but it’s going to…law enforcement’s not going to let some market that’s illegal in the rest of the economy just exist over here because the underlying market is somehow decentralized.
If somebody wrote that contract they’re probably going to be responsible for it, and if they’re anonymous or they’re operating behind a VPN you can probably imagine that law enforcement is going to try to figure out where the VPN’s coming from, what the real IP address, who that person is, so it doesn’t seem terribly surprising to me, but I…and I think you’ve seen a lot of lawyers out there saying that they expected that this would happen. I may be missing some of the nuances though, so I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know smart contracts all that well.
Laura Shin:
All right. We’re going to do actually like sort of a lightning round through the last few questions. Do you guys think that Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency could become a global reserve currency?
Paul Vigna:
Yeah, if it’s called the US digital dollar sure.
Laura Shin:
But only if it’s a digital version of the US dollar?
Paul Vigna:
No. I think at some point you really have effectively digitized national currencies and one of them will be a reserve currency, whether it’s the dollar, or the yuan, or whatever, but I mean do I think an independent cryptocurrency like Bitcoin will ever become a worlds reserve currency?
Laura Shin:
Yeah.
Paul Vigna:
I have a harder time seeing that. I don’t want to say no because anything can happen, but I have a hard time seeing that.
Laura Shin:
Nathaniel?
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah, I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s possible, but it seems very unlikely.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I think it could happen but just not in our lifetimes. We’ll definitely be dead before it happens, that’s what I think. In general, there’s just a lot of shadiness in this space. We’ve seen all this concern about Tether, which is currently the most popular stable coin but it’s not clear whether or not it is truly fully backed, and I see a lot of behaviors that…it’s not outright fraud or scams but it’s probably stuff that regulators don’t necessarily have the resources to catch, so what do you think can be done to prevent or stop such behavior?
Paul Vigna:
Look, to completely stop it, nothing, and that’s one of the things that I think a regulator is going to have to learn to live with is the fact that when you’re talking about these kinds of decentralized systems when you’re talking about…there’s essentially no barrier to entry to come up with one of these scams. You’re not going to be able to effectively squelch that 100 percent, but what you can do is you can put up a set of rules for law-abiding people to follow and expect them to follow it, and I think you’re seeing that, and I think what you’re going to end up with is sort of a two-pronged market.
One, which is made up of businesses and users that want to follow the rules and are willing to do that, and one of people that don’t want to do that, and I think the first one will be the larger, the second one will be the smaller and you’re just going to have to deal with the fact that both exist.
Laura Shin:
Yeah. I actually think the market is already like that.
Paul Vigna:
Yeah, I mean real markets are like that and you’re just going to have a crypto version of the same thing.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, so the other thing I wanted to ask about leading off from that is we’re starting to see bad state actors, like Venezuela, and North Korea, and Iran trying to use crypto to evade sanctions, or raise funds, or whatever it is they’re trying to do, so what negative effects do you foresee that this technology could unleash in the world?
Nathaniel Popper:
I think a lot of it is more of the same of the kind of bad behavior that already exists, so money laundering, those sorts of things are definitely possible here. I still think that the scariest things going on around this are…that really weren’t as easy in the old world are ransom, kidnapping, murder kind of stuff. I mean, that’s the part that scares me the most when you hold your own assets, and it just was a lot harder to send a ransom payment 10 years ago, and it just got to be a whole lot easier, and it wasn’t impossible before. You could send a suitcase full of cash, but somebody needed to take the cash to deliver it and that’s not necessary anymore, and to me, that’s still the scariest stuff that goes beyond. Iran and North Korea they were abler to do a lot of this stuff before. They had digital banking capabilities that got around the United States, but I don’t know. That’s the stuff that scares me the most.
Paul Vigna:
I’ll tell you what I think is the scariest, and I don’t think this is realistic, but in a very dystopian way the scariest thing is that a big government, say the United States, will figure out how to digitize their currency and will figure out that if you do that you actually can have an incredible amount of control over how people spend that currency because you can track everything, because you can know where all the money is going and where it’s flowing, and you can have a government that was not necessarily…and now I’m not talking about the United States, but I mean, say you had a government that was not dedicated to the rule of law and was not dedicated to allowing its people the maximum amount of freedom without any civic harm.
You can have a government that could use this currency and really control what their people and citizens do, and to me, that’s pretty scary actually. Theoretically, it is not infeasible at all. I mean, it certainly could happen.
Laura Shin:
Yeah. In fact, that may be precisely why we always hear that China is really interested in doing a digital yuan.
Paul Vigna:
Yeah. I mean, think of it, if you had a government that didn’t want their citizens to buy cigarettes, or didn’t want their citizens…you can really…now, will you get a black market? Of course, you will, but you can have a government come down pretty hard on things that they consider important.
Laura Shin:
Yeah. Speaking of Asia, obviously, we did see that crypto took off in a huge way in Korea where I think, not something like 30 percent of Koreans have bought crypto, so based on either observations that you made reporting on what happened in Korea or just anything else that you see going on in this space what do you think it will take to make Bitcoin, or any other crypto asset, widely adopted? We keep talking about how nobody’s using it. What do you think it will take to make that happen?
Paul Vigna:
I think comprehensive and smart regulations to the United States. I don’t think we have that right now, and you have a lot of regulators. So, I think actually you have very nuanced views on this. I think the regulators in the US have really caught up and they’re smart about it, but you don’t have a comprehensive set of regulations like you have in, say, Japan and what you end up with is a lot of regulators trying to figure it out on their own, so I think that’s one aspect of it.
The other aspect is just the user interfaces. I mean, you still don’t have a way to get this out to people that it becomes very easy for them to use, and until you get that I don’t…that’s what I think it would take, at least in the United States, to really send this mainstream.
Nathaniel Popper:
I mean, to me beyond any of that, you just need something where this is useful, like where money that’s outside the control of the centralized entity is useful.
Laura Shin:
Aside from buying drugs online.
Nathaniel Popper:
Right. I mean, that is useful, and the people will use it for that, and that’s real. I mean that shows that this can do something that other money can’t, but what else is this useful for. I mean I feel like for…I think the two things that seemed the most convincing to me at various points were remittances and micropayments, and neither have them have gone anywhere and that may be because of scaling, maybe because of user interface, but it’s not that…you can send money not that expensively in a lot of these places, or if it is expensive it’s even more expensive to do it with Bitcoin right now, and from smaller countries with smaller currencies, but you just…I feel like you just have to find somewhere where this is useful to people.
I mean it’s useful to speculate on because it goes up and down a lot and you can make money doing that, trading on it, but again those are the two things that I heard about that at various points seemed realistic to me and they haven’t happened, and I don’t what will be the thing that will happen or if there will be anything that happens, but it’s definitely not inevitable that it will happen. I mean, I’ll say that. Going back to some of your first questions about the internet, everybody…one of the things that I always come back to is that everybody loves this comparison to the internet and the fact that the internet kind of sucked early on, and so it got to be really good so that means that Bitcoin, which sort of sucked early on, is going to get good. I mean, the thing that people don’t recognize is there are a lot of other technologies that sucked early on that continued to suck and then they died, and I feel like that’s a very plausible path for this.
It’s not necessarily the only path, but just because something isn’t useful early on but has big ambitions doesn’t mean those ambitions will be fulfilled. The fact that the internet worked is probably more the outlier than the normal path that these technologies take.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I love it.
Paul Vigna:
Beta max lovers would agree with you. One other thing I would say on that point is an interesting thing is you look at credit cards, right, and credit cards…look at what credit cards offer to users, in terms of loyalty points, rewards, the fact that if a transaction is fraudulent you can get a charge…
Nathaniel Popper:
Chargebacks.
Paul Vigna:
Exactly. Right.
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah. Chargebacks, which was supposed to be this great thing that everybody is going to move to Bitcoin for. I love chargebacks.
Paul Vigna:
Right. Exactly. In an open marketplace of payment options Bitcoin has to outcompete those things and it has to have enough pros to it and right now it doesn’t yet.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I just want to throw in my two cents, which is I think it’s going to take off in investing or in games in some fashion, because already, obviously, we did see this disruption of VC with ICOs, so in that way you can already see that this is useful for something in the finance realm, and I also think that there are a lot of gamers who see some use for crypto goods and other things, and those people are already used to digital money, so that’s where I’m looking right now.
All right, so one of the questions I want to ask you is, so far we’ve had all these people in this space talk about how crypto can democratize access to finance, but so far a lot of what has happened is that people who got in early just have become very rich, so do you think this is all talk and we’ll never see democratization come out of crypto, or do you think down the line we will see crypto helping to address issues of financial access and income, and wealth, and equality?
Paul Vigna:
I really don’t know. I will say I hope so. I think it’s a really good…again, you talk about goals. I think that is a really good goal to strive towards and I think the potential is there but it’s a really big issue. It’s a really big question, and again, you have to have people involved who not only have that vision but can understand how to make it happen and then be dedicated to making it happen, and that’s big. That is really difficult to do, so I would love to see it happen I just don’t know.
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah. I mean, it’s going to depend on it working, and I think…so, to me, the immediate question is like, is this going to be useful to people and usable, and it’s…again, it is currently available to a small elite but I think the other…one of the elements of this sort of…the way inequality is built into this is that you do have to understand technology. Certainly now you have to understand the technology to make it work, and when people talk about using it to democratize things they talk about creating better user interfaces, but usefully it’s a more centralized service where you lose the decentralized element of it, and I guess the question is can you get a service that is useful to people who don’t understand technology well but still somehow takes advantage of the decentralized elements of this.
Until then, it’s only going to be available to people who have technical expertise, and those people are going to tend to be the people who are already powerful and wealthy, and it’s just going to make them more powerful and wealthy, and I think that’s what you’ve seen so far, so it’s certainly a journey to get to a different place where it’s moving in the other direction.
Laura Shin:
Yeah, I think it is so easy to make money. We’ll have to find people who are not motivated by greed to do this. Okay, so last question. I’m going to make it easy for you guys. Instead of only asking for predictions I’ll you ask…I’ll let you say what your biggest predictions are, and or your biggest questions for the next 10 years about Bitcoin or crypto in general.
Paul Vigna:
Wow. All right. Let me think about that for a second.
Nathaniel Popper:
For the next 10 years, I guess, maybe taking off from the first 10 years and where people were at the beginning of this is that there are all these kind of slots that people…there are these accepted narratives of what’s going to happen, and I feel like probably my main prediction is that they’re all going to be wrong because I think a lot of the accepted narratives of where Bitcoin was going to go 10 years ago and those five people commenting on the cryptography mailing list, those were really smart people, and they all ended up being wrong except maybe Hal Finney, but maybe not, but people just don’t know the unexpected ways that things evolve and the chaos and the way that this little push here throws something that pushes something in the totally unexpected direction, so I think playing into my own uncertainty I think my main expectation is that it’s going to continue to evolve in ways that probably most people aren’t anticipating.
Paul Vigna:
I don’t know about predictions, but I think the things that I would look out for over the next several years to 10 years, whatever, is people love to talk about currency and the three characteristics of a currency, right. That it’s a unit of account, means of exchange, and a store of value, right. Bitcoin is not a unit of account, it’s not going to be. It is not currently a means of exchange, it’s not being used as that, so now you’re at the point where people are pushing the store of value narrative. That’s going to be really interesting to watch over the next year or two years to see if that goes anywhere, because if that doesn’t go anywhere and the others don’t go anywhere then I don’t know what Bitcoin’s future is.
Laura Shin:
All right. Well, we’ll leave it at that and I will sidestep my own question about questions and predictions.
For our listeners who have not read the white paper, I urge you to do so. I actually really loved this white paper. I don’t understand everything in it but it’s pretty interesting when you read it, so if you’ve never read it definitely look it up on the internet. Paul and Nathaniel, where can people find you on Twitter, or the internet, or wherever?
Paul Vigna:
Twitter is easy, it’s just @paulvigna. My stuff is on WSJ.com, books are on Amazon. That’s pretty much it.
Laura Shin:
Nathaniel?
Nathaniel Popper:
Yeah, I’m @nathanielpopper on Twitter, and my email address is there, the book is there, and the New York Times, all that in one place.
Laura Shin:
Okay. Great. Well. Thank you both for coming on Unchained.
Paul Vigna:
Thank you.
Nathaniel Popper:
Thanks for having us.
Paul Vigna:
Yeah.
Laura Shin:
Thanks, so much, for joining us today. To learn more about Nathaniel and Paul check out the show notes inside your podcast player. New episodes of Unchained come out every Tuesday. If you haven’t already, rate, review, and subscribe on Apple podcasts. If you like this episode share it with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn, and if you’re not yet subscribed to my other podcast, Unconfirmed, I highly recommend you check it out and subscribe now.
Unchained is produced by me, Laura Shin, with help from Raelene Gullapalli, Fractal Recording, Jennie Josephson, and Daniel Nuss. Thanks for listening.
