Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

Centralized Exchanges are

Governments’ Control Over Crypto


Rafael LaVerde

Blockstream’s Liquid Empowers Unnecessary Exchanges

Blockstream launched its ​Liquid Federated Sidechain​. Its sidechain aims to create more liquidity within
crypto exchanges.

“The Liquid Network is comprised of a group of exchanges, traders, and financial


institutions from 9 countries across 4 continents. The current list of members is:
Altonomy, Atlantic Financial, Bitbank, Bitfinex, Bitmax, BitMEX, Bitso, BTCBOX,
BTSE, Buull Exchange, DGroup, Coinone, Crypto Garage, GOPAX (operated by
Streami), Korbit, L2B Global, OKCoin, The Rock Trading, SIX Digital Exchange,
Unocoin, Xapo, XBTO, and Zaif.”

If you carefully read the Blockstream FAQ on Liquid, you will see that they interestingly interchange the
words “chain” for “exchanges.” Remember that blockchains are the settlement layers that matter the most
within a ​Byzantine Fault Tolerant​ system.

Liquid opens up a whole new meta structure of crypto-governance. It is a Proof of Stake (PoS) like system
where each exchange has an equal vote; it is infact one vote per exchange or financial institution:

“Liquid is operated by its members. Blockstream has no control over the network and
only serves as a technology provider to the network members. Liquid can continue
indefinitely even if Blockstream ceased to exist or if the members no longer wanted to
receive support from Blockstream.”

What does this mean for the decentralized crypto governance of all bitcoin sibling chains and other crypto
currencies? How does this new structure of governance affect the sovereignty of coins? What has Blockstream
facilitated with this innovation?

It is extremely important that we keep an eye on this for 2019. Although this sounds like a geeky Blockstream
science experiment- which is not even needed or necessary- it could end up having nefarious consequences.

Remember that exchanges were never intended for an anarchist system of P2P exchange. P2P exchange is the
technical augmentation of what market anarchy is based on- voluntary exchange.

We never needed exchanges. In the early days when Bitcoin was a novelty, libertarians, freedom-fighters,
agorists, and anarchists viewed exchanges as just being a mere fad that increased temporary adaptability. To

www.DollarVigilante.com 32
us, it was just a stupidity that was to pass over time. We saw MtGox as a fool’s means of attaining crypto. We
still see exchanges as the easy “noob” means of attaining crypto.

Why is that? Well we knew that KYC/AML compliance is a ridiculous means of attaining crypto.
Bitcoin/crypto is suppose to be a P2P currency, not a P-2-KYC/AML-2-P. We knew that the use of KYC/AML
exchanges could very well mean the commencement of mass surveillance within our agorist economy.

Furthermore, we rationale- and still predict- that the power of the exchange will cease to exist. We contend
that Bitcoin/crypto global adoption would go through three main stages;

The first stage would be the attainment of crypto by people (“noobs”) that bought directly from the KYC/AML
exchange. These people are those new to the technology. These are the candidates of which we expect the
plausible deniability for the existence of the exchanges to hold. These individuals are those that did not have
any other means of attaining crypto but by using their fiat bank account and blasting their slave identities to
the global “authorities”.

The second stage of adoption is the stage in which the attainers of crypto in the first stage pass on their
crypto- via voluntary exchange- to users who are not registered to exchanges. The participants of this second
stage of adoption are not directly known to the “authorities” via KYC/AML. However, they are not completely
transparent via current ​blockchain analysis​.

The third stage of adoption is what we anarchists hope for. This is where the “authorities” start losing power
over their control of the market. This is the stage in which users from the second stage voluntarily exchange
crypto with users of the third stage. The users of the third stage of adoption are at the beginning of
commencing a true world of P2P crypto exchange for goods and services.

We need to push beyond this third stage of adoption as we move crypto onwards; That is, we need to move
the crypto market as far away as possible from KYC/AML platforms!

Centralize Exchanges + Blockchain Analysis = Deadly Combination

The situation is so dire with blockchain analysis, that at TDV we have dubbed any coin that does not have
privacy on-chain by default as a Surveillance Coin. BTC, BCH, and BSV are transparent surveillance coins.
Please revisit our ​August Dispatch TDV issue​ for a complete rundown on the importance of this topic. We
simply need to move beyond these transparent Surveillance Coins.

On top of the issue with Surveillance Coins, we are now faced with a centralized exchange cartel that has been
positioned by Blockstream to operate as a global government of crypto.

We have already begun to see the government go after half-ass versions of decentralized exchanges. The now
famous ​case of EtherDelta​ stands as testament that the SEC, and rest of world-wide bureauc-rats, will readily
go after anything that is slightly centralized. EtherDelta was a trading platform for Ethereum ERC-20 tokens.
The EtherDelta founder paid $388,000 in theft (fines) as part of his “cooperation” with the government.
Mr. X and I will be promoting and teaching- with tutorials- the correct means of exchanging, and
safeguarding, your crypto in the upcoming Crypto Vigilante Newsletter. In our ​September TDV issue​, we
introduced ​Bisq​. Bisq is a true decentralized exchange that we highly recommend. We recommend it so much

www.DollarVigilante.com 33
that future subscribers of the Crypto Vigilante Newsletter will have detailed step by step instructions on how
to use Bisq.

Exchanges are enticing. There are alternatives to KYC/AML. If you had to use a centralized KYC/AML
exchange to get your crypto, its okay- it is not the end of the world. Just know that we all need to transition
away from these KYC/AML exchanges. We can’t use them forever.

For many years it has been hypothesized within crypto anarchist circles that KYC/AML exchanges will cease
to exist. This is true because they are fundamentally not necessary.

Now that alternatives like Bisq exist, government violence- and threats of violence- will only entice people to
use true decentralize exchanges. The EtherDelta incident, although not a completely a true decentralized
exchange, created the beginning of the ​Streisand Effect​ needed for people to look into decentralized
exchanges. Another example of the Streisand Effect in crypto was ​Coinbase users getting audited by the IRS​.

If you do a Duck Duck Go search (don’t use Google) of pros and cons of centralized exchanges, many of the
authors will list old-world financial strategies as their reasonings for why KYC/AML exchanges is a pro. We
know this is ridiculous. The vast majority of crypto “experts” are for KYC/AML centralized exchanges. These
are dangerous people.

“Capital controls are people controls.” — Ron Paul

It is of utmost important that people come to understand the importance of safeguarding their privacy. It is
our commitment at TDV to further this mission.

Crypto is about freedom, not control. P2P cryptographic currencies are meant to be used without any third
party. You will still be able to trade in the future, but you will be kept safe within a true decentralized
exchange. In these decentralized exchanges you hold/control your own keys/crypto as you exchange. In these
decentralized exchanges no permission is required for you to participate freely with other anonymous people
throughout the world. Let’s please move onwards towards decentralized exchanges- like Bisq- before it is too
late.

We call upon everyone in our TDV family to help with this. It is up to YOU to make sure we don’t fall into
tyranny. These KYC/AML centralized exchanges are amassing too much influence within the development of
actual crypto communities. With Blockstream facilitating a government like structure for these centralized
exchanges, we must stay alert and act accordingly. Blockstream has potentially just created and unleashed a
monster of surveillance via the total government control of all centralized exchanges. Please do not take this
warning lightly. Blockstream frames this under the guise of good intentions. Stay vigilant!

BCH (ABC) Checkpoints with Exchanges

During the Bitcoin Cash hash war, the ABC camp coordinated with almost all of the exchanges as a defensive
move. They checkpointed directly to the exchanges their entire transaction history to avoid any deep reorg
attack by the BSV camp. Remember that checkpointing is akin to PoS-light. The exchanges became an anchor
for the historical transactions of the BCH (ABC) blockchain.

www.DollarVigilante.com 34
Again, this is the cause for the world resounding ​“we fucked-up”​ that occured on the BCH (ABC) side. Many
anarchists and libertarians are furious for BCH (ABC) checkpointing unto centralized exchanges. The only
checkpoint that a true Proof of Work (PoW) blockchain must have is the genesis block, and nothing else.
Some are beginning to call this Proof of Exchanges.

The genesis block is what should be our one and only anchor to the historical transactions of Bitcoin, not
favoritism by exchanges. Remember that BTC also checkpointed during the BTC and BCH hard fork of
August 2017.

Against Proof of Exchanges

The only Bitcoin sibling chain that has not checkpointed has been the BSV blockchain version of Bitcoin. This
is just a mere fact. Take this into account. BSV is positioning itself to be completely different than the other
bitcoin sibling chains.

The BCH (ABC) chain now depends on exchanges for the safeguarding of its entire network. It is by means of
coordination with exchanges that the main developer groups of BCH (ABC) were able to split the chain from
the BSV faction.

On our ​November TDV issue​ ​we explained in detail how the Bitcoin Cash hash war had no replay protection-
as initiated by the BSV camp. Subsequently, on our ​November Trade Update​ we showed how the ABC (now
BCH) camp had to play a defensive game to keep the BSV camp from attacking with a deep reorg of the ABC
blockchain. Furthermore, ​keep in mind​ how the BSV camp wanted chain unification, while the ABC camp
wanted a chain split. This chain split was only possible by the ABC camp coordinating with exchanges.

We recommended to our subscribers that they not split their UTXO’s during, or right after, the Bitcoin Cash
hash war. If you HODL your Bitcoin Cash throughout the fork, you would now have one BSV for every BCH
you possess.

BSV is currently trading around ​$92.88​, and BCH (ABC) trading around ​$139.18​. BSV has a market cap of
$1,628,103,516, and BCH has a market cap of $2,435,794,918.

www.DollarVigilante.com 35
BTC + BCH = Legitimize Meta Crypto Governance via Exchanges

The ABC (now BCH) camp legitimized the governance of exchanges within the development of a crypt0
currency. This is both unsettling and enraging!

BCH was supposed to be the BTC alternative; that is, the BTC market adversary. Now, the BCH (ABC) camp
complimented BTC’s (Blockstream’s) Liquid invention by means of actually having the exchanges determine
the course of development within the Bitcoin hash war of their own bitcoin sibling blockchain.

This is inexcusable. Roger Ver and Amaury Sechet owe us crypto anarchists either an apology or an
explanation.

The stage has been set for this new cartel of centralized exchanges to determine the future of crypto. BTC
created the platform (Liquid) under the guise of good intentions. BCH legitimized the existence of this meta
crypto governance structure by relying on it for its own crypto governance and development.

The stage has been set by both BTC and BCH for KYC/AML exchanges to govern over crypto currencies
development and market.

The Attack Against Centralized Exchanges

The BSV camp hates centralized exchanges. The BSV camp has pledged to destroy the centralized exchanges
via offensive mining. ​Sharkpool​ ​aims to destroy other smaller PoW cryptos- while profiting in BSV. This is an
indirect attack against exchanges because it is a push to scare people away from smaller coins unto BSV. The
less coins exist in the cryptoverse, the worst off centralized exchanges are. Exchanges depend on there being
many coins in the market.

The other offensive mining attack method is via future possible attacks of BSV against the BTC and BCH
blockchains.

In offensive mining the attacker has the advantage over the one being attacked. The attacker has to have all of
its interests aligned. There cannot be any conflict of interests. This is why the ABC camp could not attack the
BSV camp back; ​Bitmain​’s (of the ABC faction) bottom line is aligned with that of the exchanges- the more
coins the better for them.

Offensive mining attackers must also be in line with what is best for the true free-market. That is, your
incentives must be aligned with what is best for the market. Offensive miners operate under the
understanding that a coin’s network effect determines its value. The offensive miner motto is “there can only
be one!” They are hardcore ​Bitcoin Maximalists​, Austrian Economists, that believe that the market will
eventually choose one main crypto currency. They champion ​Hyperbitcoinization​. They strongly believe that
if you do not understand praxeology, you will be wrecked as an offensive or defensive miner.

Offensive miners desire overall to push all of PoW mining around the safeguarding of only one coin. They see
this as being the most censorship resistant coin. That is, the coin which is governed strictly by the power of
the market as dictated by the miners. They are mining supremacists. They hate the concept of Proof of
Exchange, and they stand at odds with the exchanges bottom line by fighting against a world of various coins.

www.DollarVigilante.com 36
In other words, the offensive miner operates with confidence in the power of the market- knowing that his
mining strategy is the most profitable. They wish to outcompete less profitable mining strategies. Eventually,
they envision their intelligent strategy as the means of attracting other miners to mine with them.

Offensive miners challenge the intelligence of other miners. To be a miner is nothing for them. What matters
is that you be an intelligent miner. If you compete with these miners you will win if your strategy is more
profitable than their strategy. If you prove yourself by means of enabling more profit, they will join you.

Mining is becoming an intelligent race towards excellence. Offensive miners are intelligent miners. These
miners are leaders, not followers. They want you to compete with them. They challenge everyone to compete
with them.

Contrary to these profit seeking capitalist miners, we now have those who side with KYC/AML centralized
exchanges. These that side with the control structure of centralized exchanges do not trust in the power of the
free-market. They do not want to compete. They have aligned themselves with TPTSB via the government
enforced monopoly of KYC/AML laws.

Don’t fall for the excuse that centralized exchanges provide market liquidity or market competition.
Regulated competition is not free-market competition at all!​ As long as these centralized exchanges
operate under KYC/AML, they operate under government control. These exchanges exist to control crypto.
Be careful. ​If you side with the exchanges, you side with the government’s control over crypto.

Rafael LaVerde

www.DollarVigilante.com 37

Potrebbero piacerti anche