Why You Can’t Have A PPE Curriculum Without Bitcoin

In 1920, the toffs at the University of Oxford decided that those students with ambitions of entering public service needed a better degree to equip them for a modern, post-War world. They reasoned that, in order to understand social phenomena and govern effectively, you must have a firm grasp of philosophy, ethics and reasoning, politics and its history, and finally, economics.

The degree known as “philosophy, politics and economics” (PPE) would be born, and first delivered at Oxford in 1921, with no less than an Oscar winner, a princess, two Nobel Laureates, three British Prime Ministers, 12 non-U.K. prime ministers (representing Australia, Pakistan, Peru and Thailand), three foreign presidents (representing Ghana, Peru and Pakistan), and hundreds of other highly-senior members of public service all graduating. This excludes all the alumni from the hundreds of world-leading universities that now also provide a PPE degree.

Whether or not the degree has fulfilled the ambitions of its creators could be debated, but the logic of the program is sound. In order to understand complicated social phenomena, your knowledge needs to be deep and broad. In the 1920s, philosophy, politics and economics were probably enough to do the trick, but in October 2021, 13 years after the release of the Bitcoin white paper, understanding of exponential technologies and how they’re built and adopted is now a critical fourth pillar.

But before we get into the PPE of the exponential technology that is Bitcoin, let’s quickly define what “social phenomena” are, and whether Bitcoin classifies as one.

What Are “Social Phenomena”?

The term “social phenomena” can be broadly defined as “events, trends or reactions that take place within an established human society … evidenced through collective modifications of behavior” — which could effectively mean anything.

Examples of social phenomena include market and consumer trends, popular political movements or rebellions, social trends like crime or poverty, and religious movements. Indeed, the most successful popular movements in history came about because they offer adherents a full “PPE stack” for life, i.e., Western democracy is underpinned by a completely different philosophical, political and economic model than, say, communism. Indeed, your economics are virtually inseparable from your politics and philosophy.

Based on the definition and aforementioned examples, it would be fair to call the invention of Bitcoin an event that affected “collective modifications of behavior” that has rebellious underpinnings and is frequently called a religion — whether as a proud admission, or as a sharp criticism. Now that we’ve determined that Bitcoin is a social phenomenon, let’s have a look at the PPE stack that Bitcoin offers its adherents.

Bitcoin Philosophy

There is no shortage of Bitcoin philosophers, and you could spend hundreds of hours reading about and listening to the different schools of philosophical thought. Despite this, there are certain philosophical elements that are universal, and many are alluded to in Bitcoin’s founding document, these are:

  • Bitcoin is voluntary and voluntary approaches are always superior to mandatory ones.
  • Bitcoin is open and maximum transparency allows for a maximum number of eyes looking at the code and sharing ideas. How does any individual entity possibly compete with this?
  • Bitcoin is fair. It cannot be created out of thin air or forcefully seized or redistributed. You must expend work in order to acquire bitcoin.
  • Decentralization is always preferable to centralization when it comes to money (and many other things).
  • Everyone has the right to send and receive value, without a third party, no exceptions — even for people we dislike. Either everyone is free to transact, or no one is.
  • A deflationary, fixed-supply asset is the superior money, and a peer-to-peer network that timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain validated by hash-based, proof of work is the best way to achieve this.
  • Everybody in the world should be able to easily keep a copy of Bitcoin at home so that everyone has the opportunity to be a truly sovereign Bitcoin citizen.
  • If you do not voluntarily hand over custody of your private keys, your bitcoin cannot be taken away from you, ever. It is almost impossible not to get a religious tingle down your spine when you realize the implications of the impossibility of seizure.

Bitcoin Politics (Governance)

A cynic would say that politics are the activities of acquiring and maintaining power, and governance is what is done by those in power. To that end, there isn’t really any “political process” in Bitcoin, just decentralized, voluntary contributions that succeed on their technical merits.

That said, the governance model of Bitcoin is very clearly defined, with Bitcoin Magazine’s very own Aaron van Wirdum writing about it extensively in 2016, and veteran industry analyst Pierre Rochard adding additional detail in 2018 — I would strongly recommend reading both for a thorough education on the topic. There is also a surprisingly thorough and unbiased account found in research published by the “Stanford Journal Of Blockchain Law And Policy” earlier in 2021. I summarize the above works below:

The Political Players In Bitcoin

In terms of who has actual political power when it comes to Bitcoin’s governance, it is the “users” and miners. All miners are users, but not all users are miners.

Although “user” can be a broad term, in this context it means “somebody who runs and uses a Bitcoin software implementation on their computer,” i.e., “runs a node.” When it comes to Bitcoin governance, simply holding bitcoin does not make you a “user” or give you any influence. The miners are tasked with producing blocks in line with the rules of the Bitcoin protocol, and over 90% of miners need to support any proposed protocol changes before they can be implemented.

Software Governance Vs. Protocol Governance

In the previous section, I referred to “users” as those who have downloaded and run a particular Bitcoin software implementation. The main, or “reference,” implementation is Bitcoin Core, however, other implementations like Libbitcoin, also exist.

An implementation is simply a way to communicate with and follow the Bitcoin protocol, and if you have the skills, you can build and use your own implementation. For everyone else, there’s Bitcoin Core (or an equivalent). Regardless of how the various software implementation teams decide to govern themselves, if users aren’t willing to download their software, they will have no impact on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is whatever the consensus of the users say it is. Talk about the customer always being right!

Protocol Governance Process

Rochard outlines the five-step Bitcoin change and governance process as follows:

  1. Research/problem identification: Every solution starts with a problem. Solving these problems typically requires lots of research. Since it’s an open, voluntary platform, users are left to “scratch their own itch” when it comes to solving problems.
  2. Proposal: When a user has found a solution to a problem, they present this to the world through the Bitcoin Improvement Process, starting with the creation of a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP), and going through the long, technocratic and meritocratic process of critique and development (which can sometimes last many years) until the solution is ready for implementation in one of the various Bitcoin implementations. Not all BIPs see the light of implementation.
  3. Implementation: Depending on how robust the development peer review process was, and whether the proposal is contentious or not, implementation can be quick or slow. In the case of a highly-contentious proposal, Bitcoin Core developers, for example, would not implement a proposal without a supermajority of 90% or more of miners signalling support. The small minority still in disagreement are free to copy/paste Bitcoin’s code, and create their own version based on their rule set.
  4. Deployment: After the Bitcoin implementation software developers are convinced, it’s now time to convince the users to download and use this new implementation. At this point however, non-technical users can generally rely on the intense scrutiny of the process by miners, community members and developers, with technical users having the benefit of reviewing and understanding the public review process themselves if they so choose.
  5. Enforcement: This is the easiest bit of all — literally using software to check some math. All of the rules necessary to check this math lives on the tens of thousands of Bitcoin nodes around the world, and they will simply refuse and ban peers that aren’t complying with the latest consensus ruleset.

Bitcoin Economics

While an entire library can be written about Bitcoin economics, the executive summary is Bitcoin’s supply formula, below:

Bitcoin is clearly a social phenomenon worthy of study for a proper philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) degree.

Bitcoin supply formula

Bitcoin offers users the following economic guarantees:

  1. Fixed supply, enforced by codes
  2. Highly inelastic, diminishing, predefined issuance, regulated by the difficulty adjustment
  3. Property rights

Bitcoin frees users from the following economic burdens:

  1. Government and central bank incompetence and malfeasance
  2. Seigniorage, inflation and hyperinflation
  3. Unfair taxation and regulation
  4. Counterparty risk

It is out of this economic simplicity that the hardest money ever known to man has emerged.

The Bitcoin PPE Full Stack

It isn’t just the robust technical and economic underpinnings that make Bitcoin revered by so many, but also the philosophical and political full stack that provides Bitcoiners what is effectively a blueprint for life.

Freedom, transparency, honesty, meritocracy, fairness, voluntaryism and hard work are great things one should strive toward, whether it is in developing money or living life and setting a good example for others. The greatest and most enduring movements in history, be they political, social or religious, have been accompanied by a full PPE stack, and with a full stack as powerful as Bitcoin’s, it is on track to being the greatest movement the world has ever or will ever see.

There is no doubt that teaching of Bitcoin philosophy, politics and economics should be included in any serious PPE programs that claim to be producing our next generation of leaders.

This is a guest post by Hass McCook. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.


Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

The Bitcoin Haters And Their Bitcoin Beef

“Disgusting and contrary to the interests of civilization”

“Of course I hate the bitcoin success. I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth. I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interests of civilization.” – Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway.

Those were the words of ninety-seven year-old Charlie Munger, the vice-chairman of the investing giant Berkshire Hathaway, and the second-in-command to Warren Buffett.

Charlie Munger cgtn.com

Charlie Munger cgtn.com

Understandably, Munger and Buffett have amassed huge fortunes by investing in companies, by picking stocks. That they would have no need to buy cryptocurrencies is understandable. That they may not even clearly understand them is to be expected as well. But, “contrary to the interests of civilization?” Munger offers no clarification on what he means by that. And to the point that bitcoin is used by drug dealers and other criminals, yes it is. So is cash. In fact, in 2020 only an estimated 0.34% of all cryptocurrency transactions involved illicit activities. Also, criminal activities conducted through the traditional banking system amounted to 2-4% of global GDP, significantly more than with cryptocurrencies.

Another point Munger makes is that bitcoin is being used as a substitute for gold, and he doesn’t buy gold either, so why would he buy bitcoin? Fair enough, Berkshire is focused on companies that make profits and pay dividends. It really doesn’t, however, make this new digital technology “contrary to the interests of civilization.” Ouch.

“It’s probably rat poison squared.” – Warren Buffett, on Bitcoin.

Buffett, with Liz Claman youtube.com

Buffett, with Liz Claman youtube.com

That was Buffett’s response to Fox Business host Liz Claman when asked about bitcoin. Buffett’s sidekick Munger had previously referred to bitcoin as “rat poison.” Buffett’s opposition to bitcoin can probably be summed up in three points. First, he says that bitcoin has no unique value on its own. (Sounds like paper money, right?) He feels the only value in bitcoin is the hope that someone will be willing to pay you more for it in the future. (Sounds like stocks, a little bit.)

Next, the “Oracle of Omaha” feels that bitcoin has none of the properties of money and is not a store of value. As with any new technology, Bitcoin is gradually gaining traction, both as a means of exchange and is already accepted by thousands of merchants around the world. In addition, it is fast replacing Western Union as the fastest and cheapest money transmitter out there. As for a store of value, bitcoin has appreciated an average of 200% per year for 12 years. That’s quite a store of value, albeit with quite a bit of volatility. So, admittedly, it’s not for everyone.

Third, Buffett probably doesn’t fully understand bitcoin. To his credit, he doesn’t invest in things he doesn’t understand. He is focused on stocks and buying great companies and as such surely hasn’t gone down the Bitcoin rabbit hole like many of us have. That’s fine, he’s undoubtedly one of the greatest investors the world has ever known; his track record speaks for itself. “I don’t own any cryptocurrency and I never will,” Buffett has said.

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize-winning economist and just happens to be the author of a 2013 op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Bitcoin is Evil.” He’s been taking shots at Bitcoin ever since.

Krugman feels that bitcoin doesn’t yet, after twelve years, play any role in normal economic activity. He, like other Bitcoin haters, feels that it’s the currency of drug dealers. “Because Bitcoin and its relatives haven’t managed to achieve any meaningful economic role, what happens to their value is basically irrelevant to those of us not playing the crypto game,” said Krugman in a recent New York Times piece.

He’s also down on gold, for many of the same reasons, so Bitcoiners needn’t feel picked on. He feels gold can’t be used for monetary transactions and hasn’t been a stable store of value.

But, this early in Bitcoin’s existence, should you take Krugman’s words as gospel? Has he ever been wrong before? Here’s a quote from Paul Krugman, circa 1998. You be the judge:

“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically. By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” – Paul Krugman, 1998.

Paul Krugman Politico photo

Paul Krugman Politico photo

Peter Schiff

Ah, Peter Schiff, the bitcoin bear and gold proponent that Bitcoiners love to hate. Schiff is the chief economist and strategist at Euro Pacific Capital and in his role he also manages Schiff Gold, the precious metals dealer. It’s no surprise that he is no fan of bitcoin, as many believe that bitcoin is akin to gold 2.0, and will become the leading store of value. Most Bitcoiners believe that bitcoin is actually better at being gold than gold is. I do like his views on the economy, inflation and money printing, however.

Peter Schiff hard-money.net

Peter Schiff hard-money.net

Schiff, after years of battling with Bitcoin maximalists on Twitter, has recently appeared on a lot of podcasts, debating Bitcoiners like Peter McCormack, Anthony Pompliano, Greg Foss, and Anthony Scaramucci. Interviewed on Fox Business by Charles Payne, Schiff said of Bitcoin, “All bitcoin is is the latest iteration of fool’s gold and anybody buying it is ultimately a fool.” Schiff feels that bitcoin will never be used as a store of value. He goes on to tell Payne:

“It’s never going to be money. It doesn’t fit the very definition of money. Money needs to be a commodity. It needs to have actual value unto itself, not just the uses and means of exchange.”

So Schiff feels bitcoin has no value unto itself and is backed by nothing. Sounds an awful lot like paper, fiat money.

I agree with Schiff in that gold has a place in certain portfolios. I also believe that dumping on Peter Schiff is not the best thing that Bitcoiners can do to promote mass adoption of cryptocurrencies. Further, I understand that he has motivation to throw shade on bitcoin, since his firm sells gold and silver.

It must really infuriate him, though, that his son Spenser Schiff is a very public and vocal bitcoin holder. Spencer went all in, putting 100% of his portfolio into bitcoin recently.

Ginsbergonomics: “Bitcoin Is Going To Suffer A Vicious And Painful Death”

The one-named writer, Ginsberg, publishing on Medium, made that the title of one of his recent articles, just a few weeks back. Sounds like he’s not a fan of bitcoin.

Ginsberg’s arguments against bitcoin are not grounded in fundamentals and in some cases are just plain wrong. Oh, his words are controversial, and that gets readers, I guess. His first take is that bitcoin isn’t just an asset, but rather a “religion.” He believes this leaves Bitcoiners blind to any criticism. He may have a point, but it doesn’t diminish the technology or uses of Bitcoin. It’s purely a side note.

Ginsberg states that the largest holders, the “whales,” are selling their bitcoin. That statement is too general, and data shows otherwise. While the number of whales has gone down, their aggregate holdings have gone up. Thanks to Will Clemente III and Glassnode for this chart. The green line denotes whales holdings rising:

Glassnode / @WClementeIII

Glassnode / @WClementeIII

Ginsberg also tries to make the case that institutional interest in bitcoin is “dead.” He calls the amounts of money flowing into bitcoin from institutions “pitiful.” That may depend on how you define “institution.” (Or how you define “pitiful.”) He says large corporations rarely buy bitcoin directly, so I guess that’s one definition, a large corporation. Publicly-held MicroStrategy (MSTR) has been buying bitcoin in a big way for a year and now holds 0.5% of all bitcoin in existence. Tesla has also purchased a substantial amount of bitcoin, over $2 billion worth. Square also holds Bitcoin on its balance sheet.

Fidelity Investments has been mining bitcoin since 2015 and has created a whole digital assets division, and J.P. Morgan is creating products to enable their clients to on-ramp into bitcoin. Mass Mutual Life Insurance has purchased $100 million of bitcoin. Ark Investing has invested in GBTC and Coinbase stock. Adoption is happening, albeit gradually. In addition to buying bitcoin directly, there are over a dozen applications on file with the SEC for approval to start a Bitcoin ETF. It seems like the institutional sector is jumping in, slowly, but with significant sums of capital.

Note – Ginsberg is putting his money where his mouth is. He’s got “skin in the game,” as he puts it. He is opening a $1,000 short position on Bitcoin at 10x leverage. You have to give him credit for that. And for keeping healthy discussion about Bitcoin alive.

This is a guest post by Rick Mulvey. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.


Tagged : / / / / / /

Why Does Academia Have A Bias Against Bitcoin?

Academia is no fan of Bitcoin. The vast majority of professors are hugely biased against it. For example, Professor of Economics Nouriel Roubini of New York University doesn’t even try to hide his intense hatred for Bitcoin. Roubini told Bloomberg that “the Flintstones had a better monetary system than bitcoin” and has repeatedly called it a “bubble” since 2015. When asked to give expert testimony to the U.S. Senate, Roubini called Bitcoin “the mother of all scams” and smeared all its supporters as “scammers, swindlers, criminals, charlatans, insider whales and carnival barkers.”

Roubini is far from unique among academics in his disdain for Bitcoin. Prominent academic economists are nearly universal in their dismissal of Bitcoin. Few professors have deeply studied Bitcoin and even fewer really understand it; yet, many professors have ruled Bitcoin out.

I recently had the immense honor and pleasure of presenting to the HxEconomics Community, a group facilitated by Heterodox Academy, an organization of university professors, students and staff “committed to enhancing the quality of research and education by promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in institutions of higher learning.” As a testament to living their values, the economics discussion group graciously invited me, a nonacademic without any special credentials to present, to a panel titled, “Overlooked Orthodoxy, Academia’s Bias Against Bitcoin.” In the fruitful informal discussion that followed, the small group of professors and students agreed my thesis was likely true: There is an inherent bias in academia and the economic body of research/theories it produces in favor of supporting a “fiat” or managed monetary system and against Bitcoin specifically.

Why Bitcoin specifically? Bitcoin is a set of rules without rulers, it’s just a protocol. Bitcoin is unique among cryptocurrencies in that it’s laser-focused on being unstoppable (through decentralization and game theory) and consistent (in supply schedule, economic and consensus rules, uptime, and treatment of participants). Bitcoin knows no favorites; it treats teens from Nigeria the same as powerful members of the Federal Reserve. Bitcoin is by far the least stoppable and most consistent money that can be used online due to its decentralization, network effects, developmental stage, ethos and lack of leadership.

Bitcoiners love this lack of control over Bitcoin because it keeps the system from being fixed in favor of the already rich and powerful. Within fiat, on the other hand, there is a well-observed phenomenon of those with control over the money supply disproportionately allocating new money to those they favor (the elite): It’s known as the Cantillon effect and exacerbates inequality. However, most of academia views the fiat system of centralized control over money to be legitimate, good and necessary. Academics tend to disagree with the view of many Bitcoiners that economist Friedrich von Hayek expressed in his 1974 acceptance speech for the Nobel prize:

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

Academics often disregard Hayek’s concerns and pin their hopes on monetary authorities to make interventions for the greater good. Academics usually prefer a managed economy, believing the fiat system with its central authorities will lessen recessions and depressions. Managed money gives governments and their advisors and unelected monetary managers the ability to respond to changes in the world with changes to the money supply, interest rate, and so on. In fact, Roubini complains of too little central control in fiat due to the use of cash and desires for yet more power to authorities over people’s money, “If you phase out cash … then the negative interest rate in a severe recession or depression can go to -1, -2, -3, -4, -5(%) whatever you want it to be … that’s the direction we’re going to go.”

Thus, academia fails to grasp the main value proposition of Bitcoin: its lack of central management, lack of control by any party. Bitcoin takes away the ability of central planners to set the rules of a market, allocate money as they see fit in an economy, confiscate wealth from citizens, and prevent the transfer of funds (or financially censor anyone).

Why do academics want so much power in the hands of central planners given their vulnerability to corruption, misunderstandings and power consolidation? Why don’t academics often discuss inherent fiat system risks such as totalitarianism through money control and kleptocratic or unfair actions by those managing money?

Because academics are the planners! Academics benefit hugely from centralized fiat money systems through employment opportunities as decision-makers, advisors or researchers for said system. Decentralized Bitcoin is a unique threat to the centralized control over the fiat monetary system by unelected officials. “Expert” unelected officials exert control over our global monetary system through various mechanisms such as the allocation of enormous newly printed sums of wealth to favored nations, programs and enterprises, as well as altering interest rates. Unelected central planners also choose who may or may not access markets to acquire resources for themselves and their families through organizations like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), giving or withholding loans and aid, and more.

There is a revolving door between academics and positions of power as central economic planners at institutions like the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Bank. For example, Roubini has worked for decades in academia but currently also advises the IMF, Bretton Woods Committee and more and has previously held positions at the Federal Reserve, World Bank and advising the U.S. government. Central planning of the financial system means more power for Roubini, his colleagues and the many organizations that pay and empower them. Pictured below are just a few of the staggering number of academics who have attained positions of significant power, prestige and financial reward as unelected managers or advisors of the fiat money system.

A. Janet Yellen spent decades in academia and became Federal Reserve chair and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. B. Stefanie Kelton is a current professor at Stony Brook University whose work in Modern Monetary Theory heavily influences Democrats like Bernie Sanders. C. Gita Gopinath took leave of public service from Harvard University to be the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. She also works for the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Federal Reserve. D. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab had a long and distinctive academic career. E. Jim Yong Kim is the former president of Dartmouth College who went on to be the president of the World Bank.

A. Janet Yellen spent decades in academia and became Federal Reserve chair and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. B. Stefanie Kelton is a current professor at Stony Brook University whose work in Modern Monetary Theory heavily influences Democrats like Bernie Sanders. C. Gita Gopinath took leave of public service from Harvard University to be the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. She also works for the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Federal Reserve. D. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab had a long and distinctive academic career. E. Jim Yong Kim is the former president of Dartmouth College who went on to be the president of the World Bank.

There is an unacknowledged conflict of interest in academia: Since academics are the central planners, they are incentivized to come to research conclusions that advocate heavy central planning. As trusted experts, academic economists are the managers of the global fiat system and thus often blind to the drawbacks and risks associated with trusting our monetary system to fallible central managers at all.

Even professors who are not involved or looking to be involved in managing or advising the fiat monetary system have pressure to support it. Fiat monetary organizations empower their colleagues (and thus universities generally) and frequently provide research funding to economics departments. There is enormous pressure within academia to conform in supporting the fiat system. Professor Ashley Hodgson, who leads regular discussion groups with academic economists across the country through Heterodox Academy, explains:

“In any large organization where the relationships within the organization are social, there is a political element. You have to be sensitive to what offends your colleagues, what offends your superiors. There is a social and professional benefit to staying on everybody’s good side. In academia especially the currency we trade in is prestige rather than money… People take a pay cut relative to what they could get outside of academia in order to climb this ladder of prestige and intellectualism … Academics have to be sensitive to the fact that their credibility could be questioned if they say things that offend people in influential circles … In academia, people’s ideas are what they take pride in: that is their identity. So criticizing their ideas has a higher chance of causing genuine offense in the academic setting. That means if you want to climb up in the hierarchy of academia you need to be careful about criticizing ideas, especially ideas of people who are at the top of their fields, who make decisions…”

Thus, academic economists are hesitant to criticize the fiat system, since their most esteemed colleagues are its central planners. Bitcoin takes away academic economists’ ability to influence the monetary system, greatly reducing their relevance, prestige, power and thus funding.

Moreover, universities benefit from the fiat system’s easy money policies through government grants and tuition money (taking out debt favored in inflationary environments like the fiat system). The economists and papers academia produces are thus biased in support of inflationary fiat systems. It’s no wonder why so many academics vociferously oppose Bitcoin and advocate central planners having control over the global monetary system. Note: I am by no means calling economic professors evil. All humans have a tendency to be biased toward their incentives. If universities only had Bitcoiners not employed in the fiat system as professors, they would also be biased. But that is far from the case, instead they have nearly no Bitcoin supporters among them.

There is an unacknowledged conflict of interest in academia: Since academics are the central planners they are incentivized to come to research conclusions that advocate heavy central planning. Academia today is inherently and highly biased against Bitcoin. It is high time we recognize said bias and take steps to correct it.

This is a guest post by Hannah Wolfman-Jones. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / /
Bitcoin (BTC) $ 26,224.03 0.66%
Ethereum (ETH) $ 1,588.87 1.27%
Litecoin (LTC) $ 64.34 0.37%
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) $ 213.59 3.72%