Some of you may remember that I was funded by the community to attend the Oslo Freedom Forum, an annual human rights conference run by the Human Rights Foundation. I was interested in surveying how the message of “Bitcoin as the tool for financial freedom” was being presented, especially in the light of its gregarious shortcomings as a monetary instrument for leverage against oppressive and/or authoritarian governments.
Firstly, it is important to state that the Oslo Freedom Forum this year was run over three days (as opposed to the usual two). It is probably also fair to say that the Financial Freedom Track comprised almost a third of the total programming time. The track had a primary sponsor, Seetee. Seetee is a subsidiary of a very large Norweigian congloromate called [Aker ASA](akerasa.org). Their website states: “Aker is the largest shareholder, directly or indirectly, in 11 companies listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange, Euronext Expand Oslo or Euronext Growth Oslo at the end of March 2022. Aker and companies in which Aker is the largest investor had a total turnover of more than NOK 94 billion in 2021, and a workforce of approximately 31,000, including temporary hires. About 18,000 of the workforce is located in Norway.”
Secondly, it is important to note that the Financial Freedom Track was a Bitcoin only track. The marketing was unapologetically Bitcoin first, and Lightning Network second.
Third, there was a very strong line-up up speakers representing Bitcoin – Lyn Alden, Elizabeth Stark, Jack Mallers, Nic Carter, Abubakar Nur Khali, Matt Odell, Lisa Neigut, Troy Cross, and Anita Bosch – to name a few.
Valid questions are, what did I learn?, what was the benefit of me being present?, and was it worth the 8.5 XMR to send me over?
What did I learn?
If it wasn’t already obvious, it is now: The Human Rights Foundation – through their Chief Strategy Officer Alex Gladstein, believes that Bitcoin is the vehicle for financial empowerment for everyone – especially those that are facing oppressive regimes or authoritarian governments.
The overall message at the event was that Bitcoin is the answer (whatever the question may be) and that the Lightning Network is the vehicle to onboard a Billion users. The event is littered with Bitcoin maxis – easily 10-15% of the total audience. They had a dedicated Lightning Lounge where they showed off a LN beer vending machine (make of that what you will) and a LN enabled anonymous flash-VPN service (which actually had some merit).
In terms of judging the talks and interactive sessions, the best way to form an opinion is to watch them yourself.
Sadly, when you programme so many talks with nothing but Bitcoin maxis – you only get one outcome: biased discussions; the brainwashed parroting nothing but a pro-Bitcoin narrative in search of converting the masses.
Bitcoin cannot lose in this scenario, other than a slight dent on its reputation.
Luckily, most human rights advocates, rights activists, and journalists see through the snake oil.
When a one-sided argument is presented with absolutely no critical voice in the proceedings, it becomes obvious there is a sales pitch happening.
Veterans of the forum saw through the facade.
For example, I urge people to watch the “Can Bitcoin reach a billion people” discussion as well as the “Bitcoin, the environment, and human rights” panel for a window into the one-sided discussions.
It wasn’t all negative, though.
For example, the final day (through the interactive sessions) allowed attendees to engage with panellists – asking questions and engaging with the discussion, probing presenters to expand on their (sometimes questionable) positions. I also learned that they did care a little about privacy.
Throughout the conference, there was a booklet being handed out, which had a complete three pages dedicated to privacy. Make of it what you will.
What was the benefit of me being present?
I know that there was not universal agreement to me going to this event, and it is fair to say the return to the community is completely intangible. There are two predominant benefits (that I see) from me being there. The first is the networking. Okay, that sounds like corporate schmuck – but it is legitimate.
I was able to have open and honest conversations with (for example) Rene Pickhardt, who agreed with my reservations about the one-sided nature of the panels and agreed that privacy was a sticking point. However, he did not agree that it was a major sticking point and that in the context of activists and freedom fighters there were larger privacy problems in the digital sphere to contend with.
I was able to question Troy Cross and Nic Carter about why they did not discuss asic-resistance as a potential mitigation option for the environmental impact (and centralisation effects) of asic-friendly PoW algos.
I was able to discuss Monero as neutral tool (as opposed to a tool for criminals), Norwegian data centre (mining) tax incentives, and the state of CBDCs with Ola Elvestuen, a Norwegian member of parliament.
I was able to discuss Bitcoin fungibility and mined Bitcoin price premiums with Elizabeth Stark (she did not believe it was a thing and knew miners who did not receive premiums for their freshly minted coins).
However, above all the biggest benefit was to be able to question the narratives being presented unopposed.
The first time I took offence to something being stated was the final day, at the “Central Bank Digital Currencies, Privacy, and the Cashless Society”.
Matthew Mezinskis (I’ll admit he is an idiot), along with Janine Roem, decided to discuss aspects of financial surveillance. Not only did they decide to discuss financial surveillance (with Bitcoin as the answer I might add), but they also drew an analogy between the M1 supply of money (and more specifically cash), and Bitcoin. The M1 supply of money (in their eyes) was analogous to the 21m Bitcoins minted (they represent the ’self-sovereign’ bearer instruments in the total money supply). They also believed Bitcoin was an answer to impending financial control and surveillance of CBDCs.
At this point I had heard enough of the parroting, and I interrupted the panel. First – I asked if they were stating that Bitcoin was as private as the M1 supply (bearer instruments). Second, were they stating that Bitcoin was an improvement in privacy over the current CBDC designs, and if so could they please acknowledge that Bitcoin is private by default (like cash). This of course, stirred a pot. It was stated that privacy would be discussed at the dedicated privacy panel, even though privacy was in the title of the panel (?!?!?), but Matt Odell graciously agreed that Bitcoin was not private.
And so we move onto the Bitcoin Privacy panel. You can imagine what this was like. It was a shit-show.
Luckily, in a packed room it was clear that I was not the only one that understood it was a shit-show.
I let things continue, until Matt Odell urged the panelists to get to the QandA. One question came in over recipient privacy with respect to LN invoices. It was obvious this was a problem – and openly admitted by the panellists.
I then asked two very straightforward questions:
-
Was it possible for Bitcoins to be tainted, and, if so...
-
Was it possible for Bitcoins to be censored.
We all know what the answer to these questions were – but it was extremely important for the room (probably near 100 people) to hear it directly from the panelists.
The answers then led into an interesting ‘bifurcated network’ discussion (as Matt’s answer was to try and avoid Bitcoins touching the regulated system).
One attendee (a Bitcoin maxi) made the point that it was ok for Bitcoins to be sold on p2p markets – so activists could cash out while avoiding regulations/sanctions.
I then made the point that Bitcoin p2p markets are asymmetric – as there is a known risk of buying Bitcoin on p2p markets that could contain taint. Again – no answer from the panellists.
Was it worth the Monero?
I can’t make this value judgment, as I didn’t donate to the CCS. If I wasn’t there, nobody would have missed me. If I wasn’t there, some open discussions on the failings of Bitcoin may not have been discussed as they should. If I wasn’t there, some of the other attendees who recognised the failings in the Bitcoin narrative would not have had the support (and would perhaps not have been as quick to speak out as they were). If that had not happened, then Bitcoin would have got a completely uninterrupted and unopposed platform. The fact that it didn’t, I think is worth a few piconeros in itself.
Summary
Look. The event is an important one. There are very serious discussions about very serious things. The human rights element of the forum is unquestionable (and i would urge you to watch some of those talks - they are a humbling experience).
Not all the Bitcoin talk was unmerited. We all know the merits of what Bitcoin stands for.
What is important is that speakers, panelists and even the maxis are honest about what Bitcoin is, what Bitcoin isn’t – and most importantly – what Bitcoin represents as a technology.
It does not have all the answers, and shouldn’t be paraded as such.
Yes – it is an important tool, but it is not the only tool. Parading it as the only tool is ignorant at best, and malevolent at worst – and it was good (in my opinion) to have someone to remind them of that.
For the record, Alex himself believes that the privacy problems of Bitcoin are hugely exaggerated, and all is fine.
The majority of Bitcoin maxis do not believe that financial surveillance and profiling will be a thing in a Bitcoin-led future.
The non-idiots, of course, understand it is a problem already.
No comments:
Post a Comment