Author Topic: 外媒:比特币是一种削弱政府对货币独裁的方式  (Read 1578 times)

lovecol

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • COL: CKVqwvyo1cymXDk89W8EGLAJMYcKr6HUs2
    • View Profile
作者:Reihan Salam
 
尽管杰里·布里托(Jerry Brito)认为,比特币作为价值转移系统具有很大的潜力,但是他对如比特币这样固定供给类的商品货币能够取代如美元这样的相对良好管理的法定货币持极度的怀疑态度。然而,他将比特币看成一种削弱政府对货币独裁的一种方式:
 
“因为比特币是去中心化的,不依赖于任何第三方,比特币本身属性可以避开了资本控制。如果你将自己的财富兑换成比特币,那么政府就不能掌控你的财产。这是颠覆性的。之后,你可以继续以比特币保存财富,或者将比特币兑换成美元或者欧元,或者说其他任何之类的法定货币。这是比特币对“金融公平(monetary justice)”的真正贡献。”
 
是的,法定货币很容易被滥用,即使这样,我个人认为目前美国面临的最大问题不是通货膨胀(这一点尤其不应该从公正的观点来看),我能够理解,其他人应该也能明白。尽管我们非常想让比特币能够成为通货膨胀的解决方法,但是比特币不会是通货膨胀的接解决方法。取而代之的是,我们应该投入更多的精力利用比特币的优点:比特币可以让世界更好地促进金融包容性,并帮助解决政府的压迫式的控制和职权。我希望,在一点上,我们能够取得一致。”
 
另外,艾利.多拉杜(Eli Dourado)发表的题为虚拟货币的网络外部效应的演讲,与此有着一脉相承的认识:
 
“如果比特币被广泛采用,它将会改变权利关系,不仅仅是政府与坚定的自由论者的关系。不对,在不考虑双方政治观点的情况下,这会减弱双方任一方的金融控制的效力。然而,退场只会保证离开者的自由,从长远来看,虚拟货币的成功会加强自由的尺度,即使有些人不想这样。
 
有一个单词是变化,变化会完全地强加于每个人新的政治现实,无论你愿不愿意。改变不是退场;改变是创新。推动自由的创新技术在之前已经成功过。货柜运输增加了资本供给的灵活性;分组交换(Packet-switching)促进了电信通信从核心网络到边缘的变革。那些技术所带来的开明的改变,直到数十年才逐渐显露,现在世界正在因此而改变。并非所有人都会高兴看到这些变化,但是无论如何他们还是得跟着这些技术,因为这些技术具有经济性,而且非常牢固。
 
虚拟货币可能就是这类技术。如果比特币能够为任何人提供长远的自由,在那些方面比特币必定取得成功,这与虚拟货币爱好者或者无政府主义者的热情无关。这里没有出口,一切还都没有取得,但是创新的种子已经播下。”
 
尽管布里托强调比特币可以帮助限制政府滥用权力,特别是如阿根廷、委内瑞拉这样的独裁国家;多拉杜论证了比特币的广泛采用可能带来结构性的改变,这将甚至很大的限制自由市场民主国家的监管范围。
 
正如亨利.法雷尔(Henry Farrell)和玛莎.芬尼莫尔(Martha Finnemore)曾认为,斯诺登事件的揭露象征着“伪善的终结(the end of hypocrisy)”,因为新的技术破坏了美国试图隐藏国家监管活动运转的广度。从理论上而言,比特币作为一种替代金融经济出现,象征着“裙带资本主义的终结(the end of crony capitalism)”。当然,法雷尔和芬尼莫尔所描述的已经尘埃落定,但是布里托和多拉杜所言还处于襁褓之中。(比特币之家hwwbc555译)
 
COL: CKVqwvyo1cymXDk89W8EGLAJMYcKr6HUs2
BTC:1NkhWmwBxwRGpZ5Nvh34MxFgPxBgyLNw8r

lovecol

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • COL: CKVqwvyo1cymXDk89W8EGLAJMYcKr6HUs2
    • View Profile
Re: 外媒:比特币是一种削弱政府对货币独裁的方式
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2014, 07:49:05 AM »
The Bitcoin Romantics

Though Jerry Brito sees great potential in Bitcoin as a value transfer system, he’s profoundly skeptical that fixed-supply commodity money like Bitcoin can (or should) replace a relatively well-managed fiat currency like the U.S. dollar. He does, however, see it as a way to weaken the grip of authoritarian governments:

Because it is decentralized and relies on no third parties, Bitcoin has the ability to bypass capital controls. If you can convert your wealth into Bitcoin, you can get it out of your government’s reach. That is revolutionary. You can then keep that wealth in bitcoins, or convert it to dollars or euros or whatever else you want. This is Bitcoin’s true contribution to “monetary justice.”

Yes, fiat currencies are susceptible to abuse, and while I personally don’t see inflation as the most pressing issue confronting Americans today (especially not from a justice perspective), I can understand that others might. Yet as much as we might want it to be, Bitcoin is not going to be a solution to inflation. Let’s focus our energies instead on pursuing Bitcoin’s strengths: it can make the world better by fostering financial inclusion and by helping the oppressed escape control and censorship. On this, I hope, we can all agree.

And in a similar vein, Eli Dourado addresses the network externalities of cryptoanarchy:

If Bitcoin ever becomes widely adopted, it will change power relations not only between the state and the conscientiously libertarian. No, it will reduce the effectiveness of financial prohibitions between any two parties, regardless of their political views. Whereas exit only secures freedom for the one who is leaving, a cryptocurrency that is successful in the long run will impose a measure of freedom even on those who don’t want it.

There is a word for a change that imposes a radically new political reality on everybody, whether they want it or not. That word is not exit; it is revolution. Revolutionary freedom-advancing technologies have succeeded before. Containerization increased the elasticity of the supply of capital, and packet-switching moved telecom innovation from the core of the network to the edge. The (liberal) changes wrought by these technologies have taken decades to unfold, and the world is still reeling from them. Not everyone is happy about the changes, but they stick with the technologies anyway, because they are both economic and entrenched.

Cryptocurrency is potentially in this class of technologies. If Bitcoin is going to provide any long-run freedom for anyone, it will have to succeed on these terms, not on the basis of cryptoanarchist zeal alone. There is no exit here, nothing has been won, but seeds of revolution have been planted.

While Brito focuses on the ways that Bitcoin can help limit abuses of power, particularly in authoritarian countries like Argentina and Venezuela, Dourado argues that widespread adoption of Bitcoin could lead to a structural shift that would limit the regulatory reach of even fairly liberal market democracies.

Just as Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore have argued that the Snowden revelations represent “the end of hypocrisy,” as new technologies undermine the extent to which the United States can conceal the workings of the surveillance state, Bitcoin could, in theory, represent “the end of crony capitalism” as an alternative financial services economy emerges. Of course, the dynamics Farrell and Finnemore describe are firmly entrenched while those identified by Brito and Dourado are still in their infancy.

COL: CKVqwvyo1cymXDk89W8EGLAJMYcKr6HUs2
BTC:1NkhWmwBxwRGpZ5Nvh34MxFgPxBgyLNw8r