Crypto-Power

This is a joke, but it’s also onto something serious:


In my eternally on-the-way Bitcoin book, the point is raised like this:

While the governmental response to Bitcoin is doubtless guided by a strategy (or in fact multiple strategies) of capture, this does not reduce to an agenda of public regulation, still less suppression, but also includes cooptation in accordance with deep state functions, as well as the private interests of state agents. Insofar as every real state includes a ‘deep’ or sub-public aspect, it will inevitably relate ambiguously to the emergence of elusive social capabilities, although this ambiguity will be only minimally reflected in its public relations. The empowering of private agents to evade state scrutiny and regulation represents a manifest erosion of government or ‘public’ authority, and is liable to be denounced on those grounds (if not transparently in those terms). Yet the crypto-secure transaction systems responsible for such governance complications are also opportunities for covert action, and are therefore to be counted as virtual assets. The novel functions introduced by Bitcoin tend to the exacerbation – or sophistication – of agency problems.

The politics of Bitcoin can be expected, eventually, to catalyze a multitude of obscure metamorphoses in the nature of the state. If the distinct but overlapping occult fields of clandestine security functions and resilient sub-public interests are bundled into a provisional concept of the dark state, it can be quite confidently predicted that the balance of attraction and repulsion between such elements and crypto-currency will be highly asymmetric with respect to public communication. As a corollary, it is realistic to assume that the openly stated position of public authorities in regards to crypto-channels of all kinds, very much including Bitcoin, will be systematically misleading, in a negative direction. Bitcoin tends to empower the invisible, and to disempower the visible.

An event on the cryptic plane is not to be confused with its public presentation. Even if the NSA did not create Bitcoin (and — like Clark — I seriously doubt that it did), it’s unlikely that it would be distraught about the discreet rumor that it had.

February 18, 2016admin 26 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Realism

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

26 Responses to this entry

  • Crypto-Power | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 3:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    far as i can tell and ive traded them a bit if you did not mine your coins back when, its almost impossible to stay anonymous using them you have to basically link your real life accounts to buy and sell them unless you want to meet someone in the park with cash.Now if you were a govt deep state type and didnt need to do all that, its awfully convenient way to avoid a paper trail.and i suppose if youre really wealthy you could arrange for a exchange with someone respectable safely.For it to be of any use it has to be ubiquitously accepted as anonymous as cash and anonymously acquirable, basically cyber cash, Of course internet anonymity also must be secured.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 6:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    I’ve made this point many times, including at PAF, and it’s appeared on Bitcointalk numerous times. It’s not a new theory, but among Bitcoin nerds one of the tops ones.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Indeed. I spared readers here the long footnote attached to this excerpt.

    [Reply]

    Paul Ennis Reply:

    I’m just trying to goad you into writing this book rather than something on neoreactionary stuff. Bitcoin/NSA, I mean this stuff was waiting for you in the relatively deep future.

    [Reply]

    Paul Ennis Reply:

    Plus everybody knows Satoshi was Michael Burry.

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    “I’m just trying to goad you into writing this book rather than something on neoreactionary stuff”

    *Thumbs up*

    admin Reply:

    No goading necessary. It’s the main thing I’m doing.

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 6:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • foam Says:

    Always have been intrigued by the CIA theory, not NSA. Tipped off by the Financial Times column titled “The Krypto$ theory”

    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/03/07/1791742/the-krypto-theory/

    BETWEEN SUBTLE SHADING AND THE ABSENCE OF LIGHT LIES THE NUANCE OF IQLUSION

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 6:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    E.g: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1357674.msg13817468#msg13817468

    Michael:
    ‘far as i can tell and ive traded them a bit if you did not mine your coins back when, its almost impossible to stay anonymous using them you have to basically link your real life accounts to buy and sell them unless you want to meet someone in the park with cash.Now if you were a govt deep state type and didnt need to do all that, its awfully convenient way to avoid a paper trail.and i suppose if youre really wealthy you could arrange for a exchange with someone respectable safely.For it to be of any use it has to be ubiquitously accepted as anonymous as cash and anonymously acquirable, basically cyber cash, Of course internet anonymity also must be secured.’

    There are many ways to avoid being linked whether that means paying in cash with a well-known in person vendor (send a friend!), using bitcoinfog, or just using old fashioned peep-offs like the hackers do. But read my bitcointalk post for some of my ideas that chime with you and Nick here,

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    thx

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 6:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Fyrdsman Says:

    Bitcoin’s utility in the context of the “Dark State” is astounding, though not so much from an American perspective (yet). My understanding is that USG keeps all but the most peripheral operations in-house, or at least farmed out to foreign agencies that “we” can trust, like Amman’s Mukhabarat or London’s MI6.

    What Bitcoin does for the FSB, the IRGC, and so on, though…

    Most of these non-Western intel shops farm out significant cyber capabilities to geographically-distributed groups with varying levels of criminality, like those infamous Moldovan hacking collectives that the Norks love to use. Trustless currency enables massive expansion of this strategy, and provides security for both operational assets and the agencies that run them.

    This is just spitballing, but if we project these trends forward a decade or two, we’ll start to see a dark market open up on the web, weaving intel shops and criminal organizations (should we differentiate?) together through cryptocurrency and sharing clients like Demonsaw. We all know this is happening at the fringes, but the arrangement will be formalized as crypto picks up steam.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 7:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Crypto-Power | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 8:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • mdc Says:

    I’ve been thinking about which branches of government, if any, 130+ IQ not-leftists work in.

    What makes us so sure NSA, CIA, are on the government’s side?

    [Reply]

    Fyrdsman Reply:

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    But in all seriousness, these groups have no side. They lack any sort of organizational cohesiveness in and of themselves; different desks, offices, and task forces pursue policy objectives relatively independent of one another.

    That’s not to say that individuals within these agencies haven’t made their own determinations, however. And you’re right about many of them being non-leftists.

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The CIA is part of the Cathedral. It helped created it.

    The NSA, on the other hand . . .

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 9:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    Read anything leaked by the NSA and you’ll see what their aims are. Mundane government targets. PRISM, for instance, makes up the bulk of the Presidents daily intel. You could argue they sway things, but if you read around they are mostly just doing the jobs they are given.

    You don’t need that kind of IQ to work in the NSA by the way. Do you know how many people work for them these days?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 9:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    Heh, Freudian slip…leaked from the NSA.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 9:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • mdc Says:

    @Paul Ennis
    I believe that the permanent leadership of NSA is much smarter than the permanent leadership of, say, the Marine Corps.

    I am not talking about open opposition. I am talking about someone proposing a covert crypto-currency project justified as a means of obtaining funds for standard covert operations, actually motivated to provide an alternative to USD.

    These ideas have been circulating in high IQ tech circles for a long time. People in NSA and CIA knew about them and the political context. Doesn’t mean they acted as I suggested, does make it plausible.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 9:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • mdc Says:

    @Paul Ennis
    Also none of that crap that got leaked was worth a damn. Iran and Saudi Arabia don’t like each other? That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee in the foyer of the Russian embassy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 9:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    Sure, but that’s all rather speculative and trust me, I’m not someone who dispels deep state long plays nor considers these things silly. There is enough that is well documented about the NSA – and here I speak only of them since they are in control of the cryptographic side of things – but we have a lot of material of how they operate and developing a tool to slush funds is not something that fits. For a few reasons, they don’t need covert funds in the same way any other groups does, if they want funds covertly and can justify their reasons they can just get it. Further, the benefit would surely outweigh the cost since the NSA has form in refusing the spread of ciphers – considered a munition until the 90s! – and work hard to gain backdoors into any already existing crypto. Bitcoin, however, is pretty standard encryption that was leaked by an early cypherpunk in the 90s and is well documented as a series of possible means of electronic cash by the cypherpunk mailing list that Satoshi simply put together very nicely.

    I am not talking about the Wikileaks embassy leaks. There are at least two well known leakers (Snowden, one more assumed) that essentially spilled the guts on everything from various programs to priority lists that retroactively fit previously public material indirectly. It matches up well. This stuff is interesting enough without getting too excited about what is left out. Plus what is left out is simply what has not been leaked.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 18th, 2016 at 9:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    as a concept blockchain looks quite fascinating, distributed ledger and key server. but blocks itself is a steps and some interraption in flow. if I would be designing crypto coins ‘blocks’ will go first. Block dictate limit of space available inside that block. actually what would I expect from admin books, something untought rather scractching existing image. nobody tried to apply philosophical concepts to bitcoins yet.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 19th, 2016 at 2:33 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    The heart of the problem is time. Cognitive processes and their context unfold continuously and simultaneously in real time. Computational models specify a discrete sequence of static internal states in arbitrary “step” time (t1, t2, etc.). Imposing the latter onto the former is like wearing shoes on your hands. You can do it, but gloves fit a whole lot better

    Van Gelder, T. & Port, R.

    It’s About Time: An Overview of the Dynamical Approach to Cognition.

    In R. Port & T. Van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p.1-44) p. 2. Italics in original

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 19th, 2016 at 8:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    @Paul Ennis

    *victory dance*

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 19th, 2016 at 12:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Members of the Establishment love cryptocurrency: it makes corruption easy again.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 19th, 2016 at 5:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2016/02/23 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Satoshi Nakamoto is the NSA. […]

    Posted on February 24th, 2016 at 6:02 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment