The Peter McCormack Show

Bradley Rettler is an Associate Professor of Philosophy, and a member of the Resistance Money, a philosophy research collective focused on Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss the potential ethical implications of AI, philosophical reflections on money creation and governance, the importance of financial literacy, and combating misinformation about Bitcoin.  - - - -  One of the important groups to emerge within the Bitcoin community over the past few years has been the philosophers studying Bitcoin, led by members of the Resistance Money collective: Andrew Bailey, Bradley Rettle and Craig Warmke (with Troy Cross as an honorary member). They have added academic weight to the consideration of the importance of Bitcoin in the context of fundamental questions regarding money’s role in society.  The Resistance Money collective has been examining Bitcoin from various angles. In the episode, Bradley discusses moral dilemmas posed by a material global transition to this new form of money: the transfer of wealth, energy consumption impacts, the acceptance of privacy for bad and good, and usage by enemies. In addition, considerations about the benefits provided by fiat currency that could be lost: e.g. is there a useful societal function provided by money printing?  But this is where philosophical tools are extremely useful. In a previous episode, Craig Warmke explained the usefulness of the ‘veil of ignorance’ thought experiment, where one assumes they have no knowledge of what position in society they would have, and, from this position, they then determine what monetary system would best serve society for the great good. It is this perspective that is used to establish the Resistence Money thesis on Bitcoin. In a scenario where you could fall into any position in society, it would obviously be better that Bitcoin existed. It is the philosophical equivalent of checking your privilege. Whilst Bitcoin’s potential impact on society is complex and uneven, it is far easier to understand how Bitcoin acts to mitigate global inequality and inequity when assuming a scenario where you need it and it doesn’t exist.

David Bailey is the co-founder & CEO of BTC Inc. In this interview, we discuss the upcoming Bitcoin Conference in Miami, the ongoing saga with Genesis, Grayscale & DCG, as well as the Redeem GBTC campaign that David has been spearheading. - - - -  Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) is a trust product offered by Grayscale, a company owned by Digital Currency Group (DCG). GBTC allows investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin through more traditional investment channels, and currently, Grayscale manages approximately $18.1 billion across various funds. However, Grayscale is facing some significant issues. Since early 2021, GBTC has been trading below its net asset value (NAV) at a discount rate of around -36%. GBTC holders are unable to redeem their shares for the underlying asset and must accept this discount if they want to sell their shares on the open market. To address this, David Bailey has set up the Redeem GBTC campaign to push Grayscale to open withdrawals and allow GBTC holders to access the underlying Bitcoin with minimal impact on the Bitcoin market. Allowing redemptions could also potentially bring the heavy discount to NAV back closer to par.

Lawrence Lepard is an Investment Manager and Austrian Economist. In this interview, we discuss  gold and Bitcoin, comparing their relative benefits as assets over short and long time scales. We also discuss inflation, the potential threats to Bitcoin, inequality in society, and the challenges of finding credible leaders in politics.  - - - -  As the world grapples with an uncertain financial future, it's becoming increasingly important to diversify your investment portfolio. The two obvious assets designed to weather the coming economic storms are Bitcoin and gold. Whilst the relationship between gold bugs and Bitcoiners has been adversarial over the years, the two assets are two sides of the same coin. There are important differences between the two: Bitcoin is digital gold, which enables it to be used in ways beyond the capacity of gold; but gold has a 5,000-year head start on Bitcoin, and can therefore provide less volatility in the short to medium term. But, the primary demand for both as a store of value is predicated on the same thesis of limited supply. They both, therefore, serve as a hedge against inflation.  In essence, the investors in both assets are well aligned in terms of their concerns about the global economic system. Goldbugs and Bitcoiners understand the value in sound money, and the risks posed by the current fiat system. Rather than being suspicious of each other, there is much to be said about orange-pilling gold bugs, and similarly, Bitcoiners being open to investing in gold.   The big picture is that both gold and Bitcoin present a risk to the current economic system. It is likely that they will both be subject to attacks and controls by those seeking to reinforce the current system, as the cracks and fissures widen. Any meaningful divisions can and will be exploited: divide and conquer is a military tactic as old as politics and war. We, therefore, need alliances. Lawrence Lepard is one of those seeking to build a bridge between the two groups.

Freddie New is the Head of Policy at Bitcoin Policy UK. In this interview, we discuss how his childhood experiences living in Zimbabwe and Syria have shaped his understanding of Bitcoin’s unique properties. We also discuss his amazing efforts in setting up Bitcoin Policy UK, a new and much-needed advocacy group promoting Bitcoin to policymakers and the wider public in the United Kingdom. - - - - Danny and I have been very fortunate to travel to a vast array of countries in making this show. In the process, I have been exposed to ideas and experiences that reinforce the importance of Bitcoin. But what strikes me the hardest is coming back to the UK. There is a general lack of interest and consideration for this innovation. It’s an attitude that borders on outright suspicion and derision on occasions. Freddie New is one of the main people behind a new advocacy group: Bitcoin Policy UK. It is a lobbying and educational non-profit that the UK has been in desperate need of. This speaks to the difficulties of getting funding for such initiatives more than anything else. But, as the Bitcoin Policy Institute and Coin Centre attest, it’s about getting the right people to work in such organisations. Freddie is such a person. Whilst he speaks like a typical London professional (which can open many doors in the UK!), his experiences in growing up and escaping Zimbabwe were anything like the typical insular upbringing of many in the UK. At an early age, Freddie was forced to acquire valuable education on the importance of the properties that Bitcoin provides. It is a story that makes you catch your breath. Bitcoin advocacy is about looking beyond the investment potential of the Bitcoin asset and expressing its value as a technology that can protect people. Advocacy needs to be authoritative and tell powerful stories to persuade people who are blind to the economic transition coming down the road. Having someone who can eloquently attest to the need to have means to protect sovereign wealth could be the lightning rod for Bitcoin advocacy in the UK.

On the 14th of April What Bitcoin Did hosted a live show in Bedford. The guests were the founder of LNBits Ben Arc, CEO/Chairman of Ego Death Capital Jeff Booth, Investment Manager Lawrence Lepard and Macro analyst James Lavish. Across these interviews, we discussed Nostr, censorship-resistant marketplaces, hyperinflation, debt, deflationary economics, Bitcoin and AI. - - - - I have taken the What Bitcoin Did podcast all around the world: across the United States, South America and Europe. However, I have always dreamed of hosting a live event in my home town. Never would I have believed that I could have been lucky enough to have 4 of the best voices within the community come to the inaugural What Bitcoin Did Live in Bedford event. The show covered the main issues affecting not only the Bitcoin community at the moment, but the wider economic and social landscape. We discuss the development of the decentralized censorship-resistant social media network Nostr with one of it’s inventors, the amazing Ben Arc, and his work in expanding its application to develop censorship-resistant marketplaces. Lawrence Lepard and James Lavish set out their analysis of the macroeconomic environment in which the current sovereign debt and deficit situation could result in triple-digit inflation in Western economies within the next few years. We discuss balancing mitigating the resultant risk with investment strategies focused on both gold and Bitcoin. Finally, Jeff Booth explains his deflationary thesis, where an unmanipulated economic system allows technology and competition to provide productivity gains to flow through society, how Bitcoin is the only way to measure the productivity falling in a system with monetary inflation, and, the potential for AI to create a superintelligence that will be smarter than humans.

Jeff Booth, author of The Price of Tomorrow and CEO of Ego Death Capital, dives into the transformative power of deflation in this engaging discussion. He argues that as prices approach their marginal production costs, a shift towards a deflationary economy could actually promote abundance rather than scarcity. Booth challenges conventional wisdom surrounding inflation, suggesting that sticky wages could result in a major wealth redistribution. He also highlights how AI influences this economic shift, emphasizing Bitcoin's potential as a stable alternative in tumultuous financial landscapes.

James Lavish is a Bitcoin advocate and writer of the Informationist newsletter. In this interview, we discuss central banks' manipulation of the monetary system, the eye-melting bailouts to come, an inevitable credit event the Fed will be unable to rectify, why BRICS pressure doesn’t currently threaten the dollar, and how the US rejecting Bitcoin may lead to hyperbitcoinisation. - - - - Last month US Treasury yield curves witnessed their deepest inversion for over 40 years. This means holding bonds over the long term results in a lower return than shorter-duration contracts. It is a classic signal of a looming recession. It is the market expectation that future interest rates will be cut in order to stimulate an economy. Whilst there are historical precedents for this situation, what sets the current paradigm apart is the level of unsustainable government debt: increasingly, countries are having to deal with debt levels in excess of their respective GDP. Whilst high inflation provides a way for reducing these burdens, such levels of inflation are politically damaging, and further, risk damaging economies and thereby tax income. Moreover, they risk damaging critical banking infrastructure. Interest rates, as a result, will oscillate: they have accelerated to reduce rampant inflation, then, as is being forecast, they will need to be cut to stimulate a stagnant economy. All the while, commercial banks will be forced to search for yield. And some of these banks will get on the wrong side of the trade. Recent events have shown how quickly such situations can spiral out of control. But, for how long can governments keep bailing out the banks? James Lavish, a leading market analyst, predicts a precarious situation. For a variety of reasons, the US can’t afford to go into a deep recession. As a result, James predicts a “face-melting print” by the Fed to avoid this situation. But, then, at some point the music will stop, and there could be a watershed credit event where the Fed won’t or can’t step in. The real question is, what comes after this event?

Jason Brett is a former FDIC regulator who worked through the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. In this interview, we discuss the Restrict Act, a proposed piece of US legislation that could enable the Secretary of Commerce to shutter access to Bitcoin. We also talk about Operation Chokepoint 2.0, the banking crisis, and whether Bitcoin is a threat to the banks. - - - - Last month, a bipartisan group of United States senators introduced a bill called “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act”, which is being referred to as the RESTRICT Act. Principally aimed at mitigating foreign technology threats, the legislation would empower officials to police and restrict Americans' domestic access to a range of technologies, including Bitcoin. Whilst not principally aimed at cryptocurrencies (it has been drafted with the aim of banning companies like TikTok from the United States), the bill has been widely criticised for its broad language. It would enable the secretary of commerce to take action against any information and communication technology connected to a foreign adversary that posed “undue or unacceptable risk”. The US has recent experience of the original intent of laws being stretched to limit American citizens' rights: the 2001 Patriot Act has been used for increasingly pervasive monitoring and surveillance of Americans that included the implementation of bulk data collection programs by the NSA affecting millions of people. The issue at hand is that Bitcoin presents a real and present danger to the Fed: it is both a viable alternative to commercial banks, and Treasury debt as a global reserve asset. History shows decision makers will use any tool available to restrict what they view as an undue and unacceptable risk. Whilst Bitcoin is not the primary target of the Restrict Act, it is feasible that one day it may be used to stop access to Bitcoin for Americans. Prepare accordingly.

Lane Rettig is a core developer for Spacemesh. In this interview, we discuss the much-criticised New York Times article that attacked Bitcoin mining, specifically focusing on its strange attacks on demand response and the strange use of marginal emissions accounting. We also talk about the difficulties of finding truth in a world with misaligned incentives. - - - - On April 11th, The New York Times (NYT) published a piece of investigative journalism by Gabriel J.X. Dance entitled “The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin”. The piece stated Bitcoin mines “cash in on electricity — by devouring it, selling it, even turning it off — and they cause immense pollution. In many cases, the public pays a price.” As Margot Paez stated in a brilliant review of the article for the Bitcoin Policy Institute, The NYT’s hit piece is “Absurd”. The article had been long expected as a number of prominent people within the community have been interviewed for it. What transpired was that any pro-Bitcoin information provided had been ignored. The flip side was the biased representation of Bitcoin mining using flawed analysis, false equivalences, wild extrapolations and incorrect deductions. It is an exemplar of confirmation bias writ large, where the conclusions preceded the investigation. That Gabriel Dance has no experience of Bitcoin or crypto in any of his previous work is neither here nor there. Any journalist worth their salt knows the basic tenets of reporting: a clinical gathering of evidence, cold interrogation of facts, and an unbiased and clear interpretation of the results. The NYT put’s it best in its mission statement: "seek the truth & help people understand the world". So, what has happened? A commissioning editor would have signed this off following a modicum of independent fact checking. That it has been published whilst being riven with distortions and mistruths suggests either a corruption of the journalistic practices at The NYT or that their internal systems have been stripped to the bone and the drive for clickbait trumps everything else. Either way, we have a problem, as mainstream fake information spreads like a virus.

Calle is a Bitcoin and Lightning developer contributing to LNBits and the Cashu ecash system. In this interview, we discuss Cashu’s mission and development, undertake a live demonstration of it in action, the importance of privacy, removing ideology from Bitcoin, and the future of AI and robots. - - - - “By providing a high degree of privacy in payments, cash helps to slow the growing information asymmetry between consumers and companies… between citizens and public authorities… privacy is crucial for individuals to safeguard their position when dealing with organisations which are more powerful than a single person.” Not the words of an anarcho-capitalist, but a prominent Deutsche Bank economist from 2019. It is a truism that privacy is the bedrock of democracy. The problem is we’re sleepwalking into a cashless society where digital payments are tracked, recorded and stored. You can learn everything about someone through their transactions. Privacy in other areas means nothing in this environment. The issue has been how to replicate the utility of cash in the digital world. David Chaum solved this problem in 1982: his dissertation “Computer Systems Established, Maintained and Trusted By Mutually Suspicious Groups” was the original blueprint for blockchains (excluding the proof of work consensus mechanism). His company Digicash launched ecash in 1995, predicated on Chaum’s blind signature innovation. For various reasons, ecash did not take root. Until now. Amongst a small number of initiatives aiming to revive ecash under the Bitcoin umbrella, is Cashu, which allows for private ecash payments over the Lightning Network. It is essentially digital cash, backed by Bitcoin. It requires no accounts or personal information, and everyone involved in the system is blind to other users' transactions. There are tradeoffs: it’s a custodial system where sats are deposited in ‘mints’ to create ecash. The creator Calle, a respected Bitcoin and Lightning Network developer, is working on technical solutions to overcome concerns. Even so, given how well the test version of Cashu is working, Cashu could be the go-to digital cash feature we’re all using very soon, and the feature that enables the next cycle of adoption.