The Peter McCormack Show

Ben de Waal is the VP of Engineering for Swan Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss living on bitcoin, what it means to be a libertarian socialist, the issues with capitalism and why Bitcoin should be a home for those on the left and the right. - - - - The last year has been marked by a growing interest in Bitcoin from progressives. A number of high-profile liberal names have emerged from within the community extolling the utility of Bitcoin. But, this is not a new phenomenon: the community has always been a home for the full spectrum of views. Further, there are important reasons why Bitcoin appeals to those on both the left and the right. Bitcoin has garnered a strong libertarian following. This was something Satoshi envisioned: in 2008 he stated in a post “It's very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly.” This was successful; there are many who have been attracted to the Bitcoin community for its potential to provide an alternative to state-controlled currency, and thereby limit the size of government. This alignment with the right has acted as a barrier to some on the left. But not all. The original cypherpunks philosophy was predicated on anarchist ideals, to work outside of government controls. This attitude is analogous to those on the left who feel disenfranchised by the current global capitalist hegemony. Bitcoin too offers those on the left a chance to opt-out of what they perceive to be a broken system. Increasing numbers are waking up to this opportunity. The issue is obviously that the left and the right have been at loggerheads for centuries. Over this time debate has evolved into grandstanding. Misconceptions have been allowed to fester on both sides. This has been supercharged by social media where the general aim now is to marginalise an opposing opinion rather than seek to analyse and potentially assimilate different ideas. If Bitcoin really is freedom money, then it needs to be a home to people of all opinions. The issue is that our society has become polarised; a winner takes all attitude has metastasized. We need to reaffirm the basis of a strong democratic system: a pluralistic society that tolerates and supports multiple centres of power. Where ideas are debated, solutions are found, and progress is made. We need the same philosophical approach as the United States' founding fathers.

Mark Goodwin is the director of print editorial at Bitcoin Magazine. In this interview, we discuss the US government's sanctions on Tornado Cash, the upcoming Ethereum merge, and why this is vitally important for the future of Bitcoin. - - - - On 24th August, the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol Support team announced the Ethereum merge is expected to take place between September 10th and September 20th. The event marks Ethereum’s shift from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, which would eliminate mining from the network consensus mechanism. However, major concerns are surfacing that move beyond the well-worn battle lines. There is a growing desire for the Ethereum PoW consensus to continue resulting in a network fork. But, Ethereum has effectively been co-opted by USDC and USDT stablecoins. Because these stablecoins are widely used on the network and due to the centralised nature of these stablecoins, the issuers can throw around their financial weight by deciding which fork to censor. And the organisations behind these stablecoins have shown a readiness to comply with state sanctions. What will this make Ethereum? On the same day of the merge announcement, a Dutch judge ruled that the developer of the Tornado Cash mixing service on the Ethereum blockchain must stay in jail for 90 days as he awaits charges. What these charges will be is not necessarily clear at the moment, but it seems that authorities will tie it into hacking and money laundering schemes. The Dutch action was coordinated with (and probably orchestrated by) the US government, which has imposed sanctions on addresses associated with Tornado Cash. The actions by the State Department are reminiscent of the original battles with cypher punks in the 1990s that resulted in the first “Code is Speech” ruling. Do they want to retest that ruling? These events, on the face of things, reinforce the unique position of Bitcoin. But, any rejoicing would miss the existential dangers. The state may be setting a precedent to outlaw code, sending a message to developers seeking to protect privacy which is already having a chilling effect, whatever the protocol. Could we be witnessing the development of a state-coerced digital currency?

Anita Posch is a fellow Bitcoin podcaster, author, advocate, and educator. In this interview, we discuss her mission to educate Bitcoin educators in emerging countries, the challenges Africans face using Bitcoin, and the numerous innovative Bitcoin initiatives happening in Africa. - - - - Bitcoin has a tremendous capacity to help people, particularly those living in emerging economies, but a lot of people associate it directly with scams. A large part of this is due to misreporting within mainstream media. Traditional media outlets have incredible reach but seem to lack the care required to provide authoritative balance. Last Saturday, The Times printed an article with the headline “How the Bitcoin boom led to ‘a giant fleecing of ordinary people’”. The article focused on the numerous events in crypto over the past few months that have wiped out retail investors. But, at no point in the article is there any attempt to differentiate Bitcoin from the crypto market. The Bitcoin community is therefore lucky to have fearless advocates like Anita Posch, pushing back against the mainstream FUD to educate people on the ground level. This is hard, lonely, but vital work, to provide access to uncensorable money to those who need it the most. It is this type of work that has made the growth and adoption of Bitcoin, despite all the obstacles, a silent revolution. Anita has focused a lot of attention on Africa. She has visited and helped people throughout the continent. Against a backdrop of countries suffering from crippling inflation, corruption and strict currency controls, there are numerous innovative initiatives empowering ordinary people through Bitcoin. These are inspirational stories of normal people doing extraordinary things. But Anita is one person. She is therefore focused on maximising her impact by educating the educators. To this end, Anita has set up a non-profit initiative, Bitcoin for Fairness. Please give generously. That way you can help Bitcoin’s silent revolution to continue.

Matthew Mežinskis is the creator of the Crypto Voices podcast and Porkopolis Economics website. In this interview, we discuss Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the refutation of justifications for the war on the basis of Russia’s security needs and threats from Ukrainian Nazis. - - - - On the 24th February, Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops to invade its neighbour Ukraine. It is the first major conflict in Europe since World War 2, this time pitting East Slav against East Slav. The ramifications of the war will be felt for decades to come. Yet, at the moment, analysts and commentators are still struggling to make sense of the rapidly shifting present. Despite the uncertainty regarding how the conflict will play out, it seemed as though the ideological battlegrounds were clear: Putin, a ruthless autocratic leader in charge of a mafia state, has aggressively and unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation defying international law, destabilising the wider region, and causing significant issues in global energy and food markets. However, some of those who have cast a rightfully critical eye over post-World War 2 American foreign policy, particularly its proclivity for armed combat, looked at Russia’s actions through a different lens. To them, Russia had credible security concerns. Does a nation that has been invaded twice in recent centuries by European powers have legitimate concerns over NATO expansions toward its borders? Furthermore, are the alarming claims of powerful ultra right-wing within Ukraine’s armed forces fighting along Russia’s borders reliable? To those for whom the conflict resonates personally, where TV images show familiar locations and victims with a shared history, these are incredibly emotive subjects. It becomes more than an intellectual disagreement, and there is little room for nuance. But, even for those of us without an intimate connection, Putin’s historical record and the evidence that Russia is engaging in brutal atrocities against unarmed civilians of all ages, should bring clarity to our perspective.

Maajid Nawaz is a UK-based counter-extremism activist, author and content producer. In this interview, we discuss his membership of a fundamentalist pan-Islam political group, imprisonment in Egypt, and returning to the UK to work on counter-extremism. We also discuss being forced to leave his position as a presenter on LBC. - - - - Maajid Nawaz experienced first-hand the rise of Islamic extremism through the 1990s. At the time terrorism was not viewed to be a major global issue: it was confined to specific pockets around the world or used by individuals expressing narrow ideological views. This was when Nawaz was a senior member of a political organisation pushing for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Then 9/11 happened, which brought the threat of Islamic terrorism sharply into focus. Nawaz and like-minded people were now perceived to be the enemy by a growing political alliance. Nawaz was in Egypt, arriving a day before 9/11. He was picked up and imprisoned for 4 years in Egypt’s most notorious prison. He witnessed torture and was subject to a period in solitary confinement. Following pressure from Amnesty amongst others, Nawaz was eventually released and returned to the UK. Rather than turn to thoughts of revenge, Nawaz sort to break the cycle of violence. He renounced his Islamist past and then co-founded a counter-extremist foundation. He ended up advising leaders around the world, including UK Prime Minister David Cameron and US President George Bush. Nawaz is now a content producer seeking to cover a range of issues: politics, security and human rights, Jihadism, Nationalism, China's ill-treatment of Uighurs, and the Covid lockdowns. His dissenting views on the orthodoxy regarding vaccines led to him being forced to leave as a presenter on the talk radio station LBC and becoming an independent voice. There is a certain clarity of thought that comes from having experienced at close quarters how the geo-political landscape has shifted and changed over the past two decades. Nawaz has clear ideas on how the world works, how institutions and systems behave, and why we must question the mainstream narrative. When all systems lean toward power, it is important for some to lean in the opposite direction.

Matthew Mežinskis is the creator of the Crypto Voices podcast and Porkopolis Economics website. In this interview, we discuss the definition of money, the importance of credit and fractional reserve banking, and how “not your keys, not your coins” equally applies to bank deposits. - - - - WBD528, “Everything You Know About the Economy is Wrong with Jeff Snider”, was one of our most discussed shows of recent months. Jeff presented a number of challenging and yet fascinating ideas, that have now spurred a second interview responding to some of the issues raised. A principle issue was Jeff’s assertion that the system lacks understanding and control. When asked whether he could define money Jeff replied “No, I actually don't. That's I think that's the general problem. Even the Federal Reserve or central banks, economists, they can't define money either.” Matthew Mežinskis respectfully disagrees: he thinks that there are tried and tested specific definitions that make money comprehensible to all. Matthew promotes the idea that money is chiefly a medium of exchange, and that there are two distinct types of money: base money that confers ownership, and fiduciary money which is a claim for ownership. Further, Matthew is of the opinion that, whilst criticism of the Fed is valid, it isn’t the ignorant and inefficient organisation some portray it to be. From this cascades a series of additional opinions that are at odds with the mainstream narrative within Bitcoin circles: credit is a natural means of human interaction, that has enabled civilisations to flourish; whilst fractional reserve banking is a necessary part of capital allocation within the economy, and cash use continues to be vibrant. And yet, in line with the truism that Bitcoiners are a broad church, Matthew is a strong advocate for Bitcoin. He sees that it promises real improvement to the current economic system. He just sees it through a different lens. In this worldview is Bitcoin an evolution rather than a revolution?

Junseth is an OG Bitcoiner and the former co-host of Bitcoin Uncensored. In this interview, we discuss how the early days of Bitcoin mirror the issues we’re seeing in the ecosystem today: over leverage, unsustainable returns, greed and excessive confidence that the party won’t end. - - - - The contagion in the DeFi market over the past few months has seemed unprecedented. Major companies wiped out. Investors rekt. Confidence turned to panic. Commentators have been declaring that the recent events are an existential crisis: this time Bitcoin is really dead. As one of the OG Bitcoiners, Junseth was part of the initial wave who eulogized and expanded on what the innovation could possibly mean for the world before the world had heard of Bitcoin. Then, between 2015-2017, he hosted the uncompromising podcast Bitcoin Uncensored, with Chris DeRose. They exposed false promises and scams prevalent in the space. Past is, as they say, prologue. And the past events that triggered the development of Bitcoin, and its early days, rhyme with the present. Junseth connects the over-leverage within traditional finance, which was the predicate for Satoshi’s message in the genesis block, with the excessive confidence and greed that has been the root of the cascading collapse of DeFi companies. In turn, the untenable yields prevalent within the altcoin markets were a practice employed by scammers working with Bitcoin nearly a decade ago. What are the important lessons to learn? Humans are creatures of habit: scams and greed will always follow the money. But, is the more important lesson that the unnecessary complexity of the grift that develops diverts from the principle simplicity of Bitcoin? Is the innovation of digital value the singular utility? Will those motivated by greed, therefore, miss the real purpose of Bitcoin? Should we instead follow the actions of those motivated by need?

Paul Sztorc is an independent Bitcoin researcher. In this interview, we discuss drivechains, his 2015 proposal that’s the focus of BiP 300 and 301. Drivechains facilitate sidechains on Bitcoin, providing a bridge to new coins. The aim is to enable developer creativity atop Bitcoin. - - - - In October 2014 Adam Back and other prominent Bitcoin developers introduced the concept of sidechains to Bitcoin’s infrastructure. In the paper, they stated “We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own.” Paul Sztorc then developed a proposal for a version of sidechains in 2015 that were linked to Bitcoin’s mainchain. This proposal would improve on the original sidechain idea in several ways: it did not require independent miners for the sidechains, and further, it did not require a hard-fork of Bitcoin. A principle driver was to enable developers to create innovations within Bitcoin, outside of the need to develop separate token ecosystems. Various features, including a 1:1 peg, and a delayed redemption period, were designed to mitigate the incentive to create new alternative tokens for purely selfish financial reasons, whilst facilitating an ecosystem for innovation. In short, it was designed to remove the marketplace for altcoins altogether, allowing Bitcoin to foster experimentation. And yet, whilst being the basis for two Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, drivechains are still yet to be adopted by the community. This is perhaps not a surprise given Bitcoin’s focus on dependability and reasonable concerns about impinging on Bitcoin’s robust security. But, are these concerns valid? Of course, the idea that we could retain a fixed monetary supply on a secure base layer, and at the same time have the freedom to experiment with new privacy technologies and programmability seems like the best of both worlds. The question remains why this strategy has not yet been broadly supported and adopted by the network. The “work slowly and build things” philosophy in Bitcoin is a core pillar of the Bitcoin value proposition as a reliable monetary protocol. But can drivechains be a way of enabling Bitcoin to become the gravitational centre for developers? Or, do Drivechains pose an existential choice between security and progress?

Jason Maier is a teacher and progressive Bitcoiner. In this interview, we discuss his inspiration for writing a book setting out his case, as a progressive, for Bitcoin. The public narrative and FUD around Bitcoin are antithetical to progressives, yet, its utility is aligned with progressive ideals. - - - - Bitcoin should be a broad church. The original cypherpunks philosophy was predicated on anarchist ideals, to work outside of government controls. This attitude is analogous to a wide variety of political philosophies, including those on the left who feel disenfranchised by the current global capitalist hegemony. And yet, Bitcoin has historically been viewed as being antithetical to progressives. The mainstream narrative is that Bitcoiners are predominantly libertarian, with explicit views on the need to reduce the size of the state, the coercive nature of taxation, and the importance of self-reliance. In addition, there is significant criticism about the environmental harm being done by Bitcoin mining through its energy demands. Given our polarised society, it’s not surprising that progressives are immediately turned off. And yet, there has been a marked increase in the number of progressive voices entering the community over the past few years. These people have risen to prominence given their impassioned and articulate advocacy for Bitcoin. It is a new wave of orange-pilled adoption that has identified broad utility that is aligned to, rather than being at odds with, progressive ideals. Whether it’s that Bitcoin is providing sovereignty and security to marginalized communities, that Bitcoin acts as a constraint to unfettered government economic power, or that Bitcoin is actually enabling market-driven solutions to environmental issues - there are many obvious fact-based reasons why progressives should be enthused by the application of Satoshi’s innovation. The reason why the increase in left-leaning adoption hasn’t turned into a flood is in part due to education. There are a limited number of resources available to those starting on their Bitcoin journey. This is where people like Jason Maier hope to make a difference. Material written by a progressive will provide an authentic message specifically tailored to this audience. This should be exciting for all Bitcoiners. If Bitcoin is to become global money we need as wide an audience as possible to see value in it.

There is a growing a powerful backlash against Bitcoin mining. In the past 2 months: New York’s legislative assembly established a moratorium on mining based on PoW; Dick Durbin, the second highest ranked Democrat in the Senate, tweeted that Bitcoin mining uses “obscene amounts of energy”; the European Central Bank indicated that a ban on PoW is likely by 2025. The problem is that the growing movement against Bitcoin mining, specifically its use of energy to satisfy PoW consensus protocol, defies logic. The FUD and the facts don’t align. The reality is Bitcoin mining is providing unprecedented utility to society. It is helping to mitigate methane emissions at landfill and oil fields, whilst also providing a unique demand that stabilizes energy grids. The concern is that the FUD is orientated along political lines. The movement against Bitcoin mining is more heavily resourced by democratic and left-leaning groups. Therefore, is the growing progressive support for Bitcoin more than just beneficial to its wider adoption? Could it be vital to dispel the disinformation? Is Bitcoin’s future dependent upon a de-polarisation of the ecosystem? Whatever the trajectory of the discussion, one thing is clear: Harry Sudock is one of the most clear-eyed, passionate and articulate voices within our industry. With people of such uncompromising yet pragmatic vision, we have the resources to win the battle of ideas. The Bitcoin community’s role is to help circulate the facts amongst the groups spreading the FUD.