The Peter McCormack Show

Eric Weiss is CEO of the Blockchain Investment Group, and the man who orange-pilled Michael Saylor. In this interview, we discuss the current malaise in the Bitcoin price, why regulation will change this and be good for Bitcoin, and why Bitcoin provides value to all Americans. - - - - As Bitcoin continues to track sideways, with a current sentiment of extreme fear and continued reports of its demise, it’s easy to lose the bigger picture. In 13 years Bitcoin has come from zero to an asset comparable to state-sized currencies, which is being discussed at the highest levels of government around the world. Whilst the wider industry suffers from its own 2007-style financial crisis, where leverage, deception and greed risk an investor bloodbath, Bitcoins ethos remains morally and ethically sound. Bitcoiners' advice to avoid wider altcoin and Web3 proposals has arguably been vindicated. The maxim to hodl is being tested, but long term investors are holding the line. Why is this? As Eric Weiss states, Bitcoin has grown to become a global phenomenon without a marketing budget. Let that sink in. The growth of Bitcoin has been viral. Individuals have become orange-pilled, and in various forms brought others into the fold. There is no one reason for this, and that is Bitcoin’s strength. It has utility for everyone. High worth individuals, the middle class and low income groups are all affected by inflation. Yes, in the current environment, the impacts are more immediate for those with less assets. And, Bitcoin’s volatility isn’t a theoretical risk at this time. But even in periods of moderate inflation, compound effects mean that the dollar is losing value year on year. Bitcoin advocates are confident in the medium term it is going to beat the dollar. Even Charlie Munger thinks the dollar is going to zero over the long term. What amount of Bitcoin constitutes a sensible scale of investment in open to debate, but, as one commentator opined in Bitcoin Magazine on Jul 13th “there is one clearly unwise allocation size when it comes to Bitcoin: zero.”

Adam Wright is a Co-Founder and CEO of Vespene Energy. In this interview, we discuss using landfill methane to power Bitcoin mining, turning waste into an asset, reducing greenhouse emissions, building decentralised baseload energy facilities, and orange pilling local government. - - - - According to the Environmental Defense Fund, a leading environmental nonprofit organisation, methane has more than 80 times the warming power of CO2 and drives at least 25% of today’s global warming. Further, it is a short-lived greenhouse gas remaining potent for just 12 years. And yet, for many years climate change strategies focused on reducing man-made carbon emissions. This is changing: “Reducing human-caused methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective strategies to rapidly reduce the rate of warming and contribute significantly to global efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C… Focused strategies specifically targeting methane need to be implemented to achieve sufficient methane mitigation.” UN Global Methane Assessment 2021. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a third of US methane emissions are generated by landfills. The EPA recognises that methane recovery is not widespread around the world due to a lack of knowledge regarding technologies, and investment challenges. Last year the EPA issued new mandatory guidelines to reduce these emissions within the US. So, imagine you were a municipal official with responsibility for landfills, and someone told you they would: take responsibility for converting methane emissions into EPA-compliant carbon emissions, pay you for the privilege with a profit share deal, and, for isolated landfills, build out the potential for a decentralised energy facility. In short, they could turn waste from being a liability, into an asset. This is what Vespene Energy is proposing. It is hoping to orange pill state and local authorities with their vision of turning methane into Bitcoin. It is another exciting opportunity that Bitcoin opens up; another demonstrable rebuttal of the environmental FUD - enabling the rapid build-out of energy facilities across the thousands of landfill sites across the US, and then the world, whilst tackling climate change. It really is alchemy.

Gabriel Shipton is a Film Producer & advocate for his brother Julian Assange; Stella Moris is a lawyer & wife to Julian Assange. In this interview, we discuss the unprecedented State assault on Assange’s freedom, the effects on his mental & physical well-being, & the threat to journalism. - - - - On March 15th 2006, US forces dropped from helicopters onto the roof of a house in a village north of Baghdad. The mission was reportedly to intercept a member of al-Qaeda who was visiting the dwelling. The US troops gathered 11 family members in one room, handcuffed them, and shot them all in the head. This included 5 children under 6, one of whom was a 6-month-old baby. US soldiers then called in an airstrike to destroy evidence of their crimes. Iraqi police reported the details of the incident at the time, but the US military refuted these claims, stating a fire-fight with insurgents caused the deaths, and that “[US forces] take every precaution to keep civilians out of harm’s way.” Their investigations ended, effectively neutering any other external examination of their conduct. This was until 2010 when WikiLeaks released a series of classified US documents on the Afghan War, Iraq War, and cables between the US State Department and its diplomatic missions around the world. One such cable was from a March 2006 investigation of the above incident by the UN, which corroborated the Iraqi police’s accusations that a horrific war crime had been committed. WikiLeaks releases in 2010 highlighted hundreds of other unreported civilian deaths at the hands of the US military in both the Afghan and Iraq conflicts, including military coverup of the torture (using drills and acid) and execution of Iraqi detainees by Iraqi authorities. Julian Assange is the only person linked to these incidents who has been punished. In August it will be 10 years since he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. During that time the CIA had planned to kidnap and execute him. Then, 3 years ago Assange was arrested in the embassy and taken to the UK’s highest security prison, Belmarsh, where he’s still kept. All because he published source material, a journalistic practice acting as a bedrock of democracy. US authorities have indicted Assange, an Australian citizen residing in the UK, using their 1917 espionage act; this has never previously been used against a journalist. The US is seeking to extradite Assange using a 2003 UK-US treaty, which was hurriedly brought into law without oversight as a response to the war on terror. The rights of individuals in the UK are limited by this treaty. To compound issues further, Assange will not benefit from US constitutional rights. The full weight of the US and UK states is being used against Assange. His physical and mental condition is deteriorating. Assange’s treatment is being used as a warning to others. Whatever your preconceived ideas are about this case, the implications are chilling: the US is seeking to make journalism a crime, and those they accuse suffer.

David Zell is a co-founder of the Bitcoin Policy Institute and Director of Policy at BTC Inc. In this interview, we discuss fighting to make congress aware of Bitcoin’s social value, the strategic benefits of Bitcoin for the US and how our rights are being erased in a digital world and Bitcoin’s defence. - - - - On June 1st a letter in “Support of Responsible Fintech Policy” was sent to Congress. Purportedly from 1,500 “computer scientists, software engineers, and technologists”, it excoriated blockchain technology, stating it “has been a solution in search of a problem and has now latched onto concepts such as financial inclusion and data transparency to justify its existence.” FUD in the media is one thing. Direct lobbying of congress using persuasive but purposefully misleading arguments is another. Coordinated attack vectors have affected Bitcoin at numerous stages of its evolution. These attacks are now focused on galvanizing the most powerful of external forces: persuading the US government Bitcoin is of no social value is arguably the most dangerous moment yet. The battles over technical details have now become battles over ideas. And the constituency over which this battle is being fought has grown from an informed and knowledgeable clique of insiders to a less informed but more consequential clique of legislators. But, just as the assaults on Bitcoin have become more political and trenchant, the defensive measures have witnessed significant maturation. Bitcoin has always had persuasive individuals. Now it has powerful institutions. Most importantly it has its own think tank, bringing together some of the most interesting and original voices within the industry. In this new stage of Bitcoin’s development, we are lucky to have those who can see the battle that needs to be fought at the nation-state level. And we’re also lucky to have those who can develop arguments that are persuasive to those looking for the collective needs of wider society.

Andrew Dessler is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. In this interview, we discuss the settled science of climate change, the polarisation of the climate change debate, our need for more energy, and the market inevitability of wind and solar-dominated grids. - - - - In April, WBD interviewed Alex Epstein who stated humans need access to more low-cost energy. Energy enables humans to survive in otherwise inhospitable climates but also flourish. Epstein stated that energy at the moment is dominated by fossil fuels, which are very hard to replace. Further, he asserts claims of climate change catastrophe are being overstated. Andrew Dessler, who has previously publicly debated Alex Epstein, wanted an opportunity to rebut some of Alex Epstein’s claims. Dessler agrees that humans need access to more energy; underinvestment over previous decades has contributed to the current energy crisis. But, humans also need to be concerned about the existential risks of increasing carbon emissions. There is widespread consensus amongst climate scientists that the science of climate change is correct, and the forecasts have been proven to be reliable. The risks are real and significant. There is a fear that attempts to refute the science feed the culture wars, where climate change views are predetermined by political allegiance. Dessler also claims that refuting science is a cynical tactic to avoid moving the debate onto the policy. His rationale is that the case for transitioning to renewables isn’t just predicated on reducing carbon emissions, there is also a compelling economic case: it is an energy source with a marginal cost of zero. A strong supply market for solar and wind is powerful validation for this. That’s not to say 100% of our energy needs can be derived from wind and solar. Those advocating for increased use of renewable energy are fully aware of the need for reliable dispatchable power from other energy sources. But there is a strong conviction that renewable energy can become a dominant provider for our energy needs of today and tomorrow.

Craig Warmke is a philosopher and fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. In this interview, we discuss the biases and pressures that distort opinions about Bitcoin, and a framework for enabling objective evaluation of Bitcoin’s value and risk to individuals and society.   - - - -  Bitcoin has proved itself to be the hardest money ever created at a time when the world’s monetary systems are under unprecedented stress. It also provides an array of unique utilities: it helps vulnerable people; disrupts rent-seeking exploitation and brings pluralism to money for ordinary people. And yet, for the majority, Bitcoin is still funny internet money, or worse, a Ponzi scheme, criminal back channel and/or environmental disaster. Why are so many people still struggling to see what Bitcoiners see?  Hal Finney’s writings are uncannily prescient. One such example is ‘Politics vs Technology’: a short 1994 article about cypherpunk responses to the dangers of government overreach. Many believed solutions were to be found in coding new tools. Finney was less sure that technology in isolation would change the world. To him, active engagement is vital: “If we want freedom and privacy, we must persuade others that these are worth having. There are no shortcuts.”  If education is the magic bullet, how should we persuade those still on the sidelines? Craig Warmke has proposed a framework that enables people to strip away their unconscious bias, subjective viewpoints and peer group constraints. The critical characteristic of the framework is that it requires openness to all of Bitcoin’s tradeoffs; bias affects both sides of the debate.   It makes the approach a powerful educational weapon: each individual can see the issues through a new lens; and, because both sides are required to confront their partiality, the conversation can become honest and collaborative. It also enables a fair review of the hidden costs of wider Bitcoin adoption, so that Bitcoin’s case can be further strengthened.

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss the rise and role of Central Banks: their intermittent role in the US’s history, the piecemeal erosion of a gold standard, the new era of easy money, and whether Bitcoin could replace Central Banking. - - - - Central Banks have played such a dominant role in our societies it’s easy to assume that they are required institutions within modern governmental systems. The idea that the market can determine a monetary policy and the price for money is well outside of the Overton window. Yet, for long periods in the industrialised era modern civilised societies have functioned, developed and prospered without such institutions. Further, there is ample evidence that central banks are now far from being a steadying force that brings stability to economies. For around 100 years, the international monetary system was pegged to gold; albeit there were debasements, new controls, and periodic abandonments during this period. Then in 1971, the monetary system was taken off any remnants of a gold standard. Its constraints on US fiscal policy had become too burdensome. It led to the development of fiat currencies and a period of easy money. Governments have become increasingly dependent upon Central Banks in creating new money to assist with economic shocks: following the global financial crisis the production of dollars markedly increased. But these events were dwarfed by the injection of new money during the pandemic. Inflation is now catching up, but at a time when economies are stagnating. Cycles of debt accumulation always come to an end. Without careful political judgement, coordination and luck, the resolution of unsustainable debt at the global level can lead to domestic and international conflict. So, we’re entering a transformative decade. The question is whether Bitcoin, the strongest form of money ever invented, can enable society to navigate through this unwinding of the long-term debt cycle? Additionally, can it enable the market to again determine the price of money?

Seth for Privacy is a privacy advocate and host of the Opt Out Podcast. In this interview, we discuss how financial privacy protects all other rights, the current limitations with Bitcoin’s privacy, and Monero’s protocol privacy that some Bitcoiners find beneficial. - - - - Most people have slowly acquiesced to the undermining of personal privacy by tech companies. There has been a trade-off: free access to powerful social media software for the monetisation of our data. The problem is a false sense of security has been allowed to fester: there is a material lack of concern that such transgressions could become more malign and overt abuses of power. The wake-up call for many was the treatment of the Candian truckers. Not many foresaw Bitcoin’s privacy weaknesses being exploited by a western liberal democratic power led by a young charismatic leader. But they were exploited. The Canadian authorities were unrepentant. And there was nothing the truckers could do. Once your privacy is compromised that’s it. Whilst it is a wake-up (or should be a wake-up call), Bitcoin’s fully auditable pseudonymous transaction history presents significant privacy challenges. That’s not to say that non-technical users can’t improve their privacy using Bitcoin, or that privacy concerns always need to be front and centre of decisions to hold Bitcoin. Rather, there may be another option under certain circumstances. Monero is an altcoin that some Bitcoiners are willing to adopt given its unique out-of-the-box privacy features. It is being used to complement the use case for Bitcoin. And yet, there is still toxicity from some quarters towards Monero and those who advocate for it. Is this healthy? Does Monero deserve to be treated like other altcoins? Fundamentally, should Bitcoiners be open to using Monero? Or, do maximalists who have served the community well express warranted concerns? What are the tradeoffs being made and how do they affect users?

Avik Roy is president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity think tank and a policy Editor at Forbes. In this interview, we discuss the Lummis Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act, inflation’s compounding impact on the poor and why Bitcoin provides optimism. - - - - On June 7th Republican Senator Lummis and Democratic Senator Gillibrand introduced the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, which aims to establish a regulatory framework for digital assets in the US. Many Bitcoiners believe Bitcoin is designed to work outside of regulatory oversight. But is this proposal inimical to Bitcoin’s potential to positively contribute to society? If Bitcoin is to play a dominant role within society, can it do that outside of the law? Irrespective of Bitcoin, should governments have a role in protecting citizens from the negative impacts of the wider altcoin market? What are the dividing lines between different digital assets? And, could the lack of regulation in the near term actually be detrimental to Bitcoin in the long run? Bitcoin’s advocates are heavily engaged in trying to obtain regulatory clarity - they fear continued uncertainty could delay or damage its ability to provide utility to those who really need it. This is particularly for those impacted by the ravages of inflation. The current inflationary environment has resulted in renewed consideration of this economic condition. The issue is that there is actually a deficit of understanding of inflation’s regressive impacts. It impacts the poorest in society hardest, whilst benefiting the richest. These impacts compound over time such that inequality explodes even in low inflationary environments. Does this mean inflation as a policy is a busted flush? Should economies aim for zero inflation? These are radical policy shifts that are unlikely to happen anytime soon. This is why Bitcoin provides some with optimism: it’s trying to be the hardest money the world has ever seen.

Matt Odell is host of the Citadel Dispatch and venture partner at Ten31. In this interview, we discuss why each additional positive act of privacy protection improves Bitcoin's resilience and value. Perfecting privacy is not the goal; making a start is, as we don’t know what the future holds. - - - - Our privacy is continuously being eroded. Current best estimates are that 2.5 million terabytes of data are produced every day. A material amount of that information has extremely lax privacy protection: 98% of Internet of Things data is unencrypted; 83% of companies encrypt less than half the data they store on the cloud; 25% of websites are visited without encryption. Vast amounts of the data we freely shed are stored, analysed and triangulated for commercial reasons. These tactics are so sophisticated that it’s not uncommon for people to think companies are listening to their conversations. We are being squeezed for our data in almost all aspects of our lives while cash, traditionally the only semi-private way of transacting, is being removed from society, and CBDCs inch closer to reality. Imagine if companies or governments could access and track your income, store of wealth and all those with whom you transacted. What is currently unnerving behaviour by those who track our data could rapidly become something much more maligned and coercive. Bitcoin is freedom money. But using bitcoin privately isn’t an easy task. The vast majority of Bitcoin is bought using exchanges that have stringent KYC/AML requirements. When you pair these onramps with surveillance firms like Chainalysis, using bitcoin goes from being pseudonymous to almost entirely transparent. But there are things you can do to gain good privacy with bitcoin. Tools like coinjoin and non-KYC exchanges like Bisq are getting better all of the time, and more and more people are using the Lightning Network for cash like transactions, which offers improved privacy. Perfect privacy, whether with bitcoin or not, is a pipedream. The goal is to continually improve in protecting a fundamental human right, privacy.