Mediaboss Marketing

Bitcoin is sometimes thought of as a new, more-democratic form of money that is controlled by the general public, but this point of view may miss the point of the decentralized, peer-to-peer digital cash system.

During a recent talk at a Bitcoin meetup in Sydney, Australia, Mastering Bitcoin author Andreas Antonopoulos was asked for his thoughts on whether Bitcoin could be considered a democracy. In his response, Antonopoulos shared his thoughts on democracy more generally, how Bitcoin does not fall under that categorization, and how the balance of power works in Bitcoin.

After pointing out that he himself is from Greece, which is where the concept of democracy was first developed, Antonopoulos noted that he personally doesnt believe in raw democracy.

[Democracy was invented] under very specific circumstances: 3,000 land owning, slave owning white males got to decide for themselves and the 150,000 slaves, women, and [children] who they owned as property, said Antonopoulos.

Antonopoulos went on to explain that democracy, without the proper restraints, gives 51% of the population the ability to decide to kill the other 49% for any reason they choose.

Democracy without restraints, without human rights, without civil rights, without constitutional protections is a brutal system of oppression where once you get that sliver of majority, you can eradicate everybody else, said Antonopoulos.

After discussing the perils of raw democracy, Anthopoulos also clarified that the sorts of constitutional republican democracies and parliamentary democracies seen today are intended to guard against these issues.

Getting to the topic of Bitcoin, Anthopoulos was clear in his belief that Bitcoin is not a democracy.

Bitcoin isnt a democracy not even in the mining, said Antonopoulos. Bitcoin is a system of supermajority consensus where it takes a very large percentage of the deciding groups (the five constituencies of consensus) in order to make change, which makes change very difficult.

A similar sentiment was shared during the 2016 MIT Bitcoin Expo, when a panel of Bitcoin developers were generally dismissive of the concept of Bitcoin as a democratic system.

Antonopoulos went on to say that some may refer to the political system used in Bitcoin as cypherpunk or cryptoanarchy, but he added that new words may be needed to describe how Bitcoin works in a political sense.

Bitcoin is redefining political and organizational systems not just Bitcoin: open, public blockchains, said Antonopoulos. This technology born out of the internet and expressing some of the radically egalitarian, open philosophies of free flowing information, freedom of speech, freedom of association on a transnational basis that transcends not just borders but every aspect of identity without identity.

In Antonopouloss view, the traditional, democratic systems do not scale globally due to their hierarchical nature. He referred to Bitcoin as a radical, new political system.

Flat, network-based, collaborative, decentralized adhocracies on the internet may be the new thing, said Antonopoulos. Who knows? It will be fun to find out.

Expanding on the question about Bitcoin as a democracy, Antonopoulos was also asked to explain how the balance of power between various actors in the Bitcoin ecosystem works.

We dont know yet were finding out, responded Antonopoulos.

To Antonopouloss point, the upcoming deployment of the SegWit2x proposal may be a test of the balance of power in Bitcoin. While a chain split can be prevented during the activation of the soft fork for Segregated Witness, its unclear what will happen if Bitcoin companies and miners decide to attempt a hard-forking increase of the block size limit.

All of that noise doesnt change the Bitcoin consensus rules, said Antonopoulos in terms of signed agreements and chatter on social media. At the end of the day, its going to play out on the network protocol with nodes that are participating that express the economic interests of their users through choices about which set of consensus rules they use on their live systems and with their transactions.

Antonopoulos added that talk is cheap when it comes to changes to Bitcoins consensus rules. At that last moment, when push comes to shove and you see the consensus rules are moving one way you know, you stick your finger in the air and you detect which way the wind is blowing suddenly, your very sacred, principled opinions go straight out the window and you follow your pocket, he said.

Antonopoulos concluded this discussion around Bitcoin governance by noting that Bitcoin could end up splitting into two separate cryptocurrency networks. I dont like that particular solution for Bitcoin, but some others do, he said.

Image from Pixabay.

Read more:
Antonopoulos: 'Bitcoin Isn't a Democracy' - Crypto Insider (press release) (blog)

(Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

It was supremely ironic. President Trump stood in front of a monument to the Warsaw uprising, the Polish underground resistance armys catastrophic, failed attempt to overthrow Nazi rule at the end of World War II. The uprising was a national tragedy: 200,000 of the countrys best-educated and most patriotic young people, the men and women who would have been its leaders, died. The capital was burned to the ground. And in large part, the disaster was caused by the fact that none of the other allies not Britain, obviously not the Soviet Union, and certainly not the United States came to Polands defense, even though the resistance army believed they would.

In front of this monument to unfulfilled expectations of distant allies, this memorial to the horrors of a Europe riven by brutal nationalist struggle, Trump offered his support to a Polish government that is both the most nationalist in Europe and now the most isolated in Europe. He made lengthy remarks about the uprising, complete with the now familiar references to the blood of patriots, and at the same time offered his support for Poland in carefully delineated terms.

In essence, Trump called on Poland to help the United States in the struggle of Western civilization against Islamist terrorism though at times he made it sound as if the real enemy were cultural, not political. He didnt talk about the democratic values that would unite the West in this struggle, but of the ties of God and family, language designed to appeal to nationalist-Catholic Poles, but not to the whole country. He made only one allusion to Russia, speaking of its destabilization of Ukraine (in fact it was an invasion) even though Russia poses a far greater threat to Poland than Islamist terrorism. Russia will hold major military exercises on Polands borders in September. A previous version of these exercises included a simulated nuclear attack.

In failing to focus on Russia, Trump broke with precedent. By comparison, President Barack Obama, at a speech in Estonia in 2014, declared clearly that Russias aggression against Ukraine was a threat to a Europe that is whole and free and at peace. Trump also broke with precedent, but in a different way: He barely mentioned democracy. And he alluded mostly negatively to the rest of Europe, speaking (misleadlingly) of the billions and billions of dollars that Europeans are now supposedly paying into NATO, as if it were a protection racket. When he lauded the military equipment and the gas that the United States will sell to Poland, he joked about needing to charge more.

He did after refusing to do so on his last trip finally refer to Article 5, the part of the NATO treaty that says an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. But earlier, at a news conference, he told journalists that he had not discussed military guarantees with Polands president. And after his speech, the American president known for his mendaciousness and untrustworthiness left Warsaw for his meeting with the Russian president.

In truth, Poland, like its neighbors, will only ever be safe from Russian military intervention or political interference if the country is deeply integrated into a strong, cohesive, unified and democratic Europe. It will only be safe if its own democratic institutions are strong enough to withstand outside meddling. But right now, Poland is run by a political party, Law and Justice, that has launched an assault on the countrys democratic institutions and has, by doing so, managed to alienate all of its most important European neighbors.

The free press is under attack in Poland, along with the independence of the judiciary. The current defense minister has even begun to undermine the professionalism and apolitical character of the military. These policies have alienated Poland from the rest of Europe and also led to a deep schism inside the country. The crowd at Trumps speech, supporters bused in from around the country, booed and shouted insults at opposition politicians, among them Lech Walesa, the anti-communist hero, despite the fact that this was a solemn, national, military and diplomatic occasion.

In giving such a speech in such a place, Trump has confirmed Polands nationalist government in its isolationist and anti-democratic course. He also encouraged Poles to be brave, as in the past, when they fought alone, and encouraged them once again to place their faith in distant allies. Lets hope that faith never has to be tested.

Read more from Anne Applebaums archive, follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook.

Originally posted here:
Trump affirms the Polish government's assault on democracy - Washington Post

What European democracies have lacked most, since at least the 1980s, is high-profile political vision.

Helmut Kohl. October 1978.Wikicommons/German Federal Archive. Some rights reserved.In recent weeks there have been crucial elections in three large European countries, France (presidential and parliamentary), Britain, and Italy (municipal elections). Overall, about 105 million voters have been called to the polls. While results have been quite surprising, and relatively new figures (Jeremy Corbyn and Emmanuel Macron) have gained international prominence, European democracy has not really demonstrated its strengths.

The most encouraging aspect has been the rise in the youth vote, which in Britain has mainly been won by Corbyns Labour. British youngsters are somewhat better off than their peers on the continent: youth unemployment would be around 11%, much less than in most EU countries (22% in France; 35% in Italy; 39% in Spain). And yet they have expressed dissatisfaction by voting en masse for Corbyn and rejecting the perspectives of austerity, debt, and uncertainty.

At the same time their choice has been a demand for better politics, and for a return of values, vision, and ideas; they have had enough of self-serving Oxford-educated cliques, and lite infighting. They have had enough of the few, of all the browbeating issued by the oligarchy in the run-up to the Brexit referendum as well as in its aftermath. An anti-lite attitude has emerged also among the French youth. At least in the first round of the presidential polls (22 April), those under 24 preferred more extremist Le Pen and Melenchon to the moderate and centrist, Emmanuel Macron. Macron largely won the second round and the legislative polls; yet the overall turnout in the latter two rounds was as low as 49 and 43%. So the fact that Republique en Marche! brought many youngsters to the National Assembly is not a true measure of its appeal among younger generations. Will Macron really bring change? If so, in what way?

A strong political cleavage, also evident last year in the US elections, is forming between metropolitan areas and the countryside. Better-educated urbanites voted Democrats, Labour, and Macron. Most British large cities voted Labour; in London, Corbyns party obtained 49 seats; the Conservatives, 21. Similar conditions apply to Macron in France he won Paris with a share of almost 90%.

That said, Labour and En Marche! differ profoundly in many other respects. Corbyns platform is clear and well-defined, partly through discussion with a high-profile (and much-debated) Committee of Economic Advisors. There is a party, there is a vision. By contrast, and despite his connections with heavyweight economists (such as Jacques Attali and Jean Pisani-Ferry), Macron has been vague and generic, bordering on demagogy and resembling a constantly metamorphosing hologram.

His case is as worrying as that of the so-called personality parties (Berlusconis Forza Italia being the most famous example) which emerged in Europe about twenty years ago and which still maintain a degree of organisation and structure; Republique en Marche! looks like a big tent, one tailored to a supposedly charismatic leader, who somehow puts himself before and above the party, and has crucial links to little-transparent external forces (such as high finance). Needless to say, this evolution is highly problematic for modern democracy.

Such a growing personalisation of politics, and the volatility of party structures in peripheral areas, have also contributed to the decline in popularity of globalist and progressive forces in the rural areas. Feeling more and more marginalised, the periphery (a derogatory and unfair term in itself) has turned both far right and far left.

Protectionism, re-industrialisation, exit from the euro, and other (sometimes populist) slogans have captured the attention and the votes of dispossessed factory workers, miners, agricultural workers, or the unemployed. Can the global world, if it wants to stick to democratic principles, afford to neglect and forget millions and millions of voters? After all, Hillary Clinton, amongst other reasons, lost the US presidential polls in the peripheries, while Macron realised the point a bit late on, after his opponent Marine Le Pen visited an embattled factory in his own home town, Amiens.

Now though is the time to act. Will the new president understand that democracy cannot be rule by the few and demonstrate this in the facts and choices he puts before people, beyond his flamboyant rhetoric?

What European democracies have lacked most, since at least the 1980s, is high-profile political vision. A politician with a vision in fact passed away on 16 June: we are talking about Helmut Kohl. The former German chancellor was not flawless (from a CDU financial scandal to the much-debated early recognition of Croatia, which contributed to increasing tensions in the former Yugoslavia). But he had a grand vision for Germany and Europe, and pursued it despite numerous obstacles. German re-unification, in his view, complemented European integration; it was Kohl, who, despite little knowledge of economics, pushed the euro as a political project of peace between Germany and France.

As he used to recall, he had lost an older brother in World War Two and was deeply committed to European peace. Moreover, German re-unification might have given him a place in history books, but probably cost him the chancellorship (in 1995), because of its tremendous economic effects on the eastern Lnder. In a sense, he sacrificed his own career, and did not then attempt the financially rewarding adventures into consultancies, banks, or corporations, which so many younger politicians have attempted.

Macron is 48 years Kohls junior. Will history remember him as a statesman or a pale hologram, a leader, or a figurehead in pursuit of factional interests? Perhaps it is too early to say. But western democracy urgently needs to regain the vision, the ideals, the nobility of the generation of politicians who witnessed World War Two and its aftermath. It matters to Europe, to democracy, and to our future. Better economic conditions, which so many youngsters need, require first and foremost better politics.

See original here:
Democracy in the age of Macron - Open Democracy

Seattle can serve as a model for the rest of the country most Americans favor campaign-finance reform.

THESE days we cannot have electoral reform without a lawsuit. So is the case in Seattle with its innovative way to fund local campaigns. Under the system, every Seattle resident is provided with four $25 vouchers to give to candidates for local office who agree to various campaign-finance restrictions. A new lawsuit challenges this program under the First Amendment. The court should reject that challenge.

Seattles Democracy Vouchers program is a smart way of limiting big money from influencing elections. It allows everyday individuals to help fund campaigns. Candidates who do not have wealthy backers or a large personal war chest now have a chance to compete on a roughly even playing field. Candidates who opt-in and accept the vouchers must follow various campaign-finance limitations and disclosure rules. The voucher system is good for democracy.

Perhaps more significantly, Seattle can serve as a model for the rest of the country. Most Americans favor campaign-finance reform. The Democracy Vouchers program provides a way for everyday individuals to help achieve that reform. If it works well, then other localities, and eventually states, may follow suit. If states are laboratories of democracy, then cities like Seattle can be test tubes of democracy, trying out novel ways to fix the worst problems in our democratic system.

Joshua A. Douglas is a law professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law who specializes in election law, voting rights and constitutional law. He is the co-editor of Election Law Stories.

Local innovation in election procedure is vitally important to understand the best ways to run our voting process especially in the current political environment. Congress and polarized state legislatures are unlikely to pass meaningful electoral reform in the near future. It is up to cities around the country to try out innovative, democracy-enhancing measures to improve our election system.

For example, some cities in Maryland allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections, creating a culture of democratic engagement among our youth. Now other places are considering this reform. Benton County, Oregon, along with the state of Maine, will try out Ranked Choice Voting, a new way of choosing candidates in which voters rank the candidates in order of preference. A few California cities have adopted independent redistricting commissions to draw local lines. And some places in addition to Seattle are passing honest-elections platforms to improve the financing and ethics of local elections.

The election-law community is watching the Seattle experiment carefully to see what we can learn. We should champion these efforts and allow them to flourish so that the best ideas can spread.

Thats why the court should defer to Seattle and reject this legal challenge. When considering local-election laws, courts should defer to cities that pass democracy-enhancing measures, reserving strict judicial review for when a city seeks to limit who may participate in the democratic process. Seattles campaign finance voucher program is a classic democracy-enhancing move: it opens up democracy to more individuals to donate to campaigns and more candidates who will have the chance to compete. The case for judicial deference is even stronger given that Seattle voters themselves approved the measure.

The system also likely does not violate the First Amendment. Any public subsidy for education, health care, or anything else that might involve expressive activity entails taking public tax money and using it for a public purpose that someone may disfavor. That does not mean that the government is compelling speech. If this public financing measure fails, then likely all public financing is unconstitutional. But the U.S. Supreme Court has long approved public financing as a means to root out corruption in elections.

Seattle is the courageous city that has tried out a new way to fix a big problem: the immense amount of money, particularly from wealthy interests, that infiltrates our elections. The court should let that local democracy-enhancing experiment play out.

Go here to read the rest:
Seattle's campaign-voucher system is good for democracy - The Seattle Times

Donald Trump arrives at Hamburg Airport on July 6, 2017.

U.S. President Donald Trump just sought to redefine the West.

In a speech to cheering crowds in Warsaw on Thursday, Trump described the Wests values in terms of religion and culture and called for the defense of its civilization against radical Islam. It amounted to a manifesto for his foreign-policy vision.

The address included repeated invocations of God, faith, tradition, national sovereignty and family. It made only passing reference to what are usually cited as core Western values: the rule of law, democracy and freedom of speech. Religious tolerance did not get a mention.

The people of Poland, the people of America, and the people of Europe still cry out We want God, said Trump. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives.

Its an outlook fervently shared by the presidents hosts, Polands Law & Justice Party. Last year, Polish President Andrzei Duda took part in a religious ceremony that officially recognized Jesus as the King of Poland. And the worldview Trump outlined in Warsaw also chimes with that of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. The two leaders will meet for the first time on Friday at a summit of the Group of 20 major economies in Hamburg.

But while popular among eastern Europes conservatives, Trumps reinterpretation of Western values will set him further apart from more liberal G-20 leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, already alienated by the presidents opposition to climate-change targets and free-trade agreements.

Some of Trumps comments were less out of step with Washingtons traditional priorities. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a habitual critic of the president, said he was encouraged by relatively strong language attacking the Russian interventions in Ukraine and Syria, as well as by Trumps statement of support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations Article 5 clause on collective defense.

The speech contained both conventional foreign-policy rhetoric and nativist undertones, said Erik Brattberg, director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. Its basic message was that the U.S. remains the indisputable leader of the West, he said.

Trump stuck to his theme after leaving Poland. THE WEST WILL NEVER BE BROKEN. Our values will PREVAIL. Our people will THRIVE and our civilization will TRIUMPH! he tweeted after landing in Hamburg.

Much of the address in Warsaws Krasinski Square was devoted to a recounting of Polands struggles against Russia and Nazi Germany, in particular the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. But in an earlier briefing, a White House official had singled out the role of faith and the need to defend Western civilization as key messages.

It was very Huntingtonian, former Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said of the speech.The Polish government has reason to be very pleased with it, because it very much echoes their philosophy.

Sikorski was referring to the 1993 Foreign Affairs article by Harvard scholar Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations? In the article and a later book, Huntington argued that the Wests ideological contest with the former Soviet Union would be followed by a growing struggle between religious blocs.

Many leaders have seen in Huntingtons thesis a warning of what to avoid rather than an agenda to pursue -- an important distinction when addressing immigration, for example, or combating Islamist terrorism. By contrast, some of Trumps current and former aides, including chief strategist Steve Bannon and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, have embraced the idea that a fundamentally Christian West is at war with Islam.

Bannon laid out his view last year in a now-famous contribution via video link to a Vatican conference. He said the Judaeo-Christian West had become too secular and fallen into crisis as a result. Were at the very beginning stages of a global conflict against Islamo-fascism, Bannon said.

Flynn made a similar point in a book he co-authored the same year, which argued that were in a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people, most of them inspired by a totalitarian ideology: Radical Islam.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

Trump identified bureaucracy alongside terrorism as the twin threats the West must defeat. That reference is likely to be seen in Poland, and elsewhere in Europe, as directed at the Brussels-based institutions of the European Union. The EU launched an investigation into Poland in 2016, citing threats to the rule of law that it said were incompatible with EU values, such as suppression of judicial independence and media freedoms.

There was no mention of those allegations in Trumps speech. A White House official said his remarks should not be interpreted as an attack on the EU.

Still, the presidents strong praise for the conservative government in Poland can be seen as a snub of Angela Merkels Germany and the EU, with whom Warsaw has an increasingly strained relationship, Carnegies Brattberg said.

In Poland, there are many whod take Merkels side of that argument, against Trumps.

For me, talking about Western civilization without mentioning rule of law, democracy and human rights isnt possible, said Jerzy Stpie, a former head of Polands constitutional court, which has been involved in a protracted battle with the Law & Justice government. Im not sure how President Trump defines Western civilization, but for me these attributes are indispensable.

Here is the original post:
Trump Just Redefined Western Values Around Faith, Not Democracy - Bloomberg