Bitcoin: It’s always difficult to get people to understand something if their wealth depends on their not understanding it.

The rising price of electricity and the plunging value of the cryptocurrency could burst the speculative bubble for today’s prospectors writes John Naughton in The Guardian

Bitcoin mining has previously produced lucrative gross margins as high as 90%. Photograph: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images 
In the bad old days, prospecting for gold was a grisly business involving hysterical crowds, pickaxes, digging, the wearing of appalling hats, standing in rivers panning for nuggets, “staking” claims and so on. The California gold rush of 1848-55, for example, brought 300,000 hopefuls to the Sierra Nevada and northern California and involved the massacre of thousands of Indigenous people.

In our day, the new gold is bitcoin, a cryptocurrency, and prospecting for it has become a genteel armchair activity, although it is called “mining”, for old times’ sake. What it actually involves is using computers to perform unfathomably complicated calculations to create cryptographic “hashes” – codes that are, in practical terms, uncrackable.

Sounds intimidating, doesn’t it? But in reality anyone can play the game. You just have to have the right kit – a special bitcoin-mining computer called an Asic (application-specific integrated circuit). These gizmos are readily available online. I’m looking at one as I write: the Bitmain Antminer S19, which costs $6,999 (£5,600) and can do 95 terahashes – 95tn calculations – every second.

Mining is a misleading term for the computational work that’s needed to validate transactions on the blockchain – the cryptographically protected distributed ledger that underpins bitcoin. For every “block” that a miner is able to validate, they are rewarded with a number (currently 6.3) of new bitcoins. The value of the reward is tied to the prevailing price of the currency at the time. Not so long ago, for example, when each bitcoin stood at $68,000, that reward was worth nearly $430,000.

So you can understand why bitcoin mining looks a bit like a contemporary version of what happened in California in the 1840s. While most of the hopeful arrivals then were Americans, there were also thousands from Latin America, Europe, Australia and China. The Judge Business School in Cambridge, which has been tracking bitcoin mining for years, now finds that the US, with 37.84% of global hashrates, remains the biggest location, followed by China (21.11%), Kazakhstan (13.22%), Canada (6.48%) and Russia (4.66%).

So bitcoin mining has become a global phenomenon. And while here and there there are small outfits diversifying into it, such as the Californian pancake-batter maker that bought an Asic after pancake sales plunged during the pandemic, most miners are now industrial-scale operations with large sheds of Asics in serried racks, looking for all the world like small-scale data centres of the kind run by Google and co.

And, like data centres, they are power-hungry. That Bitmain Antminer machine, for example, has a power rating of 3,250 watts. It was recently estimated that bitcoin consumes about 110 terawatt hours per year, which is 0.55% of global electricity production, or roughly equivalent to the annual energy draw of countries such Malaysia or Sweden. 

For many operators, bitcoin mining has up to now been an astonishingly lucrative activity, with gross margins sometimes as high as 90%. But suddenly things have changed. First, bitcoin’s price has plunged – from its peak of $68,000 to $30,587 as I write this. And second, electricity prices have soared – by up to 70% in parts of the world, leading some industry experts to calculate that mining a single bitcoin can now cost up to $25,000. So the industry finds itself squeezed at both ends. Just like any ordinary business, in other words.

There’s an agreeable sense of schadenfreude in all this. Bitcoin has been a fascinating phenomenon from the very beginning, but one that morphed under the pressure of greed. Originally conceived as a currency – that is, as a means of payment – it rapidly became perceived as an asset class and, in a time of low interest rates, was the subject of an hysterical speculative bubble that now seems to have deflated, even if it hasn’t definitively burst.

Although it was predictable from the outset that, as the currency evolved, maintenance of its underpinning cryptographic blockchain would become ever-more onerous, it took a long time for the environmental consequences of that fact to be realised. But perhaps that’s a hallmark of every speculative bubble. It’s always difficult to get people to understand something if their wealth – real or anticipated – depends on their not understanding it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left with the realisation that even the coolest idea can fry the planet.

Warren Buffett: "Cryptocurrencies will have a bad ending"

 

Will blockchain fulfil its democratic promise or will it become a tool of big tech?

Engineers are focused on reducing its carbon footprint, ignoring the governance issues raised by the technology writes John Naughton in The Guardian

Illuminated rigs at the Minto cryptocurrency mining centre in Nadvoitsy, Russia. Photograph: Andrey Rudakov/Getty Images



When the cryptocurrency bitcoin first made its appearance in 2009, an interesting divergence of opinions about it rapidly emerged. Journalists tended to regard it as some kind of incomprehensible money-laundering scam, while computer scientists, who were largely agnostic about bitcoin’s prospects, nevertheless thought that the distributed-ledger technology (the so-called blockchain) that underpinned the currency was a Big Idea that could have far-reaching consequences.

In this conviction they were joined by legions of techno-libertarians who viewed the technology as a way of enabling economic life without the oppressive oversight of central banks and other regulatory institutions. Blockchain technology had the potential to change the way we buy and sell, interact with government and verify the authenticity of everything from property titles to organic vegetables. It combined, burbled that well-known revolutionary body Goldman Sachs, “the openness of the internet with the security of cryptography to give everyone a faster, safer way to verify key information and establish trust”. Verily, cryptography would set us free.

At its core, a blockchain is just a ledger – a record of time-stamped transactions. These transactions can be any movement of money, goods or secure data – a purchase at a store, for example, the title to a piece of property, the assignment of an NHS number or a vaccination status, you name it. In the offline world, transactions are verified by some central third party – a government agency, a bank or Visa, say. But a blockchain is a distributed (ie, decentralised) ledger where verification (and therefore trustworthiness) comes not from a central authority but from a consensus of many users of the blockchain that a particular transaction is valid. Verified transactions are gathered into “blocks”, which are then “chained” together using heavy-duty cryptography so that, in principle, any attempt retrospectively to alter the details of a transaction would be visible. And oppressive, rent-seeking authorities such as Visa and Mastercard (or, for that matter, Stripe) are nowhere in the chain.
 
Given all that, it’s easy to see why the blockchain idea evokes utopian hopes: at last, technology is sticking it to the Man. In that sense, the excitement surrounding it reminds me of the early days of the internet, when we really believed that our contemporaries had invented a technology that was democratising and liberating and beyond the reach of established power structures. And indeed the network had – and still possesses – those desirable affordances. But we’re not using them to achieve their great potential. Instead, we’ve got YouTube and Netflix. What we underestimated, in our naivety, were the power of sovereign states, the ruthlessness and capacity of corporations and the passivity of consumers, a combination of which eventually led to corporate capture of the internet and the centralisation of digital power in the hands of a few giant corporations and national governments. In other words, the same entrapment as happened to the breakthrough communications technologies – telephone, broadcast radio and TV, and movies – in the 20th century, memorably chronicled by Tim Wu in his book The Master Switch.

Will this happen to blockchain technology? Hopefully not, but the enthusiastic endorsement of it by outfits such as Goldman Sachs is not exactly reassuring. The problem with digital technology is that, for engineers, it is both intrinsically fascinating and seductively challenging, which means that they acquire a kind of tunnel vision: they are so focused on finding solutions to the technical problems that they are blinded to the wider context. At the moment, for example, the consensus-establishing processes for verifying blockchain transactions requires intensive computation, with a correspondingly heavy carbon footprint. Reducing that poses intriguing technical challenges, but focusing on them means that the engineering community isn’t thinking about the governance issues raised by the technology. There may not be any central authority in a blockchain but, as Vili Lehdonvirta pointed out years ago, there are rules for what constitutes a consensus and, therefore, a question about who exactly sets those rules. The engineers? The owners of the biggest supercomputers on the chain? Goldman Sachs? These are ultimately political questions, not technical ones.

Blockchain engineers also don’t seem to be much interested in the needs of the humans who might ultimately be users of the technology. That, at any rate, is the conclusion that cryptographer Moxie Marlinspike came to in a fascinating examination of the technology. “When people talk about blockchains,” he writes, “they talk about distributed trust, leaderless consensus and all the mechanics of how that works, but often gloss over the reality that clients ultimately can’t participate in those mechanics. All the network diagrams are of servers, the trust model is between servers, everything is about servers. Blockchains are designed to be a network of peers, but not designed such that it’s really possible for your mobile device or your browser to be one of those peers.”

And we’re nowhere near that point yet.

Dark Side of Stock Market | How Stock Market Manipulation works? | Insider Trading | Dhruv Rathee

 

Bitcoin: too good to miss or a bubble ready to burst?

Eva Szalay in The FT

The problem with investing in bitcoin is that it instinctively feels too good to be true. 

The largest cryptocurrency by volume is worth 600 per cent more today than a year ago, soaring from about $7,000 per bitcoin to $54,000 this week, along the way becoming one of the best performing financial assets of 2020. Despite including some extreme price swings, the year-long rally has so far defied fears of a repeat of bitcoin’s spectacular price crash of 2018.

Eye-popping returns are making it difficult for even hardened cryptocurrency sceptics not to consider putting money into bitcoin and many long-term doubters are crumbling. Jamie Dimon, chief of US banking giant JPMorgan, is just one prominent crypto bear who turned bullish in recent years. Recently emerged cheerleaders include Tesla chief Elon Musk and a number of billionaire hedge fund managers who are convinced that as the digital equivalent of gold, bitcoin’s exchange rate against conventional currencies has even further to soar.  

So is bitcoin just a big Ponzi scheme or a genuine investment opportunity? Should retail investors give in to the temptation to pile in? FT Money has spoken to finance professionals inside and outside the cryptomarket and found that opinion remains sharply divided. The recent stellar performance has turned some bears into bulls. But hardcore naysayers warn that a bubble that has grown bigger is still a bubble. 

Even ardent crypto fans are reluctant to wager their life savings on an asset associated with hair-raising levels of volatility. Even among these enthusiasts, many limit their investments to 1-2 per cent of their portfolio. 

Regardless of whether cryptocurrencies turn out to be the digital equivalent of gold in the long run, today they are providing fraudsters with a rich hunting ground.  

Is it really different this time? 

Since the start of January, bitcoin’s value has risen by 85 per cent and in mid-April it hit the latest in a series of record highs at $65,000. Companies that operate in the digital currency sector are attracting a flood of money. In a recent (conventional) stock market flotation, investors valued Coinbase, the cryptocurrency exchange launched less than 10 years ago, at $72bn, putting it equal with BNP Paribas, a French bank with roots stretching back to 1848. 

Young people are in the vanguard of investing. In the UK, millennial and Gen Z investors are more likely to buy cryptocurrencies than equities and more than half (51 per cent) of those surveyed had traded digital currencies, research from broker Charles Schwab shows.  

After a year of spiralling prices, bears warn of the growing risk of a 2018-style collapse. Bitcoin bulls argue that the current rally is different from the 2018 bubble burst, when the price collapsed from above $16,000 to just $3,000. Today, they say, it is driven by demand from professional trading firms and institutional investors whose presence brings stability.  

Not everyone agrees. “It’s not different this time. There are no new eras, despite what the promoters tell you,” says David Rosenberg, a Canadian economist and president of Rosenberg Research. “Asset price bubbles come, bubbles go, but none of them correct by going sideways.” 

In contrast with younger investors, those aged 55 or over remain resolutely on the margins with just 8 per cent of survey respondents in this age group trading digital currencies, the Charles Schwab study found.  

They may be right to do so. Investors globally have lost more than $16bn since 2012 in cryptocurrency-related scams and fraud, according to disclosure platform Xangle. The Financial Conduct Authority, the UK’s financial watchdog, warned this year that investors can lose 100 per cent of their money when punting on cryptocurrencies. It has not sought to block cryptocurrency dealings but has forbidden the sale of derivatives on crypto assets to UK retail customers. 

As crypto markets are unregulated, investors have no one to turn to for help if they fall victim to fraud. Exchanges can turn out to be bogus and their founders disappear. A new coin might turn out to be a tissue of lies. 

“There are a lot of scams and criminal operations that target individuals and it’s very important to recognise that in an unregulated market there is no recourse,” says Ian Taylor, the chief executive of lobby group CryptoUK.  

Another concern for investors is the environmental footprint of cryptocurrencies. The carbon emissions associated with bitcoin equal that of Greece, according to research by Bank of America, because the coins are created or “mined”, in vast computing centres, which burn electricity and generate heat. 

What are the ground rules? 

Crypto specialists say the most important rule for investors is to be prepared to lose all their money. 

On April 13, bitcoin began a sharp decline, its exchange rate shedding 23 per cent in less than two weeks. Marcus Swanepoel, chief executive of Luno, a retail-focused cryptocurrency exchange with 5m-plus customers, says that in some cases they were overstretching themselves. Luno surveyed its clients last year and found that 55 per cent had no other investments.  

“Never spend more money than you can afford to lose,” he says. “It’s very risky, there is no doubt about it.” 

Extreme swings in the exchange rate mean cryptocurrency exposure should be kept at a low proportion of a portfolio, say most mainstream investment analysts. 

“I understand if you want to buy it because you believe the price will go up but make sure it’s a very small portion of your portfolio, maybe 1 or 2 per cent,” says Thanos Papasavvas, founder of research group ABP Invest, who has a 20-year background in asset management. 

Borrowing money to pump up trades with leverage amplifies gains but inflates losses. As there are no official rules, trading platforms allow investors to wager multiples of the money they deposit, inflating the amount at stake by as much as a 100 times.  

“Leverage on a crazy asset class is a recipe for disaster,” says Abhishek Sachdev, a derivatives expert and head of Vedanta Hedging. 

Choosing the right coin is also important. There are hundreds of cryptocurrencies; most are worthless and some are plain scams. Bitcoin is the oldest, most liquid, coin and it is the one that enjoys support due to institutions investing due to its limited supply. 

According to its original computer-based design, only 21m bitcoins will ever exist and 99 per cent of these coins will be mined by 2030. Other cryptocurrencies are not limited in this way and the hundreds of available digital coins all have different characteristics. 

It is also the most expensive per unit but since it can be bought in small increments, there is no requirement to splash out $50,000 or so for a full coin.  

Ethereum is the second most traded cryptocurrency and has benefited from the tailwind of bitcoin’s rally. The technology behind ethereum is also used in a nascent market dubbed decentralised finance, making the coin a relatively safe choice. dogecoin and the likes occupy the riskiest and most illiquid end of the spectrum. 

How do I buy cryptocurrencies and what are the risks? 

In the UK the easiest way to access cryptocurrencies is to buy a portion of bitcoin on an established exchange such as Coinbase. Given that exchanges have suffered outages, been hacked or collapsed, this is the safest approach, though it is more expensive than other exchanges. 

Coinbase typically charges a spread of about 0.50 per cent plus a fee depending on the size of purchase and payment method. 

 Fintech companies such as Revolut also offer a way in for bitcoin buyers, but there is no way to transfer bitcoins from the app elsewhere or into other types of coin. Since they may only sell it back within Revolut, investors only nominally own bitcoin via the app.  

In the US, investors are able to buy shares in diversified cryptocurrency funds such as Grayscale, which can then be bought and sold like other mutual holdings. Institutional investors can also buy into exchange traded products but these are inaccessible for retail investors in the UK. It is possible to buy into products that offer exposure to companies active around blockchain — the public, digital ledger than underlies bitcoin — such as Invesco Elwood Global Blockchain UCITS ETF. These are a bet on technology, however, rather than the cryptocurrency.  

Selling cryptocurrencies also has tax implications. Digital assets count as property for accounting purposes and profits may be subject to capital gains tax. 

Scammers are a growing problem. Some ask investors to send their private keys to their crypto holdings, promising to return with a profit. But once done, there is no way to undo a transfer. 

Lihan Lee, co-founder of Xangle, advises potential investors to check the past records of any crypto investment schemes, while CryptoUK’s Taylor warns of posting about cryptocurrency investment on social media or cold callers promising guaranteed returns.  

“If a stranger walks up to you on the street and says they’ll give you £150 if they can borrow £100, you probably wouldn’t give them the money,” he says. “It’s the same with crypto.”  

Why are institutions getting involved? 

“If it’s on the side of a bus it’s time to buy,” screams an advertisement from Luno in London. 

Many seasoned investors say the ad should say the opposite. If everyone is talking about the same thing, it’s a sure-fire sign that prices have reached unsustainable heights and are about to collapse — as they did in 2018.  

But in the past 12 months companies and institutional investors have cautiously dipped their toes into digital assets. Since central banks around the world responded to the coronavirus pandemic with easy money policies, large asset managers and hedge funds have been looking for ways to protect themselves from a return of inflation and the erosion in value of of some currencies, including the dollar. 

“We’ve seen a step change in institutional interest last year,” says James Butterfill, an investment analyst at digital asset specialist Coinshares. He notes that around $54bn of money is invested across 120 cryptocurrency funds. A year ago, the total figure was $3.5bn across 89 funds.  

“Cryptocurrencies are here to stay,” wrote Christian Nolting, global chief investment officer at Deutsche Bank’s international private bank, in a report.  

Central banks are even exploring the idea of issuing digital alternatives for domestic currencies. To some analysts, central bank digital currencies lend legitimacy to the crypto space, while others believe it is an attempt by central banks to wrest back control of the market. 

“Central banks have always thought that they were key for payments,” says Randy Kroszner, professor of economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “And now they’ve realised they’re not.” 

But that does not mean that the risks of cryptocurrencies are likely to dissipate any time soon. As the unregulated market bounces through its latest price gyrations, it is a long way off from either stability or security.

Hawala explained

By Shahid Mehmood in The Friday Times

Hawala and Hundi are two of the most familiar terms in Pakistan’s economic landscape. Put simply, these are synonymous with informal channels through which money flows in or out of the country. It has been on the policymakers’ radar for a long time but there has not been any significant success in terms of curbing its workings. These days, there is a new urgency to tackle it as Pakistan finds itself on the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) Grey List.

It is a good time to peek into the nature, history and workings of this system in order to understand its continued sway and why it became popular in the first place. Hawala basically denotes a system made up of money lenders and businessmen around the globe. What distinguishes it from the formal exchange channels (like banking) is that it works largely on repute and trust rather than formal contracts. It comes with its advantages, anonymity being the primary one. The other primary advantage comes in the form of avoiding expensive formal channels of finance and exchange. Anonymity, however, comes with a heavy price tag for countries like Pakistan as this particular characteristic has been mercilessly exploited by smugglers, drug peddlers and terrorism financiers. No wonder Pakistan finds itself on the FATF radar.

Transfer of financial resources using a Hawala type system, based on trust, is a very old practice. Robert Sobel, in his magisterial The Pursuit of Wealth, has traced the system back to the dawn of commerce and trade (he does not explicitly mention Hawala, though). Babylonian and Sumerian merchants, for example, relied heavily on people of reputation (including priests) for acting as clearing houses and money transfer intermediaries/channels providing a valuable service to citizens. Instead of taking the substantial risk of carrying money and valuables themselves, they were deposited with these individuals who in return would give them an acknowledgment receipt (with their particular stamp or insignia). When merchants would reach their destination, they would redeem the amount by presenting the receipt to the Hawala dealers of that particular place. Thus, a transaction was settled with minimum of fee and administrative requirements. Moreover, the existence of such a valuable service oiled the wheels of commerce as it took away the many risks that merchants faced while carrying money themselves.

If looked at in modern parlance, Hawala is a decentralised system based on competition. There is little requirement for meeting statutory obligations and cumbersome procedures that exist under a modern, centralised banking system. Historically, money lenders under Hawala have charged just a fraction of what formal transfer channels charge from consumers. A question may arise as to the profitability of such a service when the charged fees are low. But that aspect has, historically, been taken care of by realising economies of scale: lower charges on transfers have attracted enough customers to ensure a healthy return.

Since the dawn of commerce and trade, this system has persisted despite challenges. It was quite common in the Middle Ages, as has been documented extensively by the economist Avner Grief’s research. For example, 8th century China under the Tang dynasty had a similar system called fei-ch’ien (flying money). The need for such a system arose due to the dangers encountered in physically transferring tax money and valuables to the empire’s capital. The operation of that particular system ameliorated that risk to a large extent. Formidable challenges to this informal, decentralised authority rose with the rise of nation states, powerful central governments and central banking authority. Yet, the system refuses to vanish.

What, then, are we to make of global efforts to clamp down and curb Hawala type transactions? Specifically, one has to look at the social and economic benefits of doing away with such a system. In hindsight, this may seem odd since the official version foisted upon our imaginations is one of a system that causes substantial damage to the economy. This version stands vindicated if we were to limit the system’s workings to facilitating money borne out of drug peddling, terrorism financing and other such harmful activities.

But one has to be careful in limiting their imagination to only these activities. The fact of the matter is that a Hawala like system offers many socially beneficial incentives that tend to get lost in the fog of official versions. It tends to discount the benefits accrued to consumers. I have already narrated its extremely beneficial role in facilitating trade and commerce in the earliest known civilizations. Aside from this facilitation, there are other advantages that such a system confers upon the society. Specifically, its presence ensures lower transaction costs to its subscribers.
Banks illustrate this point. They charge various types of fees from customers under the garb of different heads and make a healthy profit based on the deposits of customers. On net, the benefits accrued to customers are either cancelled or are inferior to what they are charged for the service. But when these kinds of institutions fail (largely based on their actions), they are usually bailed out using taxpayer money (the ‘too big to fail’ phenomenon). If you think about it, it is akin to a heist! And the only remedy available against such excesses are courts, which again exact a heavy cost from society due to the time, duration and financials involved. In a country like Pakistan, given the state of affairs of courts, it is advisable to stay away from them and save time plus money.

Consumers are usually saved that predicament in an informal, decentralised system like Hawala. Once a reputation of operator is tarred, its curtains for that business and no amount of running around can recoup the lost repute. More importantly, there is little possibility of ‘too big to fail’ phenomenon, to be bailed out using taxpayer money. Thus society not only benefits in terms of saving money (very low transaction fees), but also in terms of a decentralised system that weeds out inefficient, unproductive and corrupt operators without the need for a central authority or courts.

The lesson from all of this discussion, at least for policymakers, is that efforts to curb hawala type system needs an understanding of the nature and forces that propel it. If informal systems of financial transactions have endured for centuries, there are good reasons for that, some of them outlined above. A society and its inhabitants have the capacity to compare transaction costs of having a formal system against an informal system. If the former confers a lower cost, the latter would disappear without the need for state intervention (and vice versa). If this point can be grasped, then it is clear that Pakistan’s policymakers should first review the predatory nature of its functioning (specifically its taxation) plus that of its financial system, and what cost it inflicts upon the society. It also does not help that the government strongly incentivised use of such channels when it was in its interest (to finance Afghan Jihadi groups, for example), helped entrench it, and now wants to get rid of it when faced with external pressure.

Historical evidence, though, suggests that such administrative exercises are usually futile in the end since an alternative tends to rise. The rise of crypto-currencies, like Bitcoin, is an apt reflection of this fact. At its core, crypto currencies reflect the working of a decentralised exchange with meagre transaction costs, just like Hawala. How would the world curb this system? Ban computers? I don’t think so.

Blockchain explainer: a revolution only in its infancy

Hannah Murphy and Philip Stafford in The Financial Times


The word blockchain has been the equivalent of financial fairy dust in recent weeks, adding tens of millions of dollars to the market value of companies, including former camera pioneer Kodak Eastman, that have announced a project involving the technology or simply added it to their names. 

However, technologists and executives warn that blockchain technology is still developing and the high-profile name changes and often giddy reaction in the stock market are far removed from the real-world experiments. 

What is a blockchain? 

It is an electronic database of transactions, whereby new deals are added to the chain and then stamped and protected with a mathematical equation. 

The database is shared among hundreds of other computers, or “nodes” on the network, to make it virtually impossible for one agent to change it. These nodes use their computing power and compete to verify and decode the latest transaction. This is then appended as a “block” to the chain. Its ability to offer a verifiable, immutable and public record is what attracts many advocates. 

“It can do for the nearly free and frictionless transfer of assets what the internet did for the nearly free and frictionless transfer of information,” says Jonathan Johnson, an executive at Overstock.com, an online retailer that accepts payment in virtual currencies. 

How is it being used? 

Its chief use is as the system behind most of the hundreds upon hundreds of virtual coins that are being created, stored and traded online — of which bitcoin is the best-known. Estonia uses distributed ledgers for the public to follow court, legal and democratic procedures. 

But interest in its potential is far greater, generating great discussion at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. 

Some countries, such as Russia and China, are interested in creating their own virtual currencies. Sectors from pharmaceuticals to shipping and agriculture are looking at it as a way to streamline record-keeping and improve inventory management through tracking systems. 

Financial markets are among the most enthusiastic adopters. Equity funding into companies building on blockchain technology hit $1bn last year, across 215 deals, according to data from CB Insights, a research group. 

Ventures such as the bank-backed R3 consortium have raised more than $100m. Crédit Agricole, the French lender, on Thursday took a small equity stake in Setl, the UK blockchain technology developer. 

Many institutions — including bulge bracket banks and fund managers — hope that a real-time ledger could automate their creaky and expensive back office systems, saving them millions. 

Several test cases are planned, such as the effort by Australia’s stock exchange to replace its system for clearing and settling trades with blockchain. CLS, the world’s largest currency settlement service, is drawing up plans. Setl has more than 20 institutions on its Iznes record-keeping platform for European funds. 

“People who are working with us trust us. We’re seen as a really specialist market,” says Peter Randall, chief executive of Setl. 

What are its limitations? 

Development is slow while institutions become accustomed to blockchain technology’s biggest features — that the records are public but the owner of the digital currency is anonymous and therefore untraceable. 

Many are creating their own “permissioned” distributed ledgers, where only those with authorisation can access the network. Some are exploring ways to build privacy options into the technology — for example, the ability to mask certain parts of the data such as trade or customer information. 

“Right now any kind of corporate blockchain initiative is using multiple platforms and coins and building their own proprietary technology on top of it,” says Jalak Jobanputra, founder of New-York based venture capital fund Future/Perfect Ventures. “There isn’t anything off the shelf right now that works for these consortia.” 

It has also been held back by the troubled reputation of its associated asset, bitcoin. The anonymity afforded to bitcoin users means it has been used to enable money laundering and organised crime. 

Some experts have questioned whether the technology can be scaled to process thousands of deals and payments per second that other electronic systems routinely handle. As the market develops watchdogs are also weighing up new specific regulations targeting the technology. “There is a lot of focus on the potential conflict between blockchain and data protection laws,” says Sue McLean, a partner in Baker MacKenzie’s IT and commercial practice division. 

Does the future of cryptocurrencies impact the future of the blockchain? 

The current hype around blockchain is partly because of its link to the mania in cryptocurrencies. More than 1,500 have been launched, eight times the number of recognised government-backed currencies, according to CoinMarketcap.com. 

Initial coin offerings (ICOs) — in which blockchain-based start-ups issue their own digital “coins” — have created more incentives for the public to get involved in a nascent market. CB Insights estimates blockchain start-ups using ICO funding pulled in five times as much as equity funding last year, across 800 deals. 

But critics say none of the future uses of blockchain technology would make the cryptocurrencies more valuable. 

Steven Wieting, global chief investment strategist at Citi Private Bank, says the interest is a further indication of a “bull market psychology” in broader global markets. 

“This is evident in the very mild impact that negative events have had in market pricing. The willingness of so many to speculate in cryptocurrencies, an unproven financial innovation separate from the underlying blockchain technology, may be a symptom,” he says.

The Nature of Money, Modern Money and Bitcoin

Yanis Varoufakis

Video 2 - Political Economy - The Red Pill in Social Sciences

Bitcoin Survival Guide: Everything You Need to Know About the Future of Money

• BY ROBERT MCMILLAN AND CADE METZ
• 11.25.13
• 6:30 AM

Illustration: T.A. Gruneisen/WIRED

The price of a bitcoin topped $900 last week, an enormous surge in value that arrived amidst Congressional hearings where top U.S. financial regulators took a surprisingly rosy view of digital currency. Just 10 months ago, a bitcoin sold for a measly $13.

The spike was big news across the globe, from Washington to Tokyo to China, and it left many asking themselves: “What the hell is a bitcoin?” It’s a good question — not only for those with little understanding of the modern financial system and how it intersects with modern technology, but also for those steeped in the new internet-driven economy that has so quickly remade our world over the last 20 years.

The spike was big news across the globe, from Washington to Tokyo to China, and it left many asking themselves: ‘What the hell is a bitcoin?’

Bitcoin is a digital currency, meaning it’s money controlled and stored entirely by computers spread across the internet, and this money is finding its way to more and more people and businesses around the world. But it’s much more than that, and many people — including the sharpest of internet pioneers as well as seasoned economists — are still struggling to come to terms with its many identities.

With that in mind, we give you this: an idiot’s guide to bitcoin. And there’s no shame in reading. Nowadays, as bitcoin is just beginning to show what it’s capable of, we’re all neophytes.

Bitcoin isn’t just a currency, like dollars or euros or yen. It’s a way of making payments, like PayPal or the Visa credit card network. It lets you hold money, but it also lets you spend it and trade it and move it from place to place, almost as cheaply and easily as you’d send an email.

As the press so often points out, Bitcoin lets you do all this without revealing your identity, a phenomenon that drove its use on The Silk Road, an online marketplace for illegal drugs. But at the same time, it’s a system that operates completely in the public view. All Bitcoin transactions are recorded online for anyone to see, lending a certain transparency to the system, a transparency that can drive a new trust in the economy and subvert the anonymity sought by those on The Silk Road, which the feds shut down last month.

Bitcoin is much more than a money service for illegal operations. It’s a re-imagining of international finance, something that breaks down barriers between countries and frees currency from the control of federal governments. Bitcoin is controlled by open source software that operates according to the laws of mathematics — and by the people who collectively oversee this software. The software runs on thousands of machines across the globe, but it can be changed. It’s just that a majority of those overseeing the software must agree to the change.

In short, Bitcoin is kind of like the internet, but for money.

Birth of the Bitcoin

Click to enlarge. Illustration: T.A. Gruneisen/WIRED

What does that mean, specifically?

About five years ago, using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, an anonymous computer programmer or group of programmers built the Bitcoin software system and released it onto the internet. This was something that was designed to run across a large network of machines — called bitcoin miners — and anyone on earth could operate one of these machines.

This distributed software seeded the new currency, creating a small number of bitcoins. Basically, bitcoins are just long digital addresses and balances, stored in an online ledger called the “blockchain.” But the system was also designed so that the currency would slowly expand, and so that people would be encouraged to operate bitcoin miners and keep the system itself growing.

When the system creates new bitcoins, you see, it gives them to the miners. Miners keep track of all the bitcoin transactions and add them to the blockchain ledger, and in exchange, they get the privilege of, every so often, awarding themselves a few extra bitcoins. Right now, 25 bitcoins are paid out to the world’s miners about six times per hour, but that rate changes over time.

Why do these bitcoins have value? It’s pretty simple. They’ve evolved into something that a lot of people want — like a dollar or a yen or the cowry shells swapped for goods on the coast of Africa over 3,000 years ago — and they’re in limited supply. Though the system continues to crank out bitcoins, this will stop when it reaches 21 million, which was designed to happen in about the year 2140.

The idea was to create a currency whose value couldn’t be watered down by some central authority, like the Federal Reserve.

When the system quits making new money, the value of each bitcoin will necessarily rise as demand rises — it’s what’s called a deflationary currency — but although the supply of coins will stop expanding, it will be still be relatively easy to spend. Bitcoins can be broken into tiny pieces. Each bitcoin can be divided into one hundred million units, called Satoshis, after the currency’s founder.

The Key to the System

How do you spend bitcoins? Trade them? Keep people from stealing them? Bitcoin is a math-based currency. That means that the rules that govern bitcoin’s accounting are controlled by cryptography. Basically, if you own some bitcoins, you own a private cryptography key that’s associated with an address on the internet that contains a balance in the public ledger. The address and the private key let you make transactions.

The internet address is something everyone can see. Think of it like a really complicated email address for online payments. Something like this: 1DTAXPKS1Sz7a5hL2Skp8bykwGaEL5JyrZ. If someone wants to send you bitcoins, they need your address.

If you own some bitcoins, what you really own is a private cryptography key that’s associated with an address on the internet

If you want to send your bitcoins to someone else, you need your address and their address — but you also need your private cryptography key. This is an even more complicated string that you use to authorize a payment.

Using the math associated with these keys and addresses, the system’s public network of peer-to-peer computers — the bitcoin miners — check every transaction that happens on the network. If the math doesn’t add up, the transaction is rejected.

Crypto systems like this do get cracked, and the software behind Bitcoin could have flaws in it. But at this point, Bitcoin has been tested pretty thoroughly, and it seems to be pretty darned secure.

For the ordinary people who use this network — the people who do the buying and the selling and the transferring — managing addresses and keys can be a bit of a hassle. But there are many different types of programs — called wallets — that keep track of these numbers for you. You can install a wallet on your computer or your mobile phone, or use one that sits on a website.

With these wallets, you can easily send and receive bitcoins via the net. You can, say, buy a pizza on a site that’s set up to take bitcoin payments. You can donate money to a church. You can even pay for plastic surgery. The number of online merchants accepting bitcoins grows with each passing day.

But you can also make transactions here in the real world. That’s what a mobile wallet is good for. The Pink Cow, a restaurant in Tokyo, plugs into the Bitcoin system via a tablet PC sitting beside its cash register. If you want to pay for your dinner in bitcoins, you hold up your phone and scan a QR code — a kind of bar code — that pops up on the tablet.

How to Get a Bitcoin

If all that makes sense and you wanna give it try, the first thing you do is get a wallet. We like blockchain.info, which offers an app that you can download to your phone. Then, once you have a wallet, you need some bitcoins.

In the U.S., the easiest way to buy and sell bitcoins is via a website called Coinbase. For a one percent fee, Coinbase links to your bank account and then acts as a proxy for you, buying and selling bitcoins on an exchange. Coinbase also offers an easy-to-use wallet. You can also make much larger bitcoin purchases on big exchanges like Mt. Gox or Bitstamp, but to trade on these exchanges, you need to first send them cash using costly and time-consuming international wire transfers.

Ironically, the best way to keep bitcoin purchases anonymous is to meet up with someone here in the real world and make a trade.

Yes, you can keep your purchases anonymous — or at least mostly anonymous. If you use a service like Coinbase or Mt. Gox, you’ll have to provide a bank account and identification. But other services, such as LocalBitcoins, let you buy bitcoins without providing personal information. Ironically, the best way to do this is to meet up with someone here in the real world and make the trade in-person.

LocalBitcoins will facilitate such meetups, where one person provides cash and the other then sends bitcoins over the net. Or you can attend a regular Bitcoin meetup in your part the world. Because credit card and bank transactions are reversible and bitcoin transactions are not, you need to be very careful if you’re ever selling bitcoins to an individual. That’s one reason why many sellers like to trade bitcoins for cash.

The old-school way of getting new bitcoins is mining. That means turning your computer into a bitcoin miner, one of those nodes on Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. Your machine would run the open source Bitcoin software.

Back in the day, you could do bitcoin mining on your home PC. But as the price of bitcoins has shot up, the mining game has morphed into a bit of a space-race — with professional players, custom-designed hardware, and rapidly expanding processing power.

Today, all of the computers vying for those 25 bitcoins perform 5 quintillion mathematical calculations per second. To put it in perspective, that’s about 150 times as many mathematical operations as the world’s most powerful supercomputer.

And mining can be pretty risky. Companies that build these custom machines typically charge you for the hardware upfront, and every day you wait for delivery is a day when it becomes harder to mine bitcoins. That reduces the amount of money you can earn.

This spring, WIRED tested out a custom-designed system built by a Kansas City, Missouri company called Butterfly Labs. We were lucky enough to receive one of the first 50 units of a $275 machine built by the company.

We hooked it up to a network of mining computers that pool together computing resources and share bitcoin profits. And in six months, it has earned more than 13 bitcoins. That’s more than $10,000 at today’s bitcoin prices. But people who got the machine later than we did (and there were plenty of them) didn’t make quite so much money.

Online Thievery

Once you get your hands on some bitcoins, be careful. If somebody gets access to your Bitcoin wallet or that private key, they can take your money. And in the Bitcoin world, when money is gone, it’s gone for good.

This can be a problem whether you’re running a wallet on your own machine or on a website run by a third party. Recently, hackers busted into a site called inputs.io — which stores bitcoins in digital wallets for people across the globe — and they made off with about $1.2 million in bitcoins.

In the bitcoin world, when money is gone, it’s pretty much gone for good.

So, as their bitcoins start to add up, many pros move their wallets off of their computers. For instance, they’ll save them on a thumb drive that’s not connected to the internet.

Some people will even move their bitcoins into a real physical wallet or onto something else that’s completely separate from the computer world. How is that possible? Basically, they’ll write their private key on a piece of paper. Others will engrave their crypto key on a ring or even on a metal coin.

Sure, you could lose this. But the same goes for a $100 bill.

The good news is that the public nature of the bitcoin ledger may make it theoretically possible to figure out who has stolen your bitcoins. You can always see the address that they were shipped off to, and if you ever link that address to a specific person, then you’ve found your thief.

But don’t count on it. This is an extremely complex process, and researchers are only just beginning to explore the possibilities.

Bitcoin vs. the U.S.A.

Bitcoin is starting to work as a currency, but because of the way it’s built, it also operates as an extremely low-cost money-moving platform. In theory, it could be a threat to PayPal, to Western Union, even to Visa and Mastercard. With Bitcoin, you can move money anywhere in the world without paying the fees.

The process isn’t instant. The miners bundle up those transactions every 10 minutes or so. But today, payment processors like BitPay have stepped in to smooth things out and speed them up.

The feds have stopped short of trying to kill Bitcoin, but they’ve created an atmosphere where anybody who wants to link the U.S. financial system to Bitcoin is going to have to proceed with extreme caution

The trouble is that federal regulators still haven’t quite figured out how to deal with Bitcoin.

The currency is doing OK in China, Japan, parts of Europe, and Canada, but it’s getting its bumpiest ride in the U.S., where authorities are worried about the very features that make Bitcoin so exciting to merchants and entrepreneurs. Here, the feds have stopped short of trying to kill Bitcoin, but they’ve created an atmosphere where anybody who wants to link the U.S. financial system to Bitcoin is going to have to proceed with extreme caution.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security closed the U.S. bank accounts belonging to Mt. Gox, which has generally been the world’s largest Bitcoin exchange. Mt. Gox, based in Japan, let U.S. residents trade bitcoins for cash, but it hadn’t registered with the federal government as a money transmitter, and it hadn’t registered in the nearly 50 U.S. states that also require this.

The Homeland Security action against Mt. Gox had an immediate chilling effect in the U.S. Soon, American Bitcoin companies started reporting that their banks were dropping them, but not because they had done anything illegal. The banks simply don’t want the risk.

Now, other Bitcoin companies that have moved fast to operate within the U.S. are facing the possibility of being shut down if they’re not following state and federal guidelines.

Even if the feds were interested in shutting down Bitcoin, they probably couldn’t if they tried, and now, they seem to understand its promise. In testimony on Capitol hill earlier this week, Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said that Bitcoin poses problems, but she also said that it’s a bit like the internet in its earliest days.

“So often, when there is a new type of financial service or a new player in the financial industry, the first reaction by those of us who are concerned about money laundering or terrorist finance is to think about the gaps and the vulnerabilities that it creates in the financial system,” she said. “But it’s also important that we step back and recognize that innovation is a very important part of our economy.”

It is. And Bitcoin richly provides that innovation. It just may take a while for the world to completely catch on.

---------

Once You Use Bitcoin You Can’t Go ‘Back’ — And That’s Its Fatal Flaw

• BY NICHOLAS WEAVER
• 11.26.13
• 9:27 AM 

Photo: Ariel Zambelich / WIRED

Bitcoin is the world’s most popular digital currency — not just a form of money, but a way of moving money around — and the darling topic du jour of the tech industry right now. [WIRED has its primer on what bitcoin is and how it works here.]

As a security researcher, I admire bitcoin-the-protocol. But I believe bitcoin-the-currency contains a fatal flaw.

As a security researcher, I admire bitcoin-the-protocol. It’s an incredibly clever piece of cryptographic engineering, especially the proof-of-work as a way of maintaining an indelible history and a signature scheme which, when properly used, can limit the damage that might be done by an adversary with a quantum computer. But I believe bitcoin-the-currency contains a fatal flaw, one that ensures that bitcoin won’t ever achieve widespread adoption as a currency.

The flaw? That bitcoin transactions are irreversible. That is, they can never be undone: Once committed, there is no “oops”, no “takeback”, no “control-Z”. Combined with bitcoin’s independence — it is a separate currency with a floating exchange rate — this flaw is arguably lethal to money systems.

Once committed, there is no ‘oops’, ‘takeback’, or ‘control-Z’.

Bitcoin advocates will argue that both its irreversibility and independence are benefits. That they were explicit design decisions to defy control by governments or banks. But to me these features are flaws, because a tenet of modern finance asserts that anything electronic must be reversible. If bitcoin really is the internet applied to money … then it, too, should have a “back” button.

Without an undo/ back button, it’s only possible to prevent fraud. With an undo, it would also be possible to detect and mitigatefraud; to see that something bad happened and then actually do something about it. Credit cards, bank account transfers, and all other electronic transactions involving a bank all have an “undo” button.

Banks rely on the reversibility feature every day to stop fraudulent activities. Bitcoin robbery casesaren’t just rising because of interest in the currency — the most recent is a European bitcoin payment processor losing $1M after a DDoS attack — they’re rising because robbing a bank online involves much less friction than doing so in person.

Nicholas Weaver

Nicholas Weaver is a researcher at the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley and U.C. San Diego (though this opinion is his own). He focuses on network security as well as network intrusion detection, defenses for DNS resolvers, and tools for detecting ISP-introduced manipulations of a user’s network connection. Weaver received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley.

In the current financial system, the only major irreversible transactions involve withdrawing cash. This is a process that must happen in person and therefore naturally imposes substantial limits; in-person requirements provide attribution, keep an attacker from automating the process, and limit the “attack surface”. For example:

• To steal a million dollars hidden under mattresses, a thief needs to break into thousands of homes.
• To steal a million dollars from a typical business’s bank account, thieves need to transfer it to a network of roughly 100 money mules.
• Each mule must then withdraw less than $10,000 from their account within a short period of time, take the cash to Western Union, and wire the money to the thieves. (This is why those running the mules can claim up to 40-50 percent of the take!)

To steal a million dollars worth of bitcoins stored by a business, however, a thief only needs the private key. Likewise, to steal $1000 worth of bitcoins each from 1000 people, the thief only needs to have his or her bot software running on enough victims with enough bitcoins to automate the process.

This means bitcoins should never be “stored” on an internet-connected device. That includes our computers and our smartphones. (And have you heard the one about the guy who keeps his key on his finger?) Let’s pause for a moment to reflect on that: What sort of online currency requires using offline computers and objects for all storage?

Now, it is theoretically true that stolen coins could be blocked. If a portion of the network blocks stolen bitcoins today, then the same mechanism could block bitcoins that passed through black markets or offshore exchanges (such as BTC-e) that don’t implement anti-money-laundering protections. Yet the bitcoin community strongly resists the idea of blacklists, because it eliminates fungibility — the notion that all bitcoins are identical — which is essential for a currency. If every dollar used in a drug deal couldn’t be used again, would dollars work as currency? Especially if, sometime after acceptance, a dollar becomes void and blacklisted after the fact because of its previous involvement in a crime?

Bitcoins should never be stored on an internet-connected device. But what sort of online currency requires using offline computers for all storage?

Bitcoin advocates insist that the theft problem is solvable. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that some bitcoin-centric hardware company deploys completely secure and free hardware bitcoin wallets for anyone to use. And let’s also assume consumers are happy with such an unregulatable model and don’t care that merchants can now rip them off with near impunity. Immunity from theft is not enough. Irreversibility, combined with volatility, ensures that bitcoin still will never see wide adoption.

Bitcoin’s irreversibility means that a bitcoin exchange can never accept credit cards or wire transfers to quickly provide bitcoins in significant quantities. These agencies must carefully audit customers, wait on any large purchases, and assign blame when attackers breach accounts. Any exchange that does not follow such precautions would be a magnet for fraud, and cease to exist once they start receiving chargebacks.

As a consequence, the only ways to quickly buy bitcoins require cash — again, I’m talking about convenience here which surely should be a feature of internet applied to money. This convenience can happen via a cash drop at a drugstore; a cash deposit into the exchange’s bank account; a face-to-face meetup; or at an actual ATM, complete with cameras and withdrawal limits. (The world’s first bitcoin ATM just went live a month ago in Canada. Incidentally, it takes cash, not ATM cards.)

Blacklists eliminate fungibility, which is essential for a currency.

And almost every bitcoin purchase needs to start with such a consuming, hastle-prone step if the buyer is unwilling to risk the wild swings in value that bitcoin experiences on a day-to-day basis. Since bitcoin has no stable value, the recipient should immediately go the other way. After all, if bitcoin’s volatility is desired by the merchant, they can just buy bitcoins independently. Instead, any sensible merchant receiving them will immediately turn them back into Dollars, Euros, or whatever local currency they need at a cost of roughly 1 percent. Which means the buyer first had to go the other way, turning dollars into bitcoins. Otherwise, the system would be out of balance.

Thus to actually buy something with the “digital currency of the future” — without having to wait, have funds predeposited at an exchange, or risk that one’s bitcoins drop in value — the buyer has to go to the bank, withdraw cash, turn it into bitcoins, and then spend it quickly.

The only way to quickly buy bitcoins requires cash: a consuming, hastle-prone step.

The need to go in person and withdraw cash conservatively costs the buyer 2 percent, as gas stations can charge over 2 percent to accept credit cards (and yet, people regularly use credit over cash). For reference, compare this to Square, which charges 2.75 percent to process credit cards. So even if you canconveniently get bitcoins from your local ATM — though we’re nowhere near there yet — a bitcoin transaction will cost the buyer and seller a combined 3 percent or more.

Even the much-vaunted international transfer use case doesn’t make sense here: A bitcoin transaction may be cheaper than a SWIFT wire transfer, but the cash requirement means it is not necessarily cheaper than Western Union. (To Mexico, it’s $8 plus a currency exchange fee. Europe is far more expensive, but that’s due to a lack of competition rather than something intrinsic.) If Western Union charges nearly double the currency conversion fee of a bitcoin exchange, it still comes out approximately the same since a foreign bitcoin transaction involves two currency exchanges rather than one.

Even at a 10 billion dollar market cap — the peak achieved by Beanie Babies in 1999 — bitcoin is almost irrelevant in financial terms.

Bitcoin therefore only works for merchants who face substantial chargebacks but who can’t say “pay cash”, are selling to bitcoin believers willing to pay the premium price to use bitcoins, or want to conduct business that the credit card system blocks. Yet many of the transactions blocked by the credit card system — namely gambling, drugs, and crypto-extortion — are themselves illegal. In those cases, does it really make sense to use such an innately traceable currency with a permanent record? I think not. (You can bet that redandwhite, the “hitman” Dread Pirate Roberts allegedly hired, is going to be asking himself that question over the coming months.)

This is not to say that bitcoin won’t retain its price. After all, the greater-sucker theory of speculation can ensure a large price for a long period. As long as bitcoin believers can recruit enough new money to balance the newly mined-for-sale coins, the price may sustain itself indefinitely. And, in the greater scheme of things, bitcoin is small: even at a roughly 10 billion dollar market capitalization it is almost irrelevant in financial terms. This is probably roughly the peak market capitalization achieved by Beanie Babies in 1999.

There are indeed important and valuable ideas that exist in bitcoin’s design. But bitcoin itself? Its volatility and built-in irreversibility will doom it to the ash-heap of history.

How I bought drugs from 'dark net' – it's just like Amazon run by cartels

Last week the FBI arrested Dread Pirate Roberts, founder of Silk Road, a site on the 'dark net' where visitors could buy drugs at the click of a mouse. Though Dread – aka Ross Ulbricht – earned millions, was he really driven by America's anti-state libertarian philosophy?

• 
• • Carole Cadwalladr
  • The Observer, Sunday 6 October 2013

The FBI alleges Ross Ulbricht ran the vast underground drug marketplace Silk Road for more than two years. Photograph: theguardian.com

Dear FBI agents, my name is Carole Cadwalladr and in February this year I was asked to investigate the so-called "dark net" for a feature in this newspaper. I downloaded Tor on to my computer, the anonymous browser developed by the US navy, Googled "Silk Roaddrugs" and then cut and pasted this link http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/ into the address field.

And bingo! There it was: Silk Road, the site, which until the FBI closed it down on Thursday and arrested a 29-year-old American in San Francisco, was the web's most notorious marketplace.

The "dark net" or the "deep web", the hidden part of the internet invisible to Google, might sound like a murky, inaccessible underworld but the reality is that it's right there, a click away, at the end of your mouse. It took me about 10 minutes of Googling and downloading to find and access the site on that February morning, and yet arriving at the home page of Silk Road was like stumbling into a parallel universe, a universe where eBay had been taken over by international drug cartels and Amazon offers a choice of books, DVDS and hallucinogens.

Drugs are just another market, and on Silk Road it was a market laid bare, differentiated by price, quality, point of origin, supposed effects and lavish user reviews. There were categories for "cannabis", "dissociatives", "ecstasy", "opioids", "prescription", "psychedelics", "stimulants" and, my favourite, "precursors". (If you've watched Breaking Bad, you'll know that's the stuff you need to make certain drugs and which Walt has to hold up trains and rob factories to find. Or, had he known about Silk Road, clicked a link on his browser.)

And, just like eBay, there were star ratings for sellers, detailed feedback, customer service assurances, an escrow system and a busy forum in which users posted helpful tips. I looked on the UK cannabis forum, which had 30,000 postings, and a vendor called JesusOfRave was recommended. He had 100% feedback, promised "stealth" packaging and boasted excellent customer reviews: "The level of customer care you go to often makes me forget that this is an illegal drug market," said one.

JesusOfRave boasted on his profile: "Working with UK distributors, importers and producers to source quality, we run a tight ship and aim to get your order out same or next day. This tight ship also refers to our attitude to your and our privacy. We have been doing this for a long time … been playing with encryption since 0BC and rebelling against the State for just as long."

And so, federal agents, though I'm sure you know this already, not least because the Guardian revealed on Friday that the National Security Agency (NSA) and GCHQ have successfully cracked Tor on occasion, I ordered "1g of Manali Charras [cannabis] (free UK delivery)", costing 1.16 bitcoins (the cryptocurrency then worth around £15). I used a false name with my own address, and two days later an envelope arrived at my door with an address in Bethnal Green Road, east London, on the return label and a small vacuum-packed package inside: a small lump of dope.

It's still sitting in its original envelope in the drawer of my desk. I got a bit stumped with my dark net story, put it on hold and became more interested in the wonderful world of cryptocurrencies as the value of bitcoins soared over the next few months (the 1.5 bitcoins I'd bought for £20 were worth £300 at one point this spring).

Just under a month ago I was intrigued to see that Forbes magazine had managed to get an interview with "Dread Pirate Roberts", the site's administrator. And then, last week, came the news that Dread Pirate Roberts was 29-year-old Ross Ulbricht, a University of Texas physics graduate who, according to the FBI's documents, had not just run the site – which it alleges earned him $80m in commission – but had hired a contract killer for $80,000 to rub out an employee who had tried to blackmail him.

If that sounds far-fetched, papers filed last Thursday show that he tried to take a contract on a second person. The documents showed that the FBI had access to Silk Road's servers from July, and that the contract killer Ulbricht had thought he'd hired was a federal agent. It's an astonishing, preposterous end to what was an astonishing, preposterous site, though the papers show that while the crime might have been hi-tech, cracking it was a matter of old-fashioned, painstaking detective work.

Except, of course, that it's not the end of it. There are two other similar websites already up and running – Sheep and Black Market Reloaded – which have both seen a dramatic uplift in users in the last few days, and others will surely follow. Because what Silk Road did for drugs was what eBay did for secondhand goods, and Airbnb has done for accommodation: it created a viable trust system that benefited both buyers and sellers.

Nicholas Christin, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who conducted six months of research into the site, said that what surprised him most was how "normal" it was. "To me, the most surprising thing was how normal, when you set aside the goods being sold, the whole market appears to be," he said. And, while many people would be alarmed at the prospect of their teenagers buying drugs online, Silk Road was a whole lot more professional, regulated and controlled than buying drugs offline.

What's apparent from Dread Pirate Roberts's interview with Forbes and comments he made on the site's forum is that the motivation behind the site does not seem to have been making money (though clearly it did: an estimated $1.2bn), or a belief that drugs hold the key to some sort of mystical self-fulfillment, but that the state has no right to interfere in the lives of individuals. One of the details that enabled the FBI to track Ulbricht was the fact that he "favourited" several clips from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian Alabama-based thinktank devoted to furthering what is known as the Austrian school of economics. Years later, Dread Pirate Roberts would cite the same theory on Silk Road's forum.

"What we're doing isn't about scoring drugs or 'sticking it to the man'," said Dread Pirate Roberts in the Forbes interview. "It's about standing up for our rights as human beings and refusing to submit when we've done no wrong."

And it's this that is possibly the most interesting aspect of the story. Because, while Edward Snowden's and the Guardian's revelations about the NSA have shown how all-encompassing the state's surveillance has become, a counterculture movement of digital activists espousing the importance of freedom, individualism and the right to a private life beyond the state's control is also rapidly gaining traction.

It's the philosophy behind innovations as diverse as the 3D printed gun and sites as mainstream as PayPal, and its proponents are young, computer-savvy idealists with the digital skills to invent new ways of circumventing the encroaching power of the state.

Ulbricht certainly doesn't seem to have been living the life you imagine of a criminal overlord. He lived in a shared apartment. If he had millions stashed away somewhere, he certainly doesn't seem to have been spending it on high-performance cars and penthouses.

His LinkedIn page, while possibly not the best arena for self-expression for a man being hunted by the FBI, demonstrates that his beliefs are grounded in libertarian ideology: "I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and aggression amongst mankind," he wrote. "The most widespread and systemic use of force is amongst institutions and governments … the best way to change a government is to change the minds of the governed … to that end, I am creating an economic simulation to give people a firsthand experience of what it would be like to live in a world without the systemic use of force."

Silk Road, it turns out, might have been that world. Anybody who has seen All the President's Men knows that, when it comes to criminality, the answer has always been to "follow the money". But in the age of bitcoin, that's of a different order of difficulty. Silk Road is just one website; bitcoin is potentially the foundation for a whole new economic order.