On the Agent of the State Perspective of Permissionless and Censorship Resistant Money
In Eric Voskuil’s module Permissionless Principle, from the cryptoeconomics sections of the libbitcoin repository, Voskuil defines the value proposition of Bitcoin as being “entirely based” on its permissionless nature:
Bitcoin is designed to operate without permission from any authority. Its value proposition is entirely based on this property.
He then defines the “white market” in contrast with the “black market” with respect to “permission” and “permisionless” from the perspective of the state (ie vs citizenry):
A market can be divided into permissioned and permissionless from the perspective of the state. For ease of reference the former is often referred to as “white market” and the latter “black market”. White market trade, by definition, requires permission, and black market does not.
His idea here is this is the crux of where Bitcoin gets its utility based value (not to be confused with a basis for satisfying Mises Regression Theorem).
But Eric seems to be assuming that Bitcoin is an untraceable e-cash. However, Bitcoin transactions are recorded on an immutable public ledger and so any unpermitted transactions become immutable criminal evidence. How could it be argued then that the entire value proposition of Bitcoin is “un-permitted” aka criminal transactions?
Furthermore, I can make unpermitted transactions with my bank account (and most certainly with cash!) and it’s only in hindsight that the law can take measures to remedy such transactions. This isn’t at all different with Bitcoin, save for the irreversibility of the transactions, if I make an unpermitted transaction I still will suffer the consequences whether I get caught using cash, email money transfer, bank transfer, or an immutable public ledger.
What is the person, or agent, or citizens reason to value something that becomes evidence or their crime?
On Censorship Resistance
My work considers the framework of state vs state competition (as well as interactions with the citizenry etc). Voskuil’s work fails to do so just as all libertarian bitcoin enthusiasts avoid doing. Thus we can see the allure of the euphemism of “censorship resistance” and think of the types of nefarious agents of the state that might be advertising to people that bitcoin is, and should be (ie trying to change protocol to support privacy on and otherwise public ledger), a good option for criminal activity.
