Why Bitcoin Terrifies Big Banks | Interview with Andreas Antonopoulos

Abby Martin speaks with Andreas Antonopoulos, founder of Root Eleven and co-host of let’s Talk Bitcoin, discussing how Bitcoin works, and why it’s so important to have a decentralized system of money.

LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin

Abby Martin

Abby Martin

Creator at The Empire Files
Creator The Empire Files on teleSUR, Founder Media Roots, BOD Project Censored & Former Host Breaking the Set
Abby Martin

3 Comments on "Why Bitcoin Terrifies Big Banks | Interview with Andreas Antonopoulos"

  1. Liam_McGonagle | Feb 1, 2014 at 10:26 am |

    I think Abby needs to do another interview with this guy. She missed several of the most important questions, and totally glossed over some messy realities altogether.

    First of all, she never asked Antonopolous to compare the bitcoin model to traditional commercial money, and its inherent risks and benefit.

    Abby doesn’t seem to be aware that a decentralized model of money far pre-dates the government issued or regulated models prevalent today. Indeed, the invention of government mediated currencies is a direct result of the frequent depressions that the inefficient allocation of capital inherent in the old decentralized model.

    Granted, the transnational character of Bitcoin at least partially mitigates against the inefficiencies imposed by the geographic fragmentation of the old, bank-centered model. But what of the risk of industry concentrations? What of the risk to civil rights and local community interests by radically de-coupling the political and monetary authorities? And what is the legal structure that governs fundamental productive assets that provide Bitcoin its value?

    Abby needs to do a much better job than this. This amounted to little more than an advert for Bitcoin.

    • I came to see the depressions as a litmus test for whether or not real productive capacity is being retained. As it stands now, we do seem to prevent them, but only in the sense that we pass the buck. Some people miserably fail, and some people extraordinarily succeed(and therefore its renamed a “recession”). Depressions had everyone at LEAST share in the failure, giving us some incentive to support or at least vet the weakest of people to maintain prosperity. Depressions also allow the chaos to break through to allow transformative (r?)evolution whether top down(new deal) or otherwise. But of course it also increases the probability of wars…

  2. I really contest the idea that nature does not produce heirarchical systems.

Comments are closed.