I was forced to talk about bitcoin this week. On a podcast (in German). The discussion was triggered by the remarkable surge in bitcoin’s value - the second great surge in the Ur-crypto’s turbulent history since it’s launch on 3 January 2009.

Questa cosa non la capisco. Ma perché bisogna essere "costretti" a parlarne solo quando fa notizia e/o quando qualcuno ti "stuzzica", con il rischio di "chiudere la stalla dopo che sono scappati i buoi" ? "... a conservative/libertarian (in italiano anarco-capitalista rende meglio cit. kalessi) efforts to escape the shadow of the political order of money that has half-emerged from the collapse of Bretton Woods. Bitcoin’s “solution” is to create an artificial scarcity founded in solving maths problems with vast computer power, consuming huge quantities of electricity, generated from coal that contributes in a non-trivial way to the climate crisis. Recent estimates put bitcoin’s current carbon footprint at c. 37 megatons of CO2 annually, the same as the emissions of New Zealand. To paraphrase Gramsci, crypto is the morbid symptom of an interregnum, an interregnum in which the gold standard is dead but a fully political money that dares to speak its name has not yet been born. Crypto is the libertarian spawn of neoliberalism’s ultimately doomed effort to depoliticize money." Argomentazione assolutamente condivisibile, come il resto dell'articolo. Però è interessante leggere anche i commenti. "Yes, it is unfair. Yes, it threatens the current system. But as with all systemic revolutions, it is the losers in the current system and a few mavericks from the old who will best profit." Convincimento molto, molto diffuso. Antonio