Skip to main content

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom

Against the IFP

Centralizing control over a currency’s infrastructure is a seemingly obvious mistake.

One would think any Austro-libertarian worth their salt would be able to see thru such a charade. Yet here we are, again. Face to face with economic illiteracy. Not garden variety lefist economic illiteracy, but one far more stinging and painful - one which comes from within our own community, rather than from without. 

First, Bitcoiners faced the economic illiteracy of maximalism and small blockers. Attempts to masquerade money’s primary function as value storage (Ammous) or rejecting Menger’s Regression Theorem altogether (Szabo) are luckily demonstrably false. Nevertheless, the shock of our fellow Bitcoiners illiteracy was like an unexpected slap in the face. Suddenly, we were forced to confront the fact that the ignorance of our allies in the fight for sound money, had led them astray. Yet, thru BCH we were thankfully able to keep Satoshi’s dream of peer to peer cash intact. 

Well, crypto anarchist, it’s time to turn the other cheek. You're in for another slap. 

Bitcoin ABC has put forward an Infrastructure Funding Plan whereby 8% of Coinbase mining rewards will be automatically diverted into their pockets. It appears they intend on forcing this change down the throat of the p2p cash community come hell or high water. 

Not to worry. Obviously, anybody with half a brain can figure out that allowing ONE development firm to pick and choose which projects to fund is far less efficient than the market-driven, entrepreneurial system of profit & loss. Right? 

I mean, any libertarian who’s familiar with Hayek knows that shifting responsibility for resource allocation from entrepreneurs to a centralized firm, forces reliance on a pretense of knowledge, inevitably bound for failure. And any austro-libertarian vaguely familiar with Mises’ economic calculation problem understands why a market deprived of the appropriate pricing mechanisms can never have an efficient allocation of resources. Indeed, all crypto-anarchists must surely know that the free rider problem is a myth - used only to justify market intervention & the forced subsidization of unsolicited goods & services. Right?

Think again, friends. 

If the seemingly crystal clear economic case isn’t clear enough, consider the historical case. 

There are exactly zero examples in all of human history of a sound currency’s infrastructure being developed by one centralized firm. The mere thought is ludicrous. Gold mints, mines, and banks were owned and operated by independently functioning market actors. The only information they used to coordinate with each other were prices. 

In stark contrast, infrastructure surrounding every fiat currency has been developed exactly as ABC proposes - with one centralized entity entirely determining the route development will take. 

In the case of USD, the Federal Reserve is led by Jerome Powell and decisions regarding future development are made by the FOMC. In our case, ABC is led by Amaury Sechet and decisions regarding future development are made by ‘the council.’ Just as politics determines who’s fit for the FOMC, so too will it determine who's deemed worthy for Sechet’s ‘council.’ Indeed, it already has. 

Who does the IFP benefit? 

On the surface, it may seem as if the IFP is in the interests of a small group of developers, but even this is overstating the case. The death of peer to peer cash & the imposition of peer to ABC to peer cash, means the prolongation of the Federal Reserve’s currency monopoly. In the long run, this doesn’t benefit Sechet, ABC or anyone else for that matter. 

Moreover, Sechet’s preference for the short term gratification of mining rewards over the true prize of central bank disintermediation is indicative of a high time preference. This high time preference is itself brought about by existing central bank policies, and it’s in this roundabout way that the Fed is able to perpetuate it’s cycle of degeneracy and slavery. 

Nor does the IFP benefit agorists. Disrupting the nature of p2p cash to line ABC’s pockets is directly opposed to our mission of providing the public with sound money alternatives to Federal Reserve notes. Peer to peer cash is the tool Satoshi created, & it’s the tool Ross Ulbricht showed us how to use so effectively. 

Peer to ABC to peer cash is great for making ABC boatloads of money, but it's far less useful for counter-economic purposes. 


  1. Where's your bch Dobson address? Would love to support your work.

  2. Absolutely outstanding analysis, thank you!

  3. The miners requested this funding mechanism to make their donations fair (between BCH miners) to remove the "free rider miners" problem that disincentivized the other miner's desire to donate. ABC control over the funding is a problem I think needs to be fixed, but I see no evidence the funds will be used for anything but making BCH greater faster. If the miners want to donate like this to make BCH better, think about who would want to block that strategy of funding BCH developers. Note the anti-BCH troll army of social engineering agents created the anti-ABC and anti-IFP movement to harm BCH. Their arguments are mostly flawed but very well designed to seem true. Many have been fooled into thinking dividing BCH developers and the community is the best way to go here.

    1. No they did not. 0% of miners voted for it in the lead up to 15 May 2020 and 0% are signaling for it now. LITERALLY ZERO.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear America, I Won't Be Locking Down

Dear America I won’t be locking down, not that I ever did. And I don’t care about the arbitrary mandates of a geriatric pedophile with a history of dementia. I don’t wear the muzzle or social distance. Nor do I have any plans to start. I won’t be avoiding friends or family & I actively seek out large public gatherings. Needless to say, it’ll be a cold, cold day in hell before the government injects my living body with a foreign substance or keeps me from my family on Thanksgiving Day. You see, I knew from day one that COVID was a hoax. More specifically, when videos of Chinese people dropping dead in the streets were being broadcasted by Western propaganda outlets, it became clear this was essentially a soft coup. As a general rule, anything coming from the CCP should immediately be assumed to be intentionally falsified for malicious purposes. Friends, what has happened is obvious. The political cartel has manufactured a virus because fear enables them to seize power & furthers

Against the LP

Agorism has no room for politics.  The Agora & political institutions can coexist no more than a state of marriage & bachelorhood can coexist. Counter-economics & politicking are likewise mutually exclusive. Frankly, it should seem obvious that engaging in politics & anti-politics is contradictory & self-defeating. It wouldn’t make much sense to get chemo in the morning & smoke a pack of Marlboros in the evening, so why would one seek to destroy the government today, and empower it tomorrow?  Just as a chemist who tests a logically inconsistent theory will experience failure, so too will social scientists & revolutionaries experience failure when they pursue inconsistent theories.  Note that without exception - every gain made by the liberty community in the past 15 years has been produced by the counter-economy & that no other faction of our movement can claim even a small victory . Here’s a brief look at the scoreboard: Whereas the LP & small gov

In Defense of Left Libertarianism

Marx was right, but Marxism is stupid. Let me explain… Marx’s fundamental critique that the working class is being exploited by the upper class is true. This is so inherently obvious in the modern political climate that I find it bewildering the notion even needs defending. In fact, today, the working class has been so thoroughly exploited that they can now be more accurately termed the working poor . Go to Manhattan, the neoliberal shithole from whence I came - and try to find a worker who both lives & resides there. You can’t. There aren’t any. The elites have successfully used a combination of high taxes & a denial of civil liberties to expel the working class from their homes. Trust me, I am among the expelled. The anarcho-capitalist habit of turning a blind eye to class theory is a grave mistake, as it sweeps real concerns under the rug. In doing so they dismiss the plight of an enormous contingent of the public - labor. No, we agorists aren’t seeking an abandonment of met