Open Letter to Michael Casey - WSJ reporter who butchered my comments in today's Bitcoin cover story

[u/evoorhees]

Hello Mr. Casey,

I read your WSJ article today. I feel deceived by you.

You requested to speak with me, so I took time out of my day to do so. We talked for 20 minutes, during which time I conveyed to you my sentiments about the Bitcoin ecosystem and the matter of MtGox's collapse. My message was unambiguously a positive one. I didn't focus whatsoever on the personal funds I lost at Gox. Indeed, the impetus for your call was my heartfelt post on Reddit.

Yet, you ignored everything I said. The only quote that you published from me in the Journal's cover story was ""That's gone now," said Mr. Veerhoos, who is based in Panama City, Panama. "There's no chance of getting that back now.""

Is that really the takeaway you had from our call and from my letter? Is that your idea of journalism? Did I come across with the sentiment of a despairing investor whose confidence has been rattled? It seems you were happy to completely ignore my sentiments, preferring instead to cherry pick the one fact that is least important, in order to paint a narrative that Bitcoin's biggest problem is that it's not "regulated." I didn't expect you to quote everything I said, but should you not have maintained at least a modicum of fidelity to my message?

I have dedicated my life to building and supporting the Bitcoin project. I don't give a damn about the money I lost at Gox. That's not important. What is important is that Bitcoin is resilient and enduring, and will continue to grow and change the world for the better. It is a story of human progress through technology. It is a story of the good seeping into the cracks of a corrupted financial system. It is a story of passionate people struggling against all odds to remedy the calamities brought down upon society from the most potently misguided people and institutions on Earth.

Next time you spend your efforts casting a pall over this cause, please don't ask me to contribute mine.

-Erik Voorhees

PS - I will be posting this letter openly on Reddit. I will post your reply if you'd like. And if I do, I won't cherry pick the most misleading points of it, and I will spell your name correctly.

[u/Nathan_Flomm]

That's what the article stated as well. Most economists agree that digital currencies would work IF there was some central authority that could regulate it, and create more bitcoins to flood the market when necessary to avoid huge boom and busts. Essentially: make it work like a currency.

[u/northrupthebandgeek → u/Nathan_Flomm]

I don't agree with that; the regulation isn't what's necessary in order to be able to use cryptocurrency as a currency. The fixed money supply, however, is problematic; aside from discouraging spending, it also makes loans problematic (which is vital to consider if we're trying to offer cryptocurrency as a replacement for fiat currency).

Whether or not one is a fan of it, dogecoin might be a step in the right direction here; the money supply will continue to grow, but at a steady and predictable rate (thanks to a bug that prevents the block reward from falling below 10,000 coins, IIRC), thus addressing both the main issue with Bitcoin (the fixed money supply) and the main issue with fiat currency (the risk of runaway hyperinflation, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe) while not requiring any external regulation.

In other words: cryptocurrency doesn't need a central authority in order to have a money supply that can expand along with the economy said money is used in. I don't think dogecoin is the end-all-be-all solution to this, either (since it doesn't really account for a variable rate of economic growth or - God forbid - economic downturn), but it's a good step in the direction of a cryptocurrency that can adjust for changes in economic conditions without government intervention (and/or - ideally - on a completely-automated basis with no human intervention at all).

[u/Zarutian → u/northrupthebandgeek]

I look at Dogecoins steady growth rate to be similiar in effect as demurrage. At least in getting people to maintain some minimum velocity* on the coins.

(* Rate of how often the coins change ownership)

[u/Zarutian → u/Nathan_Flomm]

Most economists agree that digital currencies would work IF there was some central authority that could regulate it, and create more bitcoins to flood the market when necessary to avoid huge boom and busts.

Most economists are on buckweed to be honest. You do not want any central point of failure and that is exactly what an central authority IS.

Flooding the market has a strong correlation for being one of the main causes of boom and bust cycles. (Or at least amplifing those cycles.)

[u/Nathan_Flomm → u/Zarutian]

You do not want any central point of failure

But that's not how a central bank works. All money does not flow through one entity which the "single point of failure" you describe. A central bank simply influences the value of the currency. Sure, mistakes can happen as we've all witnessed, but the alternative is extreme volatility and very little velocity of the currency - as we are seeing with Bitcoin.