Bitcoin = Death Processors
Darin Stevenson

To be blunt, much of this piece is tripe. Lack of understanding about transactions and blockchain.

The first is this failed assumption that — “We carefully cache and value our dead. And money is an abstraction of dead people, places, and moments.” Not all societies value their dead. Not only that but you actually have the ledger reversed as far as Western finance is concerned. The USD, Fr, Gb, De are not markers of assets but of debt. I hand you a $100 note it is an action that I have settled a debt to you by transferring the note, of which you are now the possessor of the debt. The USD even plainly states it “This note is legal tender for all _debts_ public and private”. Even that is not exactly correct. Under the US set up the only entity that can truly retire a debt is the US Treasury/Fed since they hold the other side of the ledger having been the issuer of the debt instrument.

Second the fact that two dissimilar words sound the same in most cases has no relevance. The word cache, French, noun derivative of cacher to hide, sourced from the Latin coācticāre whereas cash is sourced from Middle French caissier custodian of a money-box. The etymology of the word bases are not even close.

Third, you tend to equate that human activity leads to ecological destruction. Going with that mindset then more human activity should lead to even more ecological destruction. Correct so far? In international finance a product transfer from country to country just on the paperwork/human effort required may take a week to complete. A blockchain system called Ethereum can complete the entire transaction in mere hours. No trees are killed, no auto emissions, just some electrons expended. (re: So the ‘machine’ will reduce human activity and by your thesis that should be a win.

Fourth, on the fly corrections of the content is an indication of many things but at the base is an indicator of very poor authorship. I noticed that was going on in the comments. Very ‘1984’.