The Second Financial Revolution — Part 2
This is part 2 in a 3 part series…
In part 1 of the story, I mentioned a group of mathematicians, cryptographers and computer scientists who have played a pivotal role in this plot. Included among them, was a small band of rebels known as The Cypherpunks whom by any account, can be categorically credited with being the architects of the Second Financial Revolution.
From this bunch, one name stands out most prominently — Satoshi Nakamoto, the primary author of the Bitcoin Whitepaper. While to many over the past several years, this may simply appear to be the screen-name of one anonymous, (likely Japanese) member of the Cypherpunks, this nomenclature was in reality, very carefully crafted to represent, at several levels, the very movement it would start.
Successful revolutions are carefully layered
First of all, the name combination in Japanese is quite common and unremarkable. It is somewhat like the English language John Smith, making it the symbolic equivalent of John Doe (unidentified citizen) or in its more North American colloquial form, Joe Average. As for its literal translation, “Satoshi” means “clear thinking, quick witted; wise” while “Naka” can mean “medium, inside, or relationship” and “Moto” can mean “origin”, or “foundation”.
Of course this onion will likely be peeled and each layer examined for generations to come, as every potential intended and unintended meaning is explored for as long as the public seeks answers to a question which ultimately, does not really need to be answered.
For the purposes of this article, I will examine one specific layer of symbolism in this name which is most often missed and I will try to illuminate this perspective, with another quick trip down a somewhat related part of recent history (time is relative).
There exists a rather infamous and falsely attributed quote allegedly made circa 1838 by Mayer Amschel Rothschild:
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!”
Of course for those not familiar with his history, the not-so-immediately glaring absurdity of this allegation, is that by 1838, Mayer Amschel Rothschild would have been deceased nearly three decades, so personally I find it much more impressive that any statements at all could be heard uttered from the lips of the departed.
Another infamous and falsely attributed quote is the popular “let them eat cake” which was alleged to have been uttered by Queen Marie Antoinette, upon learning of the destitution of the peasants. However, the origin of the misquote was the phrase,
“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”
which is lifted from the pages of book six of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, written in 1765, well before even the 10th birthday of Marie Antoinette herself. Again, unless Monsieur Rousseau habitually quoted small children in his autobiography, it seems somewhat absurd to attribute the infamous line to the late Austrian Princess/French Queen.
There are three points to be taken from these examples.
- These statements, whether real or imagined and whether accurately or inaccurately attributed, have had an impact on many segments of our society for centuries.
- Given enough time, human history is capable of making heroes out of villains and villains out of heroes.
- Our history is replete with examples of great movements that have been started by or based on completely fictional characters or events.
We must understand that it therefore matters less where, or with whom the movement starts, and much more what the movement itself represents. The strength of any revolution lies within the collective, unified belief of the people/peoples who support it, therefore the story and its subtle layers of sagacity, are much more important in this context, than the accurate reporting of its origin. It is after all stories, that have inspired the resilience and innovation that have characterized our human civilizations.
Successful revolutions are carefully executed
It goes without saying that as far as the power of mass belief and the subsequent movements that it inspires are concerned, the larger the supporting party, the stronger the movement and the better its chances of success.
The authors of the Bitcoin whitepaper understood that in order for a financial revolution to succeed in today’s world, it would be better started by John Doe/Joe Average. They understood that it would require more than imagination and the knowledge of advanced principles of mathematics, economic modelling and cryptography. They were fully aware that it would also require a profound understanding of human history and of the current state of our social evolution, along with copious servings of paranoia.
The goal of this revolution was no small feat after all, it is meant to successfully erode a firm, centuries-old hold, by the single most powerful, global entity in human history. The first task these revolutionaries would need to achieve, was the removal of the requirement for a centralized governing body in the direction/management of a society’s financial services. This would require something that the world had not seen before and it would be presented in the form of a new type of distributed ledger technology called the blockchain.
Among other challenges, one important hurdle that was overcome by this particular whitepaper was the solution to the double-spending problem, a fundamental headache and obstacle in the creation of any form of digital currency, that would be regarded with any level of integrity and reliability.
The third major challenge tackled by the creators of bitcoin was the institution of an anti-inflation mechanism at the core of the design of this electronic cash platform. This took the form of a combination of the mining model and more importantly in the specific hard cap on the total number of bitcoin units that can ever be produced.
So we have cryptographic security, a public ledger, decentralization, the solution to the double-spend and we have anti-inflation, brilliant!
The question then after a decade is, with such great technology at a time of growing civil distrust and discontent with the existing financial system, why hasn’t Bitcoin become the standard unit of trade and commerce around the world?
To be concluded in part 3…..
