Bitcoin presumes (1) everyone owns a computer (or a smartphone/similar) and (2) everyone has network connectivity all the time. Without these two things, one cannot transact.
There are huge swaths of the world where this isn't true. Short of making computing devices and internet connectivity human rights, these assumptions compound existing inequalities.
First is a one-time hardware private key, with physical protection of it (i.e. you need to break the device psychically to extract bitcoins), and ability to verify address by plugin-in into USB.
Second is a USB power from 9-volt battery. So you can check that the OpenDime is active.
The only hard part is verifying the balance you need an access to blockchain network. Not necessary to do that through internet, because you can receive it though satellite now [3], but you still need a computer, that's the fact.
Technically, you could literally do the cryptographic math to figure out the validity of a transaction, and then add it to a block down the road when you get a chance, sooner rather than later to not allow double spending
You could always issue "paper" bills that are denominated/backed by BTC. Such currency wouldn't have all the benefits of Bitcoin but it wouldn't be worse (from a coiner's perspective) than existing paper money that people are using today.
Who is the one backing those paper bills? This brings back centralized banking, which is what most folks in favor of replacing fiat currency with Bitcoin are working away from
Yes, there would be a centralized entity printing and custodying the BTC behind the bills, but all paper money today is also controlled by centralized entities. So in this scenario, digital BTC would be "real Bitcoin" and paper BTC would be "Bitcoin light".
A coin or a bank note are far from being non-technologies, and the logistics to getting them to where they are needed are underrated.
Connectivity and devices are not that big of a leap forward from there and seeing how hungry western and Asian businesses are to open new markets in underserved areas, it’s unlikely lack of connectivity itself will further inequalities. Not for long anyways.
The need for powerful computing gear could, maybe, if there is any advantage to being part of the mining network...
Performing an online transaction requires a credit card or a bank account which is a far stricter requirement than a smartphone which you can get for 20 bucks
There are also huge swathes of the world where nobody has credit cards or bank accounts. This isn't an argument for Bitcoin as much as it is for physical currency
> Under the gold and silver standards, the public money supply was fixed – and could not be easily manipulated by the state (either the government or the, then non-existent, Fed). But that did not stop private bankers from leveraging public money out of thin air to create huge quantities of private money with which to fund the Robber Barons, i.e. the Jeff Bezoses, of the era.
But didn't the creation of private money happen because gold was so expensive to hold and transport? Assuming Layer 2 solutions like Lightning get off the ground, Bitcoin won't have this problem, right?
The gold/silver standard refers to the monetary system where paper cash is backed by precious metals, for which it can be exchanged any time.
It does not refer to literally buying things with gold.
So yes, Bitcoin has all the same issues as a gold-backed currency (a gold standard).
Private forms of money were created in order to help alleviate the extreme inelasticity of gold-backed currencies, which the US abandoned in 1971. So Bitcoin would have all the issues of the dollar from 1944 to 1971.
> Private forms of money were created in order to help alleviate the extreme inelasticity of gold-backed currencies, which the US abandoned in 1971. So Bitcoin would have all the issues of the dollar from 1944 to 1971.
Which is when it began it's World Reserve Status, and was the reason why Capital Markets functioned and helped rebuild the West, and Japan, as well as led to the highest increase in Social Mobility the World had ever seen at that point and led to the emergence of the World's sole Super Power.
I'm an Anarchist and I want to do away with the notions of Nation-states entirely, but even I cannot help but take issue with your framing of what the US Treasury did by identifying those desirable qualities and attributes as 'issues.' The issues emerge when reckless abandon is applied to what was semi-sound monetary policy and you get the perversion of Modern Money and the corruption of Markets that lead to its continual inflationary based asset bubbles and crashes because of cheap/hot money.
Monetary stability is what should be desired, and for that you need a system incapable of the whims from Human Corruption.
Also, I disagree, if Bitcoin lives up to its potential it remains the only really Multi-planetary monetary system in existence. Nothing else even comes close, if you want to try this experiment just try sending money during non-business hours, on a weekend to a person not in your network.
> philosophy texts from that era that did the same
This makes sense. This isn't intended to be hurtful, but for a general audience, I'd suggest avoiding it. My first association was with Flat Earther and other nutter forums, where I think it's used as a misplaced appeal to authority, to look like Enlightenment-era texts.
If the non-leverage path involves X dollars. The leverage path >X dollars. Unless someone is fairly explicitly trying to stop them then banks (and other businesses) will start inventing private methods of exchange, popularising them and then playing leverage games.
There are extremely powerful interest groups that want money to be creatable on demand (and not subtle ones; the public loves credit). If a sound money system is in use (Gold, Bitcoin, etc) then it may hold for a long while but sooner or later be re-defined out of the system and replaced with something that can be created. The process has nothing to do with the other underlying technical realities of the sound money, the problem being solved is the soundness of the money itself.
Lightning has nothing to do with holding and transporting Bitcoin. Holding Bitcoin is literally free. Transporting Bitcoin can also be free, depending on what you mean by transporting.
> Transporting Bitcoin can also be free, depending on what you mean by transporting.
On-chain? No, that may have been true in the early days (pre 2013?) but a tx fee has to be included unless you want your money held in the mempool. You may get lucky if it has high days destroyed, but that's not really a risk you want to take unless you care about the funds and want to eventually have to resort to a CPFP tx. I did a 18 satoshi/byte tx and it took a few hours to confirm, which for my purposes was entirely fine as it was a low sum. But as we get more people onboard On-chain should only really be used for important, secure, and therefore commanding a higher fee, transactions than would/could be done as a LN tx.
And actually LN has everything to do with how bitcoin is transported, note the lower-case here, LN makes it instant and near no cost tx fees.
Holding, as you said, can be done for free. Many old schoolers never really opted for hardware wallets, as the paper-wallet method can be just as secure, despite it requiring far more planning and contingencies.
I liked Yanis when he was lambasting the Merkle/Rumpy governed EU and telling them they'd prefer to default and exit the EU and take Cyprus and the PIIGS with them. However, ever since the party he helped create (Syriza) failed to do anything different in Greece than the Trokia before it I completely tuned out to him and his tired rhetoric has lost any of its appeal.
And he is right, Bitcoin is completely agnostic to Political Ideology or its proposed factions, in fact I'd say if you understand what it really is: that is entirely the point!
I'm not going to read his article, but if that is his only contention, then he is right. Socialists need not apply, and if the Petro is any indication of what happens when Socialists create their own cryptocurrency (only to see it fail, in value or utility and then have to accept Bitcoin anyway for their services) it doesn't really matter, and proves the above.
> Which makes you willfully unqualified to hold an opinion on his article.
That may be, but I bet I have better understanding of what his character is better than you as I was in Europe in that time helping understand what was occurring with the Euro crises, and if that is his premise for why Bitcoin shouldn't be used by Socialists, he is right and should stop exploring it as an avenue. I'll just point at Maduro's failed plan to show why it doesn't matter anyway.
> > Transporting Bitcoin can also be free, depending on what you mean by transporting.
> That may be, but I bet I have better understanding of what his character is better than you as I was in Europe in that time helping understand what was occurring with the Euro crises, and if that is his premise for why Bitcoin shouldn't be used by Socialists, he is right and should stop exploring it as an avenue. I'll just point at Maduro's failed plan to show why it doesn't matter anyway.
It's surprising you know so much about Varoufakis, but what's even more surprising is that you know so much about me!
I'm not disagreeing with you here incidentally--you haven't made any actual argument that I even could disagree with. You've just claimed that some events proved your point without explaining how or why. You may be right, but you haven't said anything that would convince me you are. Given so far my experience of you is you refuse to read something and yet feel qualified to comment on it because you know the author's character, I'm certainly not going to be believing you based on your qualifications.
> I'll indulge you, go on explain...
If I wish to transport gold across a border, I have to work out customs/tariffs, security, potentially bribes, etc. all of which cost money.
If I wish to transport Bitcoin across a border, I memorize the wallet key, and cross the border. Free.
> How do you secure it, back it up, and bequeath it to people on your passing?
Keep the private key, mnemonic, seed phrase, etc. only in your brain and perhaps your will, potentially split into pieces that are kept in the physical control of independent trusted entities.
> Don't those things cost time and actual money?
Time: yes. Actual money: perhaps, but that is not fundamentally required. For example, oral traditions are a time-honored means of transferring information to heirs.
Keep in mind we're talking about just 256 bits of information. You can scratch it on a rock and bury it in your back yard if you want.
Not sure what your reference to the tornado was trying to point out. I could not find any references on the page to the tornado abrading away carved rock.
Doesn't need to abrade a rock, it merely needs to throw it through the air.
Any time someone has "backups" that are all on one property, I think of large floods, fires, or tornadoes that can eradicate everything, or displace it all.
I suppose if you didn't bury it deep enough in your back yard, the tornado could pick it up and toss it. So then the question is what severity of events do you want to prepare for? Once-in-a-decade events? Once-in-a-century events? Or once-in-a-millenium events?
Back it up on a second piece of paper in a second locked box, kept in a second location.
Put both locked boxes in your will.
In response to the tornado link you've been spamming: obviously there are limitations to any security system. None of your proposed security systems particularly secure you against government agents beating you with a rubber hose until you hand over your wallet password, but I think we can agree that a reasonable level of security doesn't have to worry about that or two simultaneous tornadoes at different locations.
How much does it cost you to have a locked box in two secure locations?
And I don't need to go to government agents, I'm just talking about simple robbers. Say for instance family members who figure out you have Bitcoin and want to take it from you.
> How much does it cost you to have a locked box in two secure locations?
Well, I live in a home, already have the boxes for all my papers (Social Security Card, Passports, Birth Cert, etc.) and I have at least one person I trust who lives in a separate home, so nothing.
> And I don't need to go to government agents, I'm just talking about simple robbers. Say for instance family members who figure out you have Bitcoin and want to take it from you.
I am absolutely interested in real-world security, which is why when someone declares snake-oil, "Holding Bitcoin is literally free," I think it's worth debunking it.
For good data backup, one can follow the 3-2-1 rule: keep at least three (3) copies of your data, and store two (2) backup copies on different storage media, with one (1) of them located offsite.
You haven't described how you will keep them secure. Don't forget, this is buried treasure you're talking about. Stealing it is the perfect crime. So, how will you secure it?
I suspect securing it will have more than zero cost, which was my only point.
> You haven't described how you will keep them secure.
That is correct. I am pointing out suggested practices for a good backup system for general knowledge. (i.e. I am writing to everyone who is reading this, not just you.) I am not going to cover security, as I have no opinions on best practices.
Is this statement true? "Holding Bitcoin is literally free."
If we can't even start by correcting it, "Holding Bitcoin is inexpensive," then how can we have any kind of technical conversation about it?
I think in technical conversations, we should avoid hyperbole, and try to be literal. Call it pedantic if you want to, but I don't know how to build logical arguments out of pleasant sounding falsehoods.
It's up to you whom you talk to, people who exaggerate, or people who ask for simple concessions for correctness.
And please note, I was responding to the sarcastic, "If only you could store things in multiple locations." If you enjoy talking to people who are sarcastic, that's also your choice.
Of course Bitcoin is not a socialist's ally in the long run. It's fundamentally a way to get government out of money, which is exactly the opposite of socialism. Bitcoin is an anarcho-capitalist tool.
The article rightly notes that the ability to print money is relevant here, but I think they could have expressed it in simpler terms. In short: printing money is always a redistribution of wealth. If you print a million dollars and give it to a group, you've effectively taken money away from everyone else and redistributed it to that group. The pot of wealth in the country hasn't changed size, the recipients of the newly-minted money just have more of the pot.
In a socialist ideal, this is a key tool because it's one of the main ways of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. You print money and give it to the poor. This isn't creating value, obviously, it's just decreasing the value of the money held by the rich, and giving that value to the poor. A decentralized value store can't do that.
However, some socialists would argue that the ability to print money in modern western powers is primarily used to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, not the other way around. Due to this, a socialist might say it's better to use a decentralized value store now than to use a centralized value store that is used to redistribute wealth in the wrong direction.
If you're a socialist, the question on your mind with regards to bitcoin should be: Is the power to print money being used to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich? And if so, is the short term benefit of avoiding this harm worth the longer-term harm of moving value out of stores where wealth can be redistributed from the rich to the poor? These are much more complicated questions: the first might be answerable with data, but the second question involves a lot of future variables which may simply be impossible to predict.
s/tool/ponzi scheme/... or in other words - I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Most of what happens with BitCoin is people buying it in exchange for fiat currency, a bunch of speculation, and mining (if that's not mostly over). I don't see it empowering workers' movements.
Then your view(s) is solely fixed on those who benefit from this exclusionary Monetary System, go ask people who don't have access to bank accounts or are undocumented how horribly they are treated and marginalized then come back and see what is and isn't a ponzi scheme. See how many people are unfairly targeted by the State(s) with policies like Operation Chokepoint in the US, though similar laws exists in other places as well, while at the same those very same Governments bail out Banks and Corporations found guilty in money laundering for Drug Cartels or other illicit crimes and while telling the People they're not doing enough to keep up with the ever-increasing costs of living due to these policies and inflated asset bubbles.
Go look up what System D is, and see what worker movements it could help benefit, because just from that statement alone you show just horribly informed you are and how narrow and ignorant your view of the World really is.
> people who don't have access to bank accounts or are undocumented how horribly they are treated and marginalized then come back and see what is and isn't a ponzi scheme.
Are you saying that the use of BitCoin significantly improves the situation of people without access to bank accounts? Or - that it has the theoretical potential to do so? If it's the former - then I disagree, if for no other reason than for the inability to exchange most things for BitCoin. As for the theoretical claim - you need to first prove that BitCoin is likely to become acceptable on a similar level as fiat currency, and moreover, that there are enough compelling usage scenarios for BitCoin over cash.
For undocumented immigrants, you will need to go to even more effort, because they can use their bank account at their country of origin.
About operation chokepoint - I understand there was an argument regarding the lack of due process in targeting certain companies, but - did it target individuals? In what way?
Now, indeed, governments do prefer capitalist interests to popular interests more often than not. But I don't see why this bolsters your argument. BitCoin is not useful not because the US government or other governments are great; and Mr. Varoufakis argued as much.
About "System D" - please post a link to what you mean, because I don't follow.
> The unofficial economy would benefit far far more from a stablecoin
That's right... Because tether has proven that so well, hasn't it? By the way, Bitcoin will remain inflationary until the last one is mined 2140, as it continues to approximately discover the entire 21 million into existence until then. Which is long after you or I will be around, be even then you can create a form of colored coin derivative backed by other more stable assets (wheat, pork bellies?) now if you wanted to.
I thought stablecoins may have had some limited utility, but I feel they're just re-creating the same problem by using the same tools that fiat does and further convoluting it by attaching the Cryptocurrency Brand over it. I'm not impressed by it nor would I think people who are marginalized would want to rely on yet another centralized system for their existence.
True, but in the situations the comment you're responding to mentions, a stable coin is not an option. Deflationary BTC is superior to having your funds seized.
This weakens the rest of your argument. Bitcoin obviously isn't a Ponzi scheme. If speaking to an uninformed audience, this could be a good-enough approximation, but when speaking to an informed audience, a cheap shot like this just makes you seem uninformed (which you clearly aren't, based on the rest of your post).
> I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Most of what happens with BitCoin is people buying it in exchange for fiat currency, a bunch of speculation, and mining (if that's not mostly over). I don't see it empowering workers' movements.
On the whole, I agree with you on this, and I hope there's nothing in my previous post which makes it seem otherwise.
However, as with any large complex system, there are local effects, and the situation is not as simple as you're making it seem.
> 1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects?
To be clear what I mean by "local" in this case, is "within a sub-economy" not necessarily local geographically.
There are a few examples already in this thread, but I'll add a few of my own:
1. Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers.
2. Transacting in Bitcoin has made the illegal drug trade safer, which primarily benefits the poor. Less violence, higher quality products, less risk of being caught.
> 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects?
> AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely.
> Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers.
How high are those fees, these days? IIUC, in recent years, several companies have enabled regular-money-based transfers over the Internet at lower fees than in the past. Some quick searching indicates players include Zelle, PayPal, CashApp and Venmo For example, I just checked the PayPal (ugh) fee for transferring 1,000 USD to a Mexican bank account. If you have a US bank account linked to PayPal, the fee is zero. I've heard Zelle is also free (?)
Even if for some countries its probably more expensive - I wonder if it's that high. Plus, on the BTC side, you need to factor in the fees for converting to and from BTC.
About the illegal drug trade: I don't see how BTC improves product quality. As for the violence - world states, primarily the US, control the level of violence, and it isn't really about the method of payment. As for the risk of drug-runners being caught - most of these are small-time businessmen rather than workers. So I feel this is a bit of a forced example. If anything, the benefit here is possibly reducing state involvement in drug trafficking and bringing us closer to de-criminalization.
A lot of this presumes a scenario in which Bitcoin replaces fiat and become the world's sole currency. It's hard to imagine why that would happen.
What we seem to actually be getting is multiple cryptocurrencies, in addition to fiat. Under these conditions, if the world falls into depression, where money is too scarce, then an easy solution is to launch new currencies. On blockchains that support smart contracts, this would be easy to do.
If Hayek was on the right track with his advocacy of competing currencies, this could be a more stable system than we have now. Easy deployment of local currencies could also help support local businesses over large monopolies.
I think it's much more likely that the desirable properties of crypto-currencies will be baked into government issued psudo-coins that retain the desirable parts of bitcoin while discarding the inconvenient parts. The only people who hate on fiat money are people who don't understand why backed currencies suck or why it would be bad if every country used the same currency. What doesn't suck though is money that essentially tracks itself and baking that self-tracking feature into an existing fiat currency via some kind of pseudo-coin would make regulatory enforcement wildly easier without the downsides of a backed currency.
"Money is too scarce" is not ever going to be a problem. If the monenatry supply, as a multiple of the economy is experiencing contraction, central banks can always print more.
Bitcoin, in this sense, is once again solving a problem that nobody has.
Bitcoin is not trying to solve that problem. The article is claiming that Bitcoin would have that problem, if it were to take over the world from fiat. My claim is that this is false, because there can be more than one cryptocurrency.
For me Bitcoin further exacerbates the already terrible distribution of wealth in our world. BTC is purely a play for the "rich" folks. I say "rich" because it needs not just tech access and disposable money barriers but also has the additional tech knowledge barrier to it.
Varoufakis only examines two scenarios: (1) Economy remains capitalist and Bitcoin replaces national currencies, or (2) capitalism is replaced with socialism.
Each scenario has such a vanishingly small likelihood that it seems pedantic to debate them.
A more likely scenario is that we retain market economies and national currencies, with more or less corruption, more or less rule of law and more or less authoritarianism. Bitcoin would still exist but it wouldn't replace national currencies.
It seems that during periods of more corruption, less rule of law and more authoritarianism, we'll see more use of state power to debase national currencies for the benefit of the clique currently in power, with financial repression and confiscation for political adversaries and those not in the clique.
During times like this, an asset that is independent of the clique, digital, borderless, and difficult to detect, debase or confiscate might be a more secure way to protect the savings of the little guy and the big guy alike.
But the problem is not technical in nature - it is social. The question of who decides, and how is the decision made, to issue more currency and distribute it, or to obviate existing currency - this is a political(-economic) question.
Yes, and that is exactly what the essay is about. Crypto proponents will only be able to overcome that issue, under capitalism, if they solve the issue of a fixed money supply. It is not sufficient to solve the computing issue if it leads to massive inequality and concentration of wealth, as well as other problems.
Socialists, at least of the libertarian sort, tend to oppose both unaccountable/centralized political and economic power.
Any unregulated and unconstrained reputation system tends to lead to Zipf-type distributions. What that means for an economy is extreme power at the high end and lots of poverty at the low end.
Thus either there would be no control at all of the economy, or that control would go to the whales by virtue of their very gravity.
The former would be bad, because the system would effectively be blind to many things that political power handles (e.g. externality). And the latter would be worse, because there's no reason to believe that these powerful entities would care about the powerless.
Not mentioned here, but bitcoin is also a much better tool for tax evasion than banks are, with all their mandatory reporting to the tax authorities. That also makes it less of an ally for a socialist, since it helps the wealthy starve the state of tax revenue, further increasing inequality.
all socialists snicker at the mention of bitcoin. it is a punchline, a jab at "Libertarians" and their silly faith in technological solutions to social problems
This is a correlation without causation. The root cause of both fiat currency and the worker being ripped off, is globalization.
Fiat currency did not cause the disconnect between productivity and wages, the same way that the disconnect between productivity and wages did not cause fiat currency. They were both caused by the shift to a complex global economy.
And you're sure of this root cause analysis because ... ?
Also, if that's the root cause then surely you can point me to some correlation between "globalisation" and some measurable ills of the world? After all - causation does mean correlation.
Why not both? Why the debate here when clearly globalization and currency debasement has an impact on society. I'll go ahead and add technology to the list. Did the information age cause a disconnect between productivity and wages? Perhaps tech + globalization ensured that we have sort of a two tiered system in the west, where information workers have largely benefitted and seen their wages and quality of life go up...but there have not been corresponding booms in the manufacturing sector to support these developments because that labor has been outsourced to developing countries?
Sooooo the issue with bitcoin+socialism would be the lack of easily centralized controls by which the party/state can manipulate the currency and that people are incapable of doing altruistic good, therefore the party/state must have those controls?
No, BitCoin has basically _no_ control of the currency. The algorithm is what it is, and the initial "players" who have the most BitCoin are who they are.
I think you'll find that people (broadly) are capable of altruism, but persons (narrowly) act in their own self interest and take advantage of the altruistic.
Absolutely not. Varoufakis isn't even an authoritarian, he's more the Bernie Sanders type but more open about his worldview.
The issue is that Bitcoin is a currency that has both a fixed supply, and is naturally controlled by the very richest people. This leads to a series of incentives and effects of monetary policy that creates conditions where the average person loses out, big time.
This is an person arguing with socialists about why bitcoin is not good for socialism, not a person trying to convince libertarians to not be libertarians. Try to argue with it on its own terms, not whatever your personal issues are.
Normally, a big problem in crypto-currency blog posts is that an ill-informed author blathers on about supposed technical features of blockchains.
But this article is remarkable in that it doesn't mention any feature or property of bitcoin at all! You could replace the word 'bitcoin' in the page with any other currency, monetary system or whatever means of accounting that you like (using shells for currency, perhaps?), and nothing would change. The article is amazingly content-free, and its arguments & propositions could be re-applied to whatever you like/dislike!
It isn't an ill-informed author, Yanis Varoufakis is a very respected and competent economist.
Of course! You could replace Bitcoin with any other fixed supply currency. This is literally the point of the article! He is arguing that Bitcoin cannot work for the common man, because it has all the issues of fixed-supply currencies that lead to fiat currency. Transitioning to Bitcoin would be akin to restoring the Bretton Woods system, and would be disastrous for everyone.
He is indeed addressing a feature and property of Bitcoin. That feature is fixed supply. That is what matters to an economist, because it has huge impacts. Varoufakis, in this essay, doesn't talk about the tech, because not only has he already done so, but because it is irrelevant to the analysis that he, as an economist, makes about the consequences of a switch to Bitcoin.
A 'fixed supply' is not key to his points. Point 1 is, more specifically, that you would not be able to get agreement to adjust properties of the currency (remember, bitcoin is only 'fixed' in that there's a number in the code: with enough support, all the numbers can be changed). But he goes on to say that the problem is that the rich & powerful won't have incentives to adjust the money supply, something that could be argued about any money that already exists right now.
Point 2 is just: there will be inequality, the rich stay rich, the poor stay poor. Yes, true, unless you do some huge form of wealth redistribution, you won't change this. But note that this again is not related to the new currency. Jeff Bezos will still remain rich no matter what features your new currency has, because he already is rich.
So, I don't see how these points are related to bitcoin or in fact any currency.
Why would restoring Bretton Woods be disastrous? The late 40s through the late 60s were among the biggest economic boom years in world history and perhaps the greatest expansion of wealth and quality of living in human history.
The late 40s through the late 60s were amazing economic booms because of a small event called World War 2.
It was removed because it gave very little flexibility in monetary policy, and gravely prevented deficit spending. This led to failure to control the business cycle, as well as inflation in general, which would have been disastrous.
If we restored Bretton Woods, 2008 would have been a complete disaster, and the current recession would be orders of magnitude worse and would last much longer. As for why control over inflation and deficit spending is helpful in recession, read Krugman, or Keynes if you like the classics.
That's not strictly true. The suburbs were rolled out, interstate highway travel became widespread, commercial air travel took off, computing was just beginning, television started to proliferate, retail expanded, air conditioning became widespread...there were numerous technological expansions and improvements in quality of life.
Sound money ensured that money was invested in things that actually produced productivity improvements. We coasted on the residual returns of investments from earlier eras, but productive investment, I would argue, has declined since those earlier decades. ROIs on loaned money have declined in the zero interest rate era.
The 40s through the late 60s were also the era of the Holocaust, the Indonesian Genocide, and the Serbian Genocide. Did Bretton Woods cause those too? Or can we agree that maybe a lot of things that happened during the 40s through 60s weren't caused by Bretton Woods?
I said late 40s. Obviously there is a strong connection between monetary policy and economic expansion and a weak connection between monetary policy and genocide.
It doesn't talk about technical features because it's about the macroeconomic features (unsurprisingly, as Varoufakis is an economist). He criticises it because it removes the ability of central banks to sharply increase the money supply during a crisis. Whether or not you agree with his argument, it is quite specific in that respect.
Moreover, this free-rider problem is made far, far worse by the fact that Bitcoin ownership is very unequally distributed, thus giving the Bitcoin-rich powerful incentives to restrain the growth of the money supply (since such restrictions would boost their private rents at the expense of the public interest).
Take out the word 'bitcoin' from this, and all the points still stand. The super-rich tend to be the ones with power, and they are never motivated to change this.
(Which is kind of a truism really, because if the super-rich & powerful were willing to be generous, they wouldn't be super-rich in the first place...)
There are huge swaths of the world where this isn't true. Short of making computing devices and internet connectivity human rights, these assumptions compound existing inequalities.