Bitcoin and The Future of Money

Bitcoin
AND THE FUTURE OF MONEY
JOSE PAGLIERY
Copyright © 2014 by Jose Pagliery
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, elec-
tronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the publisher, Triumph Books LLC,
814 North Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois 60610.
This book is available in quantity at special discounts for your

group or organization. For further information, contact:
Triumph Books LLC

814 North Franklin Street
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(312) 337-0747
www.triumphbooks.com
Printed in U.S.A.
ISBN: 978-1-62937-036-1
Book design by Alex Lubertozzi
Photo of Sapan Shah courtesy of Christa Neu, Lehigh University.
Photo of Josh Arias courtesy of Studio Moirae Photography.
To my wife, Bridget, who inspires me, guides me,
and always shows me there is a kinder, more noble way
We have progressively abandoned that freedom in
economic affairs without which personal and political
freedom has never existed in the past.
—Friedrich Hayek
Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
1. Baby Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. The Birth of Bitcoin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Bitcoin Explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4. Using It in Real Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5. But Is It Money? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6. The Case for Bitcoin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7. The Case against Bitcoin . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
8. The Rise and Fall of Mt.Gox . . . . . . . . . . . 156
9. The Dark Side of Bitcoin . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
10. How Governments Are Responding . . . . . . . 189
11. Do Androids Dream of Electric Money? . . . . . . 215
12. Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Appendix
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System . . . . 227
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Acknowledgments
i am grateful to those within the Bitcoin community who were

willing to share their stories with me. Remain true to your ide-
als. They are rooted in a desire for a better, freer world.
To my editor at CNNMoney, David Goldman, thank you for
encouraging quality journalism. To CNNMoney’s executive
editor, Lex Haris, thank you for always pushing for clarity in my
writing. And thanks to CNN for approving this. I am indebted
to those at Triumph for this opportunity. Thanks to my friends
who reviewed my writing and tested my logic.
I am grateful to my sister and mother for being models of
strength. Mike, you pull me up when I fall. Sam Frade, you are
my Doc Brown.
CHAPTER 1
Baby Steps
it was an otherwise quiet news day in February when word

got out that the niche online trading site Mt.Gox (mtgox.com)
went offline. The difficulty for me then, as a technology and
business reporter at CNNMoney, was to explain to the aver-
age reader how a website that few had ever heard of suddenly
wiped out the savings of people around the globe. The loss
totaled nearly $400 million at the time. And it was all in a cur-
rency no one understood, no less.
That was, for many people, the first time they’d heard of Bit-
coin. The circumstances were less than ideal. But the occasion
was an appropriate wake-up call.
The world was finally paying attention to the term digital
currency. Put simply, it’s electronic money—nothing more than
bits in a computer, be it your laptop, smartphone, or some far-
off computer server in a chilly, climate-controlled data center.
Make no mistake. It’s real money. But it’s unlike anything
we’ve ever seen. Although it has similar properties to the
paper bills we all carry in our wallets, a digital currency like
Bitcoin is not printed by a recognized authority like a govern-
ment that determines how many are put into public circula-
tion. Nor is it valued in a traditional sense like gold, whose
2 BITCOIN • • • And the Future of Money
limited supply is slowly extracted from the earth at great

labor and expense.
You can’t feel or touch bitcoins. And it’s precisely that aspect
of a digital currency that polarizes people. Bitcoin’s most ide-
alistic supporters celebrate it as something akin to a monetary
messiah, a means of exchange that will let you buy anything,
anytime without nasty roadblocks, like banks or law enforce-
ment. On the other end of the spectrum are the conservative
cynics who think Bitcoin is bogus, nothing more than a money-
making house of cards that’s bound to fall as soon as the world
wises up to the fact that zeros and ones on a computer are quite
worthless.
They’re both wrong. Bitcoin won’t upend the world’s super-
powers—not entirely, anyway. But it’s already leaving a lasting
impact, because it represents a whole new way of thinking
about money. Therein lies Bitcoin’s promise. It has the poten-
tial to transform something that’s a pivotal element of human
history—shaking us to our very core.
To understand the significance of something like Bitcoin, it’s
worth doing a quick review of history. While economists and
anthropologists disagree about the origin of money,1 this much
is certain: It’s as old as human civilization. Money had already
appeared by the time humans started jotting down the earli-
est surviving accounts of their actions in ancient Mesopotamia
around 3100 bce. At the time, it wasn’t a medium of exchange
in the form of gold coins or paper bills, though. It was merely a
ledger of accounts, a running tally of who owes whom. But for
all intents and purposes, the system of debt and credit served
as a way to trade.
Some thinkers are inclined to say that money predates even
government.2 That’s the argument put forward by free-market
proponents like Adam Smith, widely accepted as the father
Baby Steps 3
of capitalism, and Austrian economist Carl Menger. Before

the appearance of money, perhaps we bartered for goods. But
bartering—or the credit system of ancient Mesopotamia—is a
terribly inefficient way to trade.
The turning point came around 2000 bce, when money
appeared in a fashion more similar to what we know today. Peo-
ple in Egypt and Mesopotamia used receipts that showed how
much grain they kept stored in temples. More than a thousand
years later, metal coins gained ground in nearby areas. It even-
tually became too much of a hassle to lug around heavy sacks
of misshapen bronze coins, so people everywhere opted instead
for paper currency that represented value stored elsewhere,
such as a bank. In China, they first appeared with merchants
during the Tang Dynasty around 900 ce.3 At about the same
time in the medieval Islamic world, checks and promissory
notes gained in popularity. Europe was the late bloomer, with
paper currency making its first appearance in Sweden in 1661.
But that’s just about where the story of monetary innovation
ends. Surprising and disappointing, isn’t it? Since then, govern-
ments have strengthened their control over the money-printing
process, and countries continue to struggle with the fact that
paper notes have no intrinsic value. This makes them suscepti-
ble to inflation, as occurs when a government prints extra bills
to pay off its debts. That devalues its currency relative to others
and impoverishes its people.
Meanwhile, banking has evolved many times over. The con-
cept of a bank as we know it began in Italy during the Renais-
sance as a simple provider of bills of exchange, financing
trade. Over time, banking has morphed to include loans, quick
transfers of wealth across great distances, as well as a means of
investing and consulting on those very investments. Over the
centuries, banking has squeezed itself into the world of money,
in the United States becoming the first and only entity to

receive newly printed government dollars. Banks have placed
themselves squarely between the people who earn money and
the governments that issue it. They have made themselves nec-
essary middlemen.
Indeed, in the modern era, banks have become synony-
mous with money and necessary for a prosperous life. Have
you ever tried to conduct an expensive transaction without a
bank? In most cases you’ll get rejected or worse—a nasty glare
from someone assuming you’re up to no good. Or have you ever
tried to receive steady pay for work in cash? Professionals will
most likely receive a paycheck that needs to be cashed out at
a financial institution, and some employers even make direct
bank deposits mandatory. But think about what that does to
society at large. It puts banks at the top of the social pyramid.
Even though money is a necessary part of human interaction,
something as ingrained in our consciousness as the rule of law,
there exists an entity that retains firm control of it.
They are the gatekeepers. But that need not be the case.
Enter Bitcoin. For the first time in centuries, we’re faced
with a new kind of money. Because it runs on the Internet, this
money can be sent across the globe in the blink of an eye with
near anonymity. Anyone can receive it—and spend it—even
if they live hundreds of miles away from their nearest ATM.
And because it functions directly between one wallet holder
and another, there are no banks that slow down the transaction
process. No fees. No restrictions.
It sounds too good to be true. Or maybe we just forgot how
liberating money is supposed to be.
CHAPTER 2
The Birth of Bitcoin
it all started on an obscure online discussion forum dedi-

cated to cryptography. The subject matter—the art of secure
and secret communication—dictated that the regulars were
mostly technical experts in mathematics and engineering. The
“low-noise moderated mailing list” on metzdowd.com served
as a de facto academic community, just the right place to intro-
duce an experimental proposal that was equal parts economics
and computer science.
It was Friday, October 31, 2008—Halloween, a day when mil-
lions don masks and hide their true identity. That’s when the
mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto first appeared with a message
titled, “Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper” posted at 2:10 pm (ET):
I’ve been working on a new electronic cash system that’s fully

peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.
The paper is available at: http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
The nine-page, academic-style document described the fun-

damental details for a new currency and the unique, theoret-
ical network to deliver payments. It detailed the complex way
transactions would work, the heightened privacy offered to
account holders and how the software would keep people from
double-spending their digital coins.
The essay, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
(see Appendix, p. 227), isn’t a walk in the park to digest. But the
introduction lays out a vision that’s easy to grasp: Technological
improvements have outpaced the development of financial net-
works, and we’ve outgrown the need for banks in the process.
The main gripe for Nakamoto* was that banks have become a
third wheel. They used to speed up transactions, but now they
slow them down. As middlemen, banks settle payment disputes
between buyers and sellers. To do that, they must charge fees.
With those costs, it’s not profitable for a bank to process tiny
transactions, so we’re limited in the kind of purchases we can
make. Making matters worse, merchants fear customers might
try to reverse a purchase, so they raise their rates too.
“What is needed is an electronic payment system based on
cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing
parties to transact directly with each other without the need for
a trusted third party,” Nakamoto writes.
Nakamoto proposed a digital currency that would live on a
network of computers, a well-meaning community willing to
lend their machines’ processing power to keep it alive. Together
they would partake in a system that verifies transactions and
“mines” for new bitcoins, producing electronic tokens at a
steady rate. Bitcoin with a capital “B” would be the name of the
new system; bitcoin with a lowercase “b” would mean the units
of currency.
* There are many competing theories about the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.
Aside from the usual “Is he Japanese or not?” there’s also healthy debate about
whether it’s a man or a woman. It could be a single person or a group. For brevity
and consistency, I’ll abide by Nakamoto’s own description and simply refer to the
mysterious founder as “he.” But I acknowledge it could very well be a trio of intel-
ligent women at a secretive government agency.
The Birth of Bitcoin 7
The key to the entire system was something called a block

chain. This was an innovative approach that simultaneously
verified transactions, kept a log of them, and created new
money. Users would mine for bitcoins by solving puzzles in
segments called blocks. Those blocks would house publicly
viewable information about recent transactions. A solved block
would produce a unique code, or hash, that formed the foun-
dation for the next block.
He was immediately peppered with highly technical ques-
tions and concerns from others on the mailing list. Could this
system handle many simultaneous transactions? What would
keep people from spending the same coin twice? After all,
they’re not physical. Such a blunder would topple the whole
system. And what about nefarious hacker types who hijack
whole server farms and turn them into spam-spewing zombies?
Surely a system that lives on a network of volunteers’ computers
wouldn’t stand a chance against that kind of coordinated attack.
Nakamoto’s responses were careful, controlled, and respect-
ful. A novel approach to verifying transactions would prevent
someone from spending the same bitcoin twice, he explained.
And the system, by relying on the combined computing power
of lots of users, was designed to withstand any single attack of
that kind.
The responses also revealed a great deal about him. He had
a firm grasp of the most fundamental and often elusive charac-
teristics of money. He was even more familiar with cryptogra-
phy, having built the core functions of Bitcoin with the notion
that new coins would be produced as computers solve increas-
ingly difficult puzzles. But first and foremost, Nakamoto was a
computer geek.
“I appreciate your questions,” Nakamoto wrote. “I actually
did this kind of backwards. I had to write all the code before I
could convince myself that I could solve every problem, then I

wrote the paper.”
But there was something else. Beneath the highly techni-
cal language was a youthful idealism, a grand vision of what
this opaque, unproven project could become. Nakamoto imag-
ined that bitcoins could one day become popular enough that
they would give birth to a new industry, one dedicated solely
to maintaining much of the network and producing new bit-
coins. By then, they’d be so desirable that hackers in control
of server farms would rather use those slaves to mine for elec-
tronic money than attack the network or distribute annoying
spam. At some point, the network would be large enough to
easily handle the same kind of bandwidth seen by payment
networks like Visa, processing tens of millions of transactions
each day.
Above all, though, the system would be liberating. Although
all transactions between digital wallets would be recorded in a
public ledger, nameless wallets would allow for enhanced pri-
vacy, a sort of pseudo-anonymity. Without financial institutions
taking a cut, it would be easier for people to make small, casual
payments to one another. With a predetermined, controlled
growth in the supply of electronic money built into the soft-
ware, Bitcoin could avoid runaway inflation. It could become
a go-to currency for people living under a government eager to
print money and depreciating its own currency.
Bitcoin’s rebellious nature and thinly veiled intentions
didn’t get lost on one commenter, who told Nakamoto point
blank: “You will not find a solution to political problems in
cryptography.”
“Yes,” Nakamoto replied. “But we can win a major battle in
the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several
years.”
It was typical cypherpunk talk, derived from a school of

thought that holds privacy sacred and personal liberties above
everything else. In fact, understanding cypherpunk culture
(not to be confused with cyberpunk, which is more of an art
form) is key to appreciating Bitcoin and its enigmatic founder.
The name says it all. To use a cypher (or spelled correctly,
cipher) is to convert information—say, a message to a friend—
from its readable form into something incomprehensible, like
a string of nonsense letters, numbers, and symbols. Using the
right formula, you can take that indecipherable text and change
it back into something readable.
It’s quite empowering, when you think about it. The abil-
ity to communicate privately opens the ability to truly express
your thoughts, to identify political or societal problems and
criticize them without fear of retribution. That’s particularly
true as the Digital Age brings about the Information Age, when
our means of communication via computers and phones have
become practically seamless—as has the capability of govern-
ments and powerful corporations to spy on those conversa-
tions. We’re all human, and barring the possibility that those
in power are truly benevolent and infallible, securing our dia-
logues from prying eyes and ears is vital to maintaining any
semblance of democracy—or any free and fair society.
But only rebels side against the powers that be. The punk
part relates to their attitude. Ever since cypherpunks appeared
as highly intelligent, computer-savvy activists in the 1980s,
they’ve armed themselves with cryptography as a means for
social change. In many cases, it’s worked and keeps working.
One early figure, John Gilmore, founded the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, known as the world’s top defender of civil liberties
in the digital realm. Another is Philip Zimmermann, creator of
the computer communication encryption method PGP, which
stands for Pretty Good Privacy and is used by journalists and

political dissidents around the globe to hide their communi-
cation from authoritarian governments. Another product of
this school of thought is Tor, formerly known as The Onion
Router, a special kind of software developed via funding from
the United States Navy Research Laboratory that lets you surf
online anonymously and access otherwise unreachable corners
of the Web. Also among their ranks is Julian Assange, founder
of the journalistic outfit WikiLeaks.
Most of these names and groups are familiar to those who
pay attention to the tech world. But outside of that, they’re
mostly unknown. People are quick to acquire the latest smart-
phones, download the newest apps, and join social media net-
works, but they don’t pay much attention to the activists toiling
away to protect their privacy on those platforms.
Cypherpunks are insurgents, agitators, digital guerillas.
Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin fit right in.
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can
explain it properly,” Nakamoto wrote in a post on November 14,
2008. “I’m better with code than with words though.”
By that point, Nakamoto had been secretly working on his
project for a year and a half, according to his messages to the tiny
online community of cryptographers. That’s telling. It would
mean that this individual had started developing the electronic
currency in the earliest days of the 2007 financial crisis.
Let’s do a little time traveling. In the spring of 2007,
New Century Financial Corporation, one of the top financial
entities lending to folks with poor credit, collapsed under its
own weight. It stopped accepting loan applications and, weeks
later in April, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.1 It
was among the first signs that subprime mortgage lending was
doomed.
Then, over the summer, two credit rating agencies placed

severe warnings on more than 600 bonds, because they were
backed by subprime mortgages. From its New York head-
quarters, global investment bank Bear Stearns liquidated two
hedge funds that had bet heavily on those types of loans.
Members of the United States’ central bank, the Federal
Reserve, issued a stark warning that problems in the financial
markets threatened the nation’s economic growth. And the
problems were global. In September, the Bank of England got
approval to bail out the country’s fifth-largest mortgage lender,
Northern Rock.
The public was waking up to a grotesque reality. The levees
guarding an otherwise conservative financial system had been
broken for years, flooding us all with easy money that had been
irresponsibly borrowed, lent, and traded on. Everyone was
about to pay dearly for it.
In the United States, two major forces were at play. From one
angle, government policies meant to increase access to loans,
and therefore home ownership rates, had backfired. The once
restrained landscape was now a risky one. The federal govern-
ment had inflated a housing bubble through its support of Fan-
nie Mae and Freddie Mac, two enterprises meant to ease access
to home loans. Those two entities supported a secondary mar-
ket for mortgages where they could be rounded up together,
packaged, and sold to investors. And by propping up Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac with government-backed guarantees on
loans, the federal authorities had vastly increased the supply of
cash available to make home loans. There was an unintended
result, however. To compete with these two entities, Wall Street
banks created riskier types of loans.
From another angle, deregulation during the final years
of the Clinton administration paved the way for banks to run
amuck and drag us all down with them. The passage of the 1999
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed strict rules put in place after
the 1929 stock market crash that led to the decade-long Great
Depression. Gone were the provisions of the 1933 Glass-Steagall
Act preventing everyday commercial banks, the ones holding
all our precious home and business loans, from also becom-
ing risky investment banks and insurance companies. In short
time, we were all exposed to the whims of Wall Street bankers
who knowingly traded in what was essentially garbage yet ped-
dled out to the rest of the world as AAA-rated investments, the
highest grade available.
The problem had several layers of complexity and points
of failure. But many found the response by major govern-
ments even more appalling. Instead of letting irresponsible
players pay the price for their own mistakes—banks, inves-
tors, and borrowers alike—governments moved in to bail
them all out.
In the years since, the American people have had a difficult
time accepting the narrative spun by politicians, central bank-
ers, and their private banking brethren alike—that an economic
disaster of apocalyptic proportions could only be avoided with
a collective effort using public funds. And it’s easy to see why.
As government shored back support of schools and community
programs, the money flowed for the very banks that helped put
us in this mess in the first place.
We often forget the numbers, because they all came too fast,
attached to stories too complex for the average reader and at
a time when people were more focused on saving their mort-
gages than reading the newspaper. Here’s a shortlist of the
dozen biggest bailouts in the United States, rounded to the
nearest billion, according to public interest news organization
ProPublica.2
Entity Total Disbursed

Fannie Mae $116 billion
Freddie Mac $71 billion
American International Group (AIG) $68 billion
General Motors $51 billion
Bank of America $45 billion
Citigroup $45 billion
JPMorgan Chase $25 billion
Wells Fargo $25 billion
GMAC (now Ally Financial) $16 billion
Chrysler $11 billion
Goldman Sachs $10 billion
Morgan Stanley $10 billion
Aside from two car manufacturers that naturally suffered

from the fallout of the economic collapse, every entity on the
list is a financial institution.
It was in the midst of this turmoil that Bitcoin was born,
just as the failures of the modern banking system became
apparent—as well as widespread disappointment in the pol-
iticians who enabled them and the regulators who failed to
catch them. Our reliance on banks, middlemen that hoarded
our cash and invested in risky assets, proved dangerous. And
while the mass injection of money via bailouts and so-called
quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve have not resulted in
the hyperinflation many feared, there was a heightened state
of distrust between the public and the bureaucrats controlling
the nation’s purse.
Meanwhile, in an unknown corner of the world, someone
was developing a system that wouldn’t have any of these prob-
lems. Bitcoin, as Nakamoto explained in the first essay, would
be a trustless system without a need for trusted third parties:
financial institutions. The entire thing would live in a network

that is peer-to-peer; that is, it would rely solely on the users
themselves. They create the currency, they transfer it, and they
keep it safe.
Safeguards would be built into the software of this com-
puter program. To prevent widespread fraud stemming from
people spending each electronic token twice, each transaction
would carry a unique signature that gets time-stamped on a
public ledger. The system would simply reject anyone trying to
spend the same coin a second time. And while the list of trans-
actions would remain public, people would still maintain rela-
tive anonymity, because only their wallet IDs—a long string of
numbers and letters—would appear for all to see.
The network would be powered and regulated by the com-
puters people use to access the system. Computational power
from people’s machines would be used to create new coins
by solving intricate puzzles, and their computers’ processors
would also be harnessed to verify transactions in the public
accounting book. In a nod to the lessons of capitalism, the sys-
tem doesn’t rely on the good nature of people, but instead on
their selfish desires. If you help solve a puzzle and mine a new
batch of bitcoins, you win a sort of lottery and keep your share
of the proceeds. These puzzles would form the backbone to the
entire system, because they would regulate how quickly coins
could be created. To keep production steady and prevent infla-
tion in their value, puzzles would increase in difficulty if com-
puters started solving them too quickly.
This is how Bitcoin would eliminate the need for central
banks that control the money supply and subject the populace
to inflation. Gone as well are banks, payment card networks,
and financial wire services, like Western Union, that take a cut
of every transaction.
However, banks and credit card payment companies

play another role for which people rarely give them credit.
They form a buffer protecting most of us from fraud, siding
squarely with consumers against merchants anytime there’s
a disagreement about a transaction. It’s called chargeback,
and it’s the bane of every small business owner in the United
States. Say you pulled out your credit card to purchase a tele-
vision that never got delivered to your door. Complain to Visa
or MasterCard, and they will immediately revoke the pay-
ment. The $500 that was once on its way to the bank accounts
belonging to Big Al’s TV Emporium is suddenly back in your
possession. Lone entrepreneur Al Peabody is suddenly down
$500 and has one less television in stock. The delivery service
swears it sent the package, and its ongoing contract protects it
from any liability.
Al still has to pay his hourly employees, so that money comes
out of the cash flow he uses to restock the shelves. He hates the
situation, but he’s no match for the world’s biggest financial
giants. If he stops accepting credit cards, no one will buy from
his shop. So instead, Al starts charging a few bucks extra on
every television to account for the occasional chargeback.
A payment system like Bitcoin, which cuts out trusted third-
party banks, has no place for chargebacks. That’s a big draw
for merchants, who can rest assured they will receive payment
no matter what. That says a lot about the system’s philosophy:
Personal responsibility is paramount. There’s no wiggle room
for the sorts of shenanigans that thrived during the housing
bubble that led to the 2007 financial collapse.
As Nakamoto wrote early on, “There’s no reliance on
recourse. It’s all prevention.”
Eventually, Nakamoto made good on his promise and
delivered the actual Bitcoin software on metzdowd.com’s
cryptography mailing list. Here’s part of the message he posted

on Thursday, January 8, 2009, titled, “Bitcoin v0.1 released.”
Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash

system that uses a peer-to-peer network to prevent double-
spending. It’s completely decentralized with no server or cen-
tral authority.
See bitcoin.org for screenshots.
Download link:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/bitcoin/bitcoin-0.1.0.rar
Windows only for now. Open source C++ code is included.
- Unpack the files into a directory
- Run BITCOIN.EXE
- It automatically connects to other nodes
Evidence would later show Nakamoto had been running

it for a few days. The software, Nakamoto warned, was still
“alpha and experimental.” As such, he offered no guarantees
the system wouldn’t be restarted. But he had built the software
so that it could be updated and patched as necessary.
The system was designed to produce 21 million bitcoins
total—no more, no less. It was a number he picked at random.
At the time in 2009, mining for new bitcoins was the easiest
it would ever be. The puzzles could be solved by the average
PC in just a couple of hours. But as people joined the system,
the puzzles would get more difficult and production would
decrease over time. By its creator’s calculations, the amount
would be cut in half every four years, with 10.5 million tokens
generated by 2013, another 5.25 million by 2018, then 2.625 mil-
lion by 2023, and so on.
The electronic money could be sent in two ways. If
your intended recipient was online, you could type in their
computer’s Internet Protocol (IP) address, the unique number

assigned to each device connected to the net. If they weren’t
online at that moment, you could send tokens to their special
Bitcoin address.
It all still sounded like an elaborate game, though. What
made them any different from the brass Chuck E. Cheese play
tokens embossed with “In Pizza We Trust?” At least those had
a 25¢ play value you could reliably use at a skeeball machine.
“The real trick will be to get people to actually value the Bit-
Coins [sic] so that they become currency,” Dustin Trammel, a
security researcher in Austin, Texas, said on the forum.
Nakamoto understood the concerns, but he didn’t have a
solid answer. After all, the value of bitcoins wouldn’t be backed
by anything tangible, like gold or the credit of a government.
“It could get started in a narrow niche like reward points, dona-
tion tokens, currency for a game or micropayments for adult
sites,” Nakamoto wrote. “It might make sense just to get some
in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that
becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.”
But at the time, there wasn’t reason to get hung up on the
debate about the actual value of a bitcoin. The important thing
was to introduce something progressive. “I would be surprised
if 10 years from now we’re not using electronic currency in
some way.”
With that, Nakamoto left the discussion forum. It was time
to shop around his idea.
On February 11, 2009, someone under the name Satoshi Naka-

moto became a member at P2Pfoundation.net, an online
community dedicated to peer-to-peer projects. He, she, or
they never bothered to upload an image to his profile, but the
person claimed to be a 36-year-old Japanese male. He hid his

IP address and registered under satoshin@gmx.com, the same
email used at the cryptography forum.
That same day, he posted a link to the newly created Bitcoin
software program. One account tallied it at 31,000 lines of code.
He had already mined the first batch of bitcoins, and hidden
the following message within the “genesis block” of data:
The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout

for banks
It was a reference to a news story that had just graced the Satur-
day cover of the Times of London—and a reminder of the very
problems Bitcoin was meant to address.
This time around, the description was light on the highly
technical talk about cryptography. Instead it was more tailored
to the everyday folks who had recently grown bitter at the
world’s bank bailouts. In this description of the Bitcoin system,
Nakamoto showed he had an axe to grind with fiat currency
and fractional reserve banking.
It’s worth taking a short detour to clear up the term fiat and
provide a clear picture of how modern banking actually works.
That will help explain Nakamoto’s mission. Most people are
under two major misconceptions about money and banking
as they exist today. One is that paper money represents value
stored elsewhere, such as gold in bank vaults. It doesn’t. Money
today is fiat money. These paper bills derive their value from the
fact that a government mandates them. The word itself comes
from the Latin term fiat, which roughly translates into the
phrase “it shall be.” This kind of money is desired, not so much
because people want it, but because they’re legally required to
use it. And it’s partly driven by fear. If your government forces
you to pay taxes with it, you desire that currency because you
don’t want to end up in prison.3
Governments retain more power over their finances with
this kind of money, because they can increase the supply of
money at their leisure. Overwhelmed with debt to foreign
nations? Just print more money to pay it off. The negative side
effect is that each dollar is then worth less. But there’s also a
major benefit: If there’s outside pressure threatening to wildly
change the value of your country’s dollar, your government is
in a better position to counter the damage.
The other way to run things is with a gold standard, some-
thing the world loosely relied on for centuries until the 1970s.
In that system, paper actually represents gold stored some-
where. It contrasts with fiat money in that gold-backed curren-
cies don’t let governments print bills at will without suffering
immediate consequences. However, that system also subjects
people to violent changes in prices as nations trade with one
another and their physical stock of gold fluctuates.
The other misconception relates to the way banks work.
Many people are under the impression that a bank takes the
money you deposit there and uses it to make loans. Instead,
banks make loans with money they don’t actually have. That
might sound confusing, but put bluntly, there’s actually a
legally permissible charade that goes on. It’s called the frac-
tional reserve banking system. In the United States, the largest
banks are allowed to lend out 10 times the amount of money
they actually keep in their vaults. When a bank approves a
loan, the money merely blinks into existence on the borrower’s
bank account.4 Doing so, banks essentially create money out of
thin air.
The fractional reserve system makes it easier to access
loans, because banks don’t have to charge as much money to
be profitable. It also turns banks that would normally be tiny,

stingy Scrooges into massive powerhouses more inclined to
give you money. The approach works until everyone asks for all
their money back at once. Then it collapses.
Nakamoto told those at the P2P Foundation’s website that
Bitcoin could avoid the pitfalls of fractional reserve bank-
ing and fiat. First, there’d be no banks. And second, Bitcoin
wouldn’t be subject to the whims of central bankers, because
new money is produced by software that sticks to a strict, reli-
able schedule. Nakamoto was tipping his hat to the approach to
money supply voiced by Nobel Prize–winning American econ-
omist Milton Friedman, who suggested replacing the Federal
Reserve with a computer.5
“The root problem with conventional currency is all the
trust that’s required to make it work,” Nakamoto wrote. “The
central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but
the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.
Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it
electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles
with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with
our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our
accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments
impossible.”
That same week, Nakamoto posted a similar message on
SourceForge.net, a website where computer developers could
upload free, open-source software for others to download.
Archived numbers there show the growth was slow and steady.
In the early days, Bitcoin didn’t exactly go viral. In the first year
or so, the program was downloaded by fewer than 60 people a
month.6 But word got out to key players in the tech space.
Computer programmers and tech-savvy finance experts
willing to help advance the project reached out to Nakamoto.
Among the first was Hal Finney, a cypherpunk who was among
the first to work on the PGP encryption method. He helped
Nakamoto spot a few bugs in the software and on January 12
received 10 bitcoins (BTC) as a test, thus becoming the first ever
recipient of a Bitcoin transaction.7 Others joined in the months
that followed.
Mike Hearn, an engineer at Google living in Zurich, Swit-
zerland, extended a willing hand to Nakamoto in April of that
year. A short time later, Jon Matonis, managing director at the
electronic payment consulting company Lydia Group, did the
same. In mid-2010, a self-described “code monkey” living in
Amherst, Massachusetts, named Gavin Andresen offered to
volunteer his C++ skills to fix any problems in the payment
software. Nakamoto communicated with all of them, turning
what was once a secretive venture into a collaborative endeavor
involving dozens of technicians around the world.
All the while, the Bitcoin founder remained elusive and
fiercely protective of his identity, dodging any questions about
who he was, where he lived, or what gave him the skills to take
on such an extraordinary undertaking. He never talked by
phone. All correspondence was done via email or on pubic Bit-
coin forums.
“I’m very curious to hear more about you,” read Andresen’s
first message to Nakamoto. “How old are you? Is Satoshi your
real name? Do you have a day job? What projects have you
been involved with before?”
Nakamoto evaded them all. But he did accept the offer.
“Great to have you!” he wrote back.
Over the next year, Andresen and others worked day and
night to refine the software’s code. While the Bitcoin network
and its inner workings were nothing short of genius, the exe-
cution had its shortcomings. Parts of the code were sloppy by
Andresen’s standards, according to interviews he gave in later

years.8 Even tiny mistakes could have huge consequences.
The first and—as of this writing—only major security flaw
ever found in Bitcoin was discovered in August 2010.9 Someone
had managed to fool the Bitcoin software into producing more
than 184 billion BTC in a transaction.10 Nakamoto, computer
developer Jeff Garzik, and others raced to address the problem,
purging the transaction from the system’s history and patching
the hole.
As time went on, additional developers were brought in to
address other issues with the code. Little by little, Nakamoto
transitioned from the face of the project—albeit a masked
one—into the background. By April 2011, he had successfully
handed off the keys to Andresen, who in turn led a handful of
other trusted technicians.
In a note to a developer, Nakamoto said he had “moved on
to other things” and vanished.11
The next month, the Bitcoin software was downloaded
174,184 times from SourceForge.net. Another 329,229 did it in
the month that followed. The world was catching on.
In those first two and a half years, Bitcoin went from being a
completely unknown cryptography project to a niche online
currency. Credit for that transformation belongs to exchanges—
online trading platforms where outsiders unable to success-
fully mine their own bitcoins could buy them for cash. The first
to open was BitcoinMarket.com in February 2010.12 That was
followed in July by Mt.Gox (mtgox.com), a rebranded site that
started out as “Magic: The Gathering Online Exchange,” a hub
where fans of the nerdy trading card game could buy and sell
their wares.
It was amateur hour. Users frequently complained about

scammers, compromised accounts, missed trades, and halted
trading. But at least they could get in on the action. Mt.Gox rose
to prominence, and in the latter half of 2010, the total value of
all bitcoins being traded there reached an estimated $1 million.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s popularity reached analysts at the
Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental group that
keeps a watchful eye on money laundering and terrorist financ-
ing activities. In October 2010, the organization noted the pro-
liferation of digital currencies and warned about their ability to
fuel illicit activities.13 The report’s writers were spot on. Within
a few weeks, the website Silk Road was launched, creating a
massive marketplace—running exclusively on Bitcoin—that
functioned as an eBay for drugs.
The buzz around Bitcoin drove a surge in price that reached
a notable point in February 2011, when it reached parity with the
U.S. dollar. That caught the attention of Time magazine, which
featured an article explaining how the currency was breaking
new ground.14 Major finance companies Visa, MasterCard, and
PayPal had just shut off the flow of money to WikiLeaks, pre-
venting the public at large from donating to the organization
as retribution for its release of damning U.S. State Department
diplomatic cables. But here was Bitcoin, this tiny, unheard-of
currency that could circumvent the world’s financial power-
houses and allow everyone to exercise their First Amendment
rights—with their wallets.
But entering the Bitcoin world and keeping your electronic
money safe was no less difficult than trying to survive a lawless
town in a Spaghetti Western. Bad guys were everywhere. It was
hard to tell the businesses from the bandits, especially when
it became routine for them to shut their doors, claim a mas-
sive hack, and leave their customers empty-handed. MyBitcoin
was among the first popular transaction processors, because its

service was user-friendly. Naturally, it attracted those newest
to the Bitcoin system. But they made for easy prey as well. In
the summer of 2011, MyBitcoin announced it had been hacked,
robbed of its 154,406 bitcoins and decided to shut down.15 Their
bitcoins were worth more than $2 million at the time, no small
sum. Some customers said they reported the incident to the
FBI, but little came of it. What should they have expected?
The head of the site was a mysterious online persona known
only as “Tom Williams.” They had entrusted their bitcoins to a
stranger—even though the system was specifically designed to
eliminate third parties.
Slowly but surely, the world of Bitcoin drew in folks from
all corners of the world. The first wave of privacy hawks and
cryptography-obsessed mathematicians gave way to a crowd of
computer programmers and Libertarians. Criminals and gold
bugs soon followed. When the speculative investors and ven-
ture capitalists jumped in, major media outlets took notice.
Reporters began to ask who created this strange new tech-
nology. For journalists in the cross section between technology
and business, finding Satoshi Nakamoto became equivalent
to the mad archeological hunt for the Holy Grail. My favorite
attempt came from Joshua Davis, who wrote a sweeping piece
for the New Yorker in October 2011 that vastly narrowed down
what kind of person would fit the description. Nakamoto used
flawless English and occasionally used British spelling, with
words like “colour” or “modernised.” He spotted Nakamoto’s
reference to the Times of London. He spoke to Dan Kamin-
sky, an accomplished and world-renowned computer security
researcher, who sketched this portrait: “Either he’s a team of
people who worked on this…or this guy is a genius.”16 The
investigation took him to Crypto 2011, the absolute place to be
for a cryptologist like Nakamoto, as well as those at the U.S.

National Security Agency. There, Davis tracked down Michael
Clear, one of the few from the United Kingdom in attendance,
one who had graduated as a top computer science student
at Trinity College in Dublin, worked on Allied Irish Banks’
currency-trading software, and was an expert on peer-to-peer
technology. Bingo. Clear rose through the ranks to become
Suspect No. 1. Except, that is, for the caveat that the young man
denied being Bitcoin’s father—albeit with dodgy answers and a
mischievous tone.
Alas, it wouldn’t end there. The same feat was attempted by
journalist Adam Penenberg at Fast Company, who used circum-
stantial evidence to point at three men who had filed a patent
using an exact phrase from Nakamoto’s white paper.17 Informa-
tion technology pioneer Ted Nelson, after reading a mystifying
profile of Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki, identi-
fied him as the guy.18 Vice reporter Alec Liu looped Bitcoin pro-
grammer Andresen, the federal government, and a few others
into the mix.19 Several toyed with the idea that Satoshi Naka-
moto could be the joint project of electronics manufacturers
SAmsung, TOSHIba, NAKAmichi, and MOTOrola.
But none of them were as explosive as the Newsweek cover
story in March 2014.20 The current affairs magazine had been
absent from store shelves, and this was its big return to print.
The cover was sexy as hell: a faceless man being unmasked.
“The mystery man behind the crypto-currency,” it promised.
And boy, did it deliver a story. Senior staff writer Leah McGrath
Goodman’s hypothesis was poetic in its simplicity: Satoshi
Nakamoto is actually Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto, a
retired 64-year-old, Japanese-American model train collector in
California who had, at one point, worked on secret projects for
the U.S. military. On that fateful Thursday, March 6, reporters
from all over Los Angeles descended on this poor man’s home,
demanding to know if he truly was Bitcoin’s father. He offered
a single Associated Press reporter an exclusive interview—to
deny everything—and endured being chased across town by a
mad convoy of cars and television trucks.
What got lost in all this frenzy? A small yet compelling
detail. Bitcoin was, by design, an open-source project meant to
be constantly updated, patched, and maintained by dedicated
computer programmers. By the time journalists were shoving
cameras into the face of this bewildered old man, more than
50 percent of the Bitcoin code had already been rewritten.
Some put that figure closer to 70 percent.
Consider what that would have meant to a painting: Sure,
some individual or group had stretched the canvas, sketched
the piece, and laid down the oils with a paintbrush. But more
than half of it had been completely reworked, with new layers
coating the old ones, giving the work new life and brilliance.
Bitcoin’s group of core developers made it clear to me how
much of Nakamoto’s initial programming had been reworked. It
wasn’t minor. In Garzik’s words: “Satoshi was a brilliant designer,
but not the best software engineer. Satoshi’s code lacked stan-
dard software engineering practices such as a test suite, and
was quite disorganized. We have refactored or rewritten a great
deal of source code.”
Bitcoin’s lead developer, Wladimir van der Laan, told me
Nakamoto’s “original C++ code was hard to read and under-
stand, and had quite a few (usually minor) bugs.” It took hun-
dreds if not thousands of volunteer hours from smart, dedicated
computer geeks in love with Bitcoin to make up for those mis-
takes. They made it easier to use. And they continue to improve
it with every passing day.
“It indeed doesn’t matter who Satoshi is,” van der Laan wrote
to me. “If he/she/they would ever come back, they will have no
special status in the project. By now there may be people that
are more experienced and know more about Bitcoin and the
underlying theory than Satoshi himself did. I don’t claim that
I do, though :)”
The project had, in no small sense, outgrown its founder. It
belonged to the world now.
CHAPTER 3
Bitcoin Explained
so how does it actually work? It helps to understand Bitcoin

in two very different ways. One is to skim the surface and see
how it mimics the real-life, physical money you already know.
Thinking about it like an electronic coin helps explain how it’s
earned, used, and traded. But it’s not exactly accurate. To truly
comprehend Bitcoin, you have to accept what it really is: a net-
work that runs on a computer program. The whole system is
nothing more than ones and zeros stored in computers around
the world. Everything relies on the software operating at the
very core of it all: the block chain.
It’s worth issuing a disclaimer: Bitcoin is electronic money,
it’s not money stored electronically. There’s a major difference.
Google Wallet, for instance, is a service provided by Google
that stores your credit cards, debit cards, and loyalty cards. It’s
a digital wallet that holds on to your traditional money. But Bit-
coin is a totally different approach. It reimagines what money
actually is.
You’ll need to get up to speed on a few terms that no sensible
person uses in everyday life. They come from the world of cryp-
tography, a dizzying environment of locks and keys, puzzles
and solutions, secret messages and passcodes that reveal them.
Bitcoin Explained 29
Be patient. You won’t need to remember everything. You can get

along fine using bitcoins without memorizing all of it. But it’s
worth going over at least once. In fact, you’ll likely come back
to this chapter a few times, and the workings of the system will
dawn on you over time. For me personally, it came in waves.
Let’s start by getting a view of the whole picture. The Bitcoin
network consists of computers that keep up the entire system
and, for doing so, get rewarded in bitcoins. Users have digital
wallets and trade bitcoins between one another. The system
produces a fixed number of bitcoins every hour, and that num-
ber slowly dwindles over the years to max out at 21 million bit-
coins. It’s an arbitrary supply of money. There’s no rhyme nor
reason as to why the system tops out at that number. In any
case, nearly 13 million were created by the spring of 2014. The
last bitcoin is projected to be mined in the year 2140, if the sys-
tem survives that long.
This section will go over all of the steps and players in the
Bitcoin ecosystem: miners who dig for new bitcoins, exchanges
where you can buy them, special wallets that let you store them
and trade them. Everything is interconnected, so some things
might not make sense at first. The true definition of a bitcoin
doesn’t even appear until later in the chapter. Don’t get ahead
of yourself. Just keep reading, and everything will tie together.
You can find a more formal and rigorous explanation at the end
of this book, which includes the pivotal white paper published
by Nakamoto.
What Is a Bitcoin?
On a superficial level, you can think of bitcoin as a token. The
previous page’s image depicts the most widely accepted sym-
bol, created as a mix between a capital letter B and the $ sign.
That symbol didn’t exist in the Unicode standard used by com-
puters when it was created, so an abbreviation is used instead:
BTC. A single bitcoin is denoted as 1 BTC. It’s digital, so it can
be broken down into tiny numerical values—all the way down
to eight decimal places. That means the smallest fraction of a
bitcoin is 0.00000001, or one-hundred-millionth of a bitcoin
(also known as a “satoshi”).
Just as dollars are divided into pennies, nickels, dimes, and
quarters, bitcoins are divided as well. Each portion has a differ-
ent name:
1 BTC a bitcoin
0.01 BTC a bitcent
0.001 BTC an mbit (pronounced em-bit)
0.000 001 BTC a ubit (pronounced yu-bit)
a satoshi (named after

0.000 000 01 BTC
Bitcoin’s creator)
Just like a physical token, bitcoins can be in someone’s pos-

session. That owner can move them around, switching them
to different personal wallets or handing them to someone
else. Spending a bitcoin means you put it in someone else’s
possession.
Now let’s apply this thinking to the digital realm. A bitcoin
can be understood as part of a larger software system. Think of
it as a computer file that is assigned to a certain owner’s digital
address (similar to an email address). It can only be moved

with special permission. It also keeps a record of every place,
or address, where it has ever been. That means it carries the
history of every transaction in its existence.
But even that definition doesn’t go far enough. At a more

fundamental level, bitcoins appear as a section of data in a
massive database. It’s like a tally. There are entries on a pub-
lic ledger. Any bitcoin that you “own” is really on that ledger.
When you swap ownership, you hand over rights to that bit-
coin. Your address merely points to that bitcoin, which remains
on the block chain.
What Is the Block Chain?

At the heart of the Bitcoin system is the function that makes
it tick. It’s the true innovative contribution of this entire idea.
Bitcoin’s block chain is a record of all the transactions that have
ever taken place, which are recorded in a chain of blocks.1 Each
block houses the latest group of transactions. And when you
take the entire thing into account, it’s a public ledger that details
the history of every bitcoin. If a bitcoin ever changed owner-
ship, that movement shows up on the block chain. It doesn’t
list people’s names, though. It only shows digital wallets. Here’s
one example I randomly pulled from the popular website

Blockchain.info, which lets you examine transactions:
As you can see, there’s a certain degree of anonymity. Neither

wallet shows anyone’s true identity. But it’s not right to call the
entire system anonymous. If a wallet is tied to a specific person’s
name, the entire record of that person’s wallet is easily available
for anyone to see on the block chain. In that sense, it’s the most
transparent financial record the world has ever seen.
The block chain is maintained by participating comput-
ers, formally called “nodes,” which verify the transactions in
chunks called “blocks” and relay them across the network. This
also involves solving an extremely complicated mathematical
puzzle (for reasons I’ll explain later). Anyone who downloads
the Bitcoin software can become a node that helps sustain the
system. It takes a lot of computing power and electricity, but
there’s a reason they volunteer. They’re essentially “miners”
who get rewarded in bitcoins.
How Are Bitcoins Created?

They technically come out of thin air. The software produces
them and hands ownership to the lucky miner who first solved
the puzzle. This is how the supply of bitcoins increases over
time. Naturally, this lottery system attracts additional miners
with more computing power. It’s something of an arms race of
powerful computing equipment, and miners even join forces
to form stronger “mining pools” that split the winnings. Sound

like a farce? Consider how serious people have gotten about
this. The computing power dedicated to mining for bitcoins is
equal to more than 1,400 times the combined computing power
of the world’s top 500 supercomputers.2 And it’s only getting
bigger. But Nakamoto saw this coming. To prevent them from
figuring out the puzzles too often and having the money sup-
ply rise too quickly, there’s a speed limit built into the software.
Every two weeks (or 2,016 blocks), the difficulty of the mathe-
matical problem increases to ensure that one block gets added
to the block chain every 10 minutes or so. That’s also the time it
takes for a transaction to get approved. Here’s what the increas-
ing difficulty looks like over the course of a year:
Difficulty
Source: blockchain.info
10 billion
8 billion
6 billion
4 billion
2 billion
0
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
May 2013 – May 2014
As of 2013, a miner who solves a block gets rewarded with 25

bitcoins, but that too gets smaller over time. Every four years
(or 210,000 blocks), the reward gets cut in half. In 2017 the prize
gets cut down to 12.5 bitcoins. Here’s what Bitcoin production
will look like over time:
Total Bitcoins Over Time

21
18
15
Total Coins (in Millions)
12
0
’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’18 ’19 ’20 ’21 ’22 ’23 ’24 ’25 ’26 ’27 ’28 ’29 ’30 ’31 ’32 ’33
Year
As shown above, an estimated 98 percent of them should be

produced by 2030, and the total number of available bitcoins
will increase very slowly after that.
How Are Bitcoins Stored and Moved?

Bitcoins are kept in digital wallets that function like a bank
account. You can move funds in and out. Anyone who knows
the address can deposit funds into it, but only a person with the
right permissions can make withdrawals. And you can keep it
locked out of reach, or accessible to others. It all depends on a
special system of public and private keys.
A wallet is an encrypted computer file, and it communicates

with other wallets using something called public key cryptog-
raphy.3 In the computer world, it’s the tried and true method for
securely transmitting information. It’s quite complicated. But
it’s easily understood with an analogy.
Imagine you want to send a sensitive letter to a friend by
physical mail. Licking an envelope shut just won’t do. Any
postal worker can just open it and see what’s inside. But they
can’t open a lock. So you ask your friend to buy a padlock, open
it, and send it your way. He keeps the key. Once you receive his
lock, you put your letter inside a box and close it shut with your
friend’s lock. Send it to him. Now he can open it with his private
key, which never left his possession. This is called an asymmet-
ric key system, and its major strength is that you never need to
send keys to one another. You just share a lock—which can’t be
used to open boxes anyway.
Here’s how that applies to Bitcoin. Anyone can create a dig-
ital wallet. The identifying code is long enough that, in real
terms, they’ll never run out. Every digital wallet is assigned
a public key (the lock) and a private key (the key). Your pub-
lic key doubles as your address. You can share your public
key to receive incoming bitcoins. That’s like announcing your
bank account number. That address looks something like
this: 1HcZyBdd53zbtoAUvUGSw1YaqTCLEA4o79. It lets anyone
deposit money into your account. But you never share your pri-
vate key, because that authorizes transactions out of your wal-
let. It’s like handing someone your secret password. That can
empty your wallet in a flash.
Conversely, if you want to send bitcoins out of your wallet,
you’ll need your friend’s public key. But you’ll still need your
private key to authorize that outbound transaction. Think back
to our postal mail analogy. When you send bitcoins to another
person’s digital wallet, you’re essentially saying this: “Whoever

has the private key that corresponds to this address can spend
this money.”
This is also why you never want to forget your private key.
If you lose that, the bitcoins in your wallet will stay stuck there
forever. You can see them, but you can’t do anything about it.
The public/private key system is secure, but only if you keep
your private key secret. There’s a certain degree of risk to keeping
the text file with your private key on a computer that’s Internet-
accessible. If you click on the wrong link and accidentally
download malware, a hacker could scan your computer for a
Bitcoin wallet, find your private key and empty your account.
There are generally two different ways to store your bitcoins.
A hot wallet: This means your public and private keys are
stored on a device that’s connected to the Internet or an online
service like a Bitcoin-trading exchange (more on that later). It’s
the most convenient way to store your bitcoins, because they’re
easily accessible. It’s the equivalent of keeping cash on you as
you walk down the street. However, like in real life, this practice
is not the safest. Your stash is at risk, because your private key is
lying around somewhere on your computer, smartphone, or in
the case of an online exchange, in that company’s servers. If a
hacker ever gets access, your bitcoins are as good as gone.
Cold storage: As you could guess, this means the opposite
of a hot wallet. Keeping bitcoins in cold storage means that the
public and private keys are stored offline. There’s no chance a
hacker can spy on you. There are several ways to achieve this,
because public and private keys are nothing more than a string
of letters and numbers. You could keep them saved on a USB
stick. Or you could save them on a portable hard drive. But the
problem with either of these is that if your hardware malfunc-
tions and stops working, that’s it. You’ve lost everything. That’s
why your best bet is to print them out on paper, and fold that
paper shut. Obviously, you don’t want to snap a photo of that
and keep it on your phone or computer (which are connected
to the Internet). Some people even inscribe their public and pri-
vate keys into metal, which is less likely to fade over time than
ink on paper. You can print your keys on a metal dog tag neck-
lace if you want. Cold storage is by far the most secure way to
keep your bitcoins, because it’s easier to keep them out of oth-
ers’ reach. If you are so inclined, you could use multiple layers of
security, keeping your bitcoin keys in an encrypted file on a hard
drive in a locked safe. A thief would need to know the physical
location of your safe, its lock combination, the password to your
hard drive, and the passcode to your encrypted file.
The smartest approach is to mimic what you do in real life,
carrying enough cash for everyday activities and keeping your
savings in the bank. In Bitcoin terms, that means keeping most
of your digital currency in cold storage, and occasionally mov-
ing small portions to a hot wallet. Because of the curious way
bitcoins are transferred from wallet to wallet, your cold storage
can receive bitcoins anytime—even though it’s never connected
to the Internet. Remember, you can receive bitcoins as long as
the sender knows your public address. You can share your cold
storage wallet’s public key, and keep receiving bitcoins, even
though you never connected that wallet to the Internet. Sound
odd? Remember, Bitcoins never actually move. They’re never
technically in your possession. They’re always on the block
chain.
Bitcoins Never Move?

Nope. This is where the similarities between the physical
world and digital realm must end. Brace yourself. To gain a
true understanding of how Bitcoin works, you have to come to
terms with this fact: The block chain is everything. It’s a record
of every bitcoin transaction ever made. And that’s incredibly
important, because there is no such thing as a bitcoin.
But I’ve Seen Photos of Bitcoins!

Those aren’t actual bitcoins. They’re akin to a paper wallet.
Somewhere on the physical coin or inside it are written a pair
of keys.
Bitcoins Don’t Exist?!

There is no entity, no string of code, no computer file that you
can identify as a bitcoin. All that exist are Bitcoin addresses
(public keys) and records of inflows and outflows. If the entire
block chain has two mentions of your public key—one that says
your address received 1 BTC, and another that says it received
2 BTC—that means you own 3 BTC. But you can’t point to a line
of code and say, “That there is my bitcoin.” That information
lives on the database. Your public and private keys merely point
to a section of the block chain.
That’s why you can “keep” bitcoins in a wallet whose private
key is jotted down on something that’s not connected to the
Internet. As long as you create a public key that exists on the
block chain, you can be sure that it can receive incoming bit-
coins. At this point, it becomes clear that Bitcoin isn’t truly the
trading back and forth of virtual coins. It’s all about the back-
bone of a computer network. And it only exists this way. If the
network disappears, Bitcoin ceases to exist. This is why bitcoins
can’t be counterfeited. There are no bitcoins to move.
To understand why the system is designed this way, think
about what would happen if a bitcoin were a standalone
computer file. Digital things can be copied. If a bitcoin were
a string of code, like a byte that lives in a computer, anyone
could counterfeit bitcoins and make their own. But if all that
exists is a shared database of transactions, and everyone says
you received a bitcoin, then by all accounts you “own” a bitcoin.
Even if you’ve never held it, seen it, or had it in your possession.
And you can’t just decide on your own to make your own bit-
coin, because the shared database doesn’t show a record that
you received any. If the block chain says you were never trans-
ferred any bitcoins, you don’t own any bitcoins.
Then How Are Bitcoins Transferred?

Remember, everything happens on the block chain.4 Miners
everywhere are keeping that block chain alive. And the block
chain keeps a record of every transaction. This is how they all
come together.
Let’s say you want to send a friend a bitcoin. You need his
public key (to know where to send it) and your private key (to
sign off on the deal).
When you use your private key, you’re actually doing two
things. First, you’re linking it up with your public key and
announcing to the Bitcoin network that you’re authorized to
do the transaction. Click. It’s a working key pair. Second, you’re
digitally signing a “hash”—a shortened code version—of the
previous transaction. This is what keeps a perpetual record of
every bitcoin movement. Inside every transaction is a record of
the last one. That’s why Nakamoto defined a bitcoin as “a chain
of digital signatures.”
Now you’ve broadcasted the proposed transaction across
the Bitcoin network. It’s up to the nodes, those miners, to make
it official. This is the part that makes Bitcoin so revolutionary.
Instead of relying on a bank or credit card company to verify
that you’re spending money that’s truly in your possession, the
entire Bitcoin system relies on independent miners around the
world. It’s up to the “nodes” of the network to ensure you’re not

spending the same bitcoin twice.
Your proposed transaction is time-stamped and gets in line
behind many others. They’re rounded up together in a group
of transactions, called a block. If the system figures out that
all those transactions are valid (no double-spending the same
coin), the block gets approved and joins the block chain. All the
transactions inside that block have been set in stone. The deal
is done. The bitcoin is now in your friend’s possession.
Your transaction takes 10 minutes to get verified. Again,
remember that each block takes about 10 minutes. Your trans-
action isn’t verified until that block makes it into the chain.
That means there’s a period of obscurity in which transactions
haven’t settled. There’s a window of opportunity to send the
same coin in two different directions. It will only end up in one
of them. In essence, there’s a real-life delay if you want to make
sure the deal went through.
So What Exactly Are the Miners Doing?

Let’s stop calling them “miners” for a moment. Just think of
them as computers that do two things. One, they group pro-
posed transactions together into blocks and send them out to
others on the network. Two, they look through blocks to verify
that all the transactions inside them are legit. Once a block is
approved, it gets added to the official block chain.
A lot of this requires a special process called hashing, so
it’s worth getting a firm grasp of what this means. Recall that a
hash is simply a code. How does this happen? A mathematical
algorithm is applied to a concept, like a word, and it translates
that information into a code of a fixed length. If any part of
that word changes, the hash changes too. So each object has a
unique hash. I’ve applied a special type of hash to a few words
below. I used a special hash function developed by the U.S.

National Security Agency called the Secure Hash Algorithm.
This one in particular is SHA-256. Note that no matter how
many letters the input is, the result is always the same length.
Input Hash Function Result
ea858afbf837aae71
4617e89a36524ace
Wolf d28f7de921f7798e7
2810fd8839a462
f55bd2cdfae797282
7638f3691a5bc1891
Fox 99d7cff7188d5ead4
89afdea0e5403
d4fa08a9916b4a42
b5fc679c5ebbdd9e
Wolf and Fox 1eb5eaf9906c8fdb0
ee56fcbaf4cae8
Now back to Bitcoin. Your computer’s first job is creating

blocks. Think of blocks as a box of information. Creating a
block is hard work with a lot of things going on at once:
• Your computer gives the block a version number.

• Remember that transactions between Bitcoin users get
broadcasted to the network. Your computer packages all
the recent proposed transactions together and creates a
hash to represent them all.
• It issues a time-stamp.
• It grabs information from the most recent, finalized
block on the block chain, and it hashes that too.
• It creates a random variable called a “nonce.”
In real life, a nonce is a made-up, one-time-use word created

to describe something. For example, in the movie musical Mary
Poppins, she uses the word “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” to
define a special moment. Similarly, your computer uses a nonce
because it’s presented with a special problem. Every time a block
is put together, the entire block is given a unique hash. So, when
the nonce changes, the block’s hash changes too.
Here’s the problem bitcoin miners solve with a nonce: They
have to end up with a certain kind of hash for each block. It
has to have just the right number of zeros at the beginning. So
your computer keeps spitting out a new nonce repeatedly until
it gets just the right hash for the block.5 The more computing
power you have, the faster you can try new nonces, and the
faster you can solve for the latest block. This is what a block
hash looks like:
000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
Once your computer has created a block hash that works, it

broadcasts that out to the network of computers. This is when
a computer’s second job comes in: examining the blocks that
have been broadcasted. Now it’s up to everyone else to verify
that you did it correctly. The other computers on the Bitcoin
network scan your submission and check to make sure it has all
the right parts.6 Here are some key points. You’ll note it looks
very similar to the list we already covered:
• The time-stamp has to be recent.

• Your proposed block has to show that it was built on top
of the real block chain, so it has to contain the right hash
for the most recent, finalized block on the block chain.
• All of the transactions inside the block must be valid.

A single person could not have spent the same bitcoin
twice. This must be the first time an owner is using their
special digital signature to pass that bitcoin along.
If another person’s computer approves your block, it starts

working on the next one and relies on your block as the “previ-
ous block hash.” One by one, this quickly happens across the
Bitcoin network. When a majority of the network’s CPU power
decides that your block is the previous one, it’s official. Your
block is part of the block chain. It’s a democratic process.*
Block 1001
Block 1000
Block 999
You get a reward for all that rapid-fire nonce-guessing and

picking out the right one. The Bitcoin system sends a certain
* This also means that if any entity, such as a mining pool, gets more than 50 percent
control of the network, it can make unilateral decisions about accepting blocks or
not. It essentially becomes an authoritarian Bitcoin central bank.
number of bitcoins in your direction. Currently, it’s 25 BTC.

That’s why this process is calling mining. Your computer exerts
effort, and as a result, bitcoins appear.
How Does the System Control the Supply of Bitcoins?

Miners solve a puzzle that gets increasingly difficult. Your
block’s hash has a certain value.7 The Bitcoin protocol presents
a target value, and your goal as a miner is to produce a hash
that has a smaller value than that target. But remember, all you
can do is keep guessing nonce variables and randomly generat-
ing hashes. As the target value gets lower, it gets harder to guess
the right one. It’s a game of mathematical limbo: How low can
you go?
The difficulty of the game is adjusted every 2,016 blocks to
ensure that a new block gets added to the block chain every 10
minutes or so.
Why All the Hashing?

This isn’t just happening to give you a headache. There are two
main reasons. One is that it keeps the block chain from blow-
ing up with too much information at every step of the way.
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. If each block
needed to read all of the text of the previous block, the amount
of data would quickly balloon out of control. Hashing allows
you to condense the data. It’s kind of like looking at a single fos-
sil and being able to determine the entire history of a species.
The other reason is that there’s an added layer of security. It’s
unfathomably difficult—essentially impossible right now—to
slip incorrect data into the block chain. Anything even slightly
off by a single letter would change a hash and get rejected. And
the more hashing that happens, the taller the layers get. It’s cre-
ating a passcode of a passcode of a passcode.
This Is Too Theoretical. What Does a Block Look Like?

You asked for it. Here’s the so-called “genesis block,” the first
one ever created.8 Unless you’re a cryptographer with serious
computer skills, this is absolute nonsense.
{
"hash":"000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b
3f1b60a8ce26f",
"ver":1,
"prev_blok":"000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000",
"mrkl_root":"4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab
2127b7afdeda33b",
"time":1231006505,
"bits":486604799,
"nonce":2083236893,
"n_tx":1,
"size":285,
"tx":[
{
"hash":"4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127
b7afdeda33b",
"ver":1,
"vin_sz":1,
"vout_sz":1,
"lock_time":0,
"size":204,
"in":[
{
"prev_out":{
"hash":"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000",
"n":4294967295
},
"coinbase":"04ffff001d0104455468652054696d65732030332f4a616e
2f32303039204368616e63656c6c6f72206f6e206272696e6b206f6620
7365636f6e64206261696c6f757420666f722062616e6b73"
}
],
"out":[
{
"value":"50.00000000",
"scriptPubKey":"04678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e
03909a67962e0ea1f61deb649f6bc3f4cef38c4f35504e51ec112de5c384df
7ba0b8d578a4c702b6bf11d5f OP_CHECKSIG"
}
]
}
],
"mrkl_tree":[
"4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab127b7
afdeda33b"
]
}
Does Block Creation Ever Go Wrong?

Sometimes. All this stacking of blocks on top of one another
is a complex game, and once in a while, things get confusing.
It’s like digging tunnels in the wrong direction. At some point,
you’re forced to pick up, walk over to the right spot where your
buddies are, and restart digging.
For example, sometimes two Bitcoin miners solve a puzzle
at nearly the same time. They won’t both have their blocks join
the block chain. The system will select only one of them, let’s
call it Block A, and the block chain will continue getting built
on top of Block A. The other, Block B, is a road to nowhere.
Block A Block B
Genesis
Block
But some computers might start mistakenly building on top

of Block B. Any subsequent blocks are called “orphan blocks.”
Everyone on that detour is wasting their time, because their
confirmation won’t make it into the true block chain. This is
why the Bitcoin protocol enforces a waiting period before min-
ers can spend the bitcoins they generated on their own. Their
reward counts as a transaction, and that transaction needs to
be confirmed 100 times, or about 16 hours. The valid blocks are

in dark gray.
Orphan
Block
Block A Block B
Genesis
Block
The rules written into the Bitcoin software keeps the block
chain from forking in different directions forever. Eventually,
the misguided computers on the network will switch back
to working on top of the longest chain of blocks—naturally,
the original one that dates back to the genesis block. When
that happens, the detoured miners’ rewards disappear. Their
rewards don’t appear on the true block chain, so they have
earned no bitcoins for their work. Remember, the block chain’s
transaction history is everything. Also, all the transactions that

were confirmed by the detoured miners are put into a queue on
the real block chain.
Putting all of that together, this is what the block chain looks
like in its totality. Again, the valid blocks are dark gray:
Orphan
Block
Orphan
Block
Genesis
Block
How Can I Start Mining?

You’ll need to download what’s called the “full Bitcoin client.”
It’s free and open source, which means that it’s maintained by
a dedicated group of volunteer computer developers. The only
website I recommend is Bitcoin.org, the official home of Bit-
coin. The Bitcoin mining program works for all popular oper-
ating systems: Linux, Mac, and Windows.
The software hooks up your computer to the network and
turns it into a node. You will become a full member of the
Bitcoin community, contributing to its well-being and maybe
even scoring some bitcoins. However, nowadays earning bit-
coins is highly unlikely, because this has become a professional
endeavor. Companies are sinking millions of dollars into build-
ing massive collections of powerful computers called server
farms that are solely dedicated to mining bitcoins.
If you’re going to do it anyway, be patient. Your computer
needs to download the entire block chain, which stands at
more than 16 gigabytes as of May 2014. That’s equivalent to
about 3,200 mp3s, so expect the initial synchronization with
Bitcoin Core to take all day and night.
How Do I Just Get a Digital Wallet?

There are many free wallet software programs available, and
they all generate wallets that can hold on to, send, and receive
bitcoins. It’s all a matter of where you want to manage this wal-
let. Desktop wallets only work on desktop computers, and they
tend to be much larger wallet programs that require more com-
puting power. Mobile wallets are meant for your smartphone
and work as lightweight apps. Web wallets are accessible via
any Web browser, so they can work from your computer, tablet,
or any Internet-connected device.
There are several types of desktop wallets, and many can

be found at Bitcoin.org. Non-technical people might like the
wallet program MultiBit, which has a reputation for working
quickly and being easy to use. It operates in several languages
and works with all major operating systems. The wallet pro-
gram Hive was designed for Mac OS X. Then there’s Armory,
which offers additional security features for Windows and
Linux users. A fourth option is Electrum, which runs on serv-
ers and is versatile because the same wallet can be accessed
from different computers.
There are several types of mobile wallets, and it’s not rec-
ommended to download just any app from your phone’s app
marketplace. Hackers tend to lurk in such places, and they could
easily dupe you into downloading malware or an infected version
of a wallet program. Instead, head to Bitcoin.org and see what’s
there. The website currently features two types. The official
Bitcoin Wallet app runs on Android and BlackBerry devices. A
third-party application called Mycelium works only on Android
phones. It’s worth noting that Apple blocked all Bitcoin wallets
from its App Store in a move that was perceived as corporate
bullying by the Bitcoin community. iPhone users were forced to
instead rely on Web wallets, which are accessible via the iPhone’s
Safari Web browser. Apple later went back on its decision
and, in mid-2014, started to allow Bitcoin services once again.
There are several wallets, and they all essentially offer a
similar service. You’ll want to check these out, and others, on
your own: Blockchain.info, BitGo, GreenAddress.it, Coinbase,
and Coinkite.
Where Can I Get a Bitcoin without Mining?

Unless you receive a bitcoin as a gift, you’ll have to buy one. This
process is explained at length in the next chapter. However,
the easiest way is to buy them at online exchanges. These

are virtual trading floors that operate like Wall Street trading
floors. Sellers and buyers come together, negotiate prices, and
swap them. The sole purpose of keeping your bitcoins on an
exchange is to continue buying and selling bitcoins. Otherwise,
you can just acquire them, then send them to your own digital
wallet, and store the keys in a secure place.
What Gives a Bitcoin Its Value?

Nothing gives a bitcoin value except that people want them.
Unlike government-issued dollars, there is no legal requirement
to accept bitcoins as payment. And unlike precious metals like
gold and silver, which are desired as jewelry and used for indus-
trial purposes, there is no use for bitcoin other than money or a
speculative investment at the moment. Put plainly, Bitcoin isn’t
rooted in anything traditionally considered valuable. That’s one
of the reasons the price of a bitcoin is highly unstable.
The other is that the entire system depends on brand-new,

unproven technology that was developed mysteriously. It’s no
wonder that people are wary of it and owners of bitcoins get
scared at the slightest impression there’s something wrong
with the software. Worries trigger sell-offs at exchanges, and
the price of a bitcoin drops like a meteorite.
Still, that doesn’t discourage people from hooking up their
computers and becoming nodes in the Bitcoin network. In May
2014, there were 7,661 nodes connected to the system on a Sat-
urday night, with half in the United States, Canada, and Ger-
many (in descending order).9 At the same time, Blockchain.info
counted 1.5 million users of its digital wallet, a number that has
been growing steadily for more than a year—and that’s just one
company. We’ve covered how the Bitcoin world works in the-
ory. Now it’s time to see how it actually works in real life.
CHAPTER 4
Using It in Real Life
james kafka is a master of machines that produce things

the average person would find inconsequential. By night, the
31-year-old stands by behemoth printing machines that tower
above his 6930 frame. He’s the commander in charge of this full-
color ink-cartridge tank battalion, but sometimes it feels like the
other way around. They spit out a steady stream of papers, and
he’s there to slice them. They keep coming. He keeps cutting.
He’s sheared so many, there’s a good chance you’ve gotten one.
Then again, you probably threw it away without taking a second
look. It’s junk mail. But Kafka doesn’t mind. It’s tolerable and
pays the bills—so he can tend to the machine he really loves.
A brand new Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 graphics card
doesn’t come cheap. Neither does a Radeon HD 7970.
Together, these tiny, odd-looking boxes easily fetch $600.
And good luck finding a new one. Most major retailers don’t
even list their prices, because they’re out of stock. But Kafka
managed to get his hands on both and loaded them into his
Frankenstein computer at home in the Philadelphia suburb of
Lansdale, Pennsylvania. The extra muscle turned it into a PC
on steroids. The home-built rig gets so hot, he had to install
an awkward-looking, 20-inch window fan on it just to keep
it cool. In the snowy winter, he even leaves it on the covered

porch of his home. It runs 24/7, crunching numbers and racing
to solve the next Bitcoin crypto puzzle, sucking up energy like
a colossus. This is the machine he tends to by day. This is the
life of a Bitcoin miner.
Kafka got into it a few years ago, after hearing about Bitcoin
through his sister’s friend and spotting a few curious posts on
the forum website Reddit. Back then, he spent most of his free
time sitting at home and playing Eve Online, commanding
space cruisers and fighting interstellar battles. He was devoted
enough to the Internet gaming community that he built a PC
from scratch to maximize the experience. But when he wasn’t
blowing up enemy frigates and freighters, all that computing
power was going to waste. So he decided to let it mine for bit-
coins. When the coins started coming in, Kafka got hooked.
Sure, this electronic money wasn’t worth much, maybe a few
bucks here or there. Kafka recalls thinking “it was just magic
Internet money.” But as the price went up, this play money
became an effortless income stream. The computer did all the
work. He gave it some more muscle by installing a $130 graphics
card, and all of a sudden, traveling through interstellar worm-
holes didn’t seem as rewarding as earning bitcoins.
“Once you’re mining, you pretty much can’t do anything
else,” Kafka told me. “I would only stop mining if I needed to
do something on the Internet.”
And he kept that to a minimum. Kafka fine-tuned his hard-
ware to run at maximum capacity, twice pushing it so far that
he fried his graphics card. He would then spend some of the
real-life physical cash he earned working at the printing shop
to replace gear that earned him digital money he couldn’t really
spend anywhere. It sounds futile, but it felt good. Kafka knew
he was on the cutting edge of something special, almost like he
Using It in Real Life 55
was in on a big secret before the rest of the world caught on to

it. He teamed up with a friend; they joined a larger pool with
other miners, and the guys agreed to split the proceeds.
It’s been a rocky road. The hobby barely pays for itself. In
March, Kafka broke just about even, earning close to half a
bitcoin for himself and paying $270 in electricity. That doesn’t
account for the cost of hardware, which needs to get replaced
whenever it goes down—or when it never arrives. In 2013 Kafka
experienced firsthand how flaky the Bitcoin world can be. He
came across TerraHash.com, a website that marketed itself as
a maker of specialized Bitcoin-mining hardware. Kafka and
his buddy spent their entire stockpile, 11 bitcoins worth about
$1,200, on two microchip sets. Forget the hobby stuff. This was
a calculated capital outlay.
“We told ourselves, ‘We’ve gotten somewhere. Let’s rein-
vest,’” Kafka recalled. “We ran the numbers, and they were
going to produce more than that. They would return our invest-
ment in six months, and anything after that was profit.”
Except it never arrived. The TerraHash website stopped
updating its blog on September 5 that year, and Kafka joined
the scores of people online who claimed they preordered
equipment that hadn’t shipped. He even looked up the busi-
ness registration, found a California address, and considered
flying out there to ask for his money back, but decided against
it. Adding to the sting: he paid in bitcoins, which meant he
couldn’t just cancel the charge like he could with a credit card.
“It was poetic, ironic, ridiculous,” he told me nearly a year
after that episode. “I’m sitting here mining bitcoins, paying in
Bitcoin, and I’m completely screwed out of my money. I said,
‘I’ll never try to order mining hardware with bitcoin again.’ At
this point I can laugh about it. But it’s a cautionary tale for other
people. Make sure you know what you’re getting into.”
“Do you feel like you do?” I asked.

“Sometimes,” he said with a chuckle. “It is the Wild West.
There have been bitcoins stolen here, stolen there, people
doing pumps and dumps. It’s unbelievable. It’s not illegal to
steal someone else’s money. That’s the only thing it teaches me.
I’m not going to go out and steal bitcoins, but there’s no legal
recourse for this stuff.”
But Kafka and his friend are still at it, lugging their comput-
ers to the frozen porch in the winter and down into the cool
basement in the summer, keeping an eye out for good deals
on top-of-the-line graphics cards and constantly monitoring
electricity costs. His friend is always calculating and analyzing,
trying to ensure they never spend more than they rake in. But
they do eat the costs in real cash. They’ve saved every bitcoin
since their 11-bitcoin snafu, so the monthly $500 or so comes
out of their pockets. It’s not easy. To deal with the costs, Kafka
has dialed back his spending habits. He ditched his AT&T con-
tract and iPhone for an off-brand device and a flat-rate Virgin
Mobile plan. He switched to a cheaper car insurance plan too.
He even quit his $7-a-day smoking habit—all for the love of
Bitcoin. His girlfriend doesn’t mind, and his family kindly lis-
tens as he preaches about it at gatherings.
“I’m never going to be a multimillionaire from doing this,”
Kafka said. “If I can make a little money, it’s cool. I’m having fun
doing it. It just feels like the bleeding edge. It’s exciting to see
where it’s going to land.”
There are Bitcoin millionaires, though. They’re a rare bunch

blessed by an odd serendipity. These types got into Bitcoin
early, sometime in 2009 or 2010, and quietly amassed a col-
lection of thousands of bitcoins when they were still going
for nickels and dimes. By late 2013, as the price of a bitcoin

briefly pushed past $1,000 a pop, they sold off some or most
of their stash. I’ve spoken to a few of them, and they tend to be
highly guarded and private. To them, the experience was akin
to winning the lottery—and they don’t want their middle-class
friends to know their financial secret. But one Norwegian man’s
experience captures this beautifully.
Kristoffer Koch was a college student at the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology in 2009 when he stum-
bled on Nakamoto’s initial paper on Bitcoin.1 At the time, he
was writing a thesis on encryption and had a personal inter-
est in cryptography, so he figured it would be a fun experiment
to purchase a few. It didn’t seem like much to spend 150 kro-
ner, worth about $26, on some 5,600 bitcoins.2 As the months
went by, he forgot about the whole thing. It wasn’t until Bitcoin
began to receive widespread attention from journalists in April
2013 that he remembered his tiny gamble. Although he had for-
gotten his digital wallet’s password, he gave it a few tries, got
back into his account, and came to a stark realization: His $26
bet had ballooned into $886,000. He took a fifth of his collec-
tion and used it as down payment to buy himself a flat in Oslo’s
trendy and expensive Tøyen neighborhood.
The Bitcoin nouveau riche don’t go it alone. Naturally, they
seek legal advice and representation. There’s a growing class
of attorneys who do just that—and yes, they bill in bitcoins.
Ryan Hurley is a lawyer in Scottsdale, Arizona, whose exper-
tise is innovation: renewable energy, water laws, and medical
marijuana. Digital money fit right in. Banks have traditionally
turned their backs on businesses in the legal marijuana indus-
try, so those entrepreneurs had an interest in nonbank money
like bitcoins. Hurley looked into the matter and soon ended up
with a Bitcoin millionaire client of his own, one who needed
legal advice on starting a new Bitcoin mining business. Most of

them are like that, Hurley told me. They struck virtual gold, and
now they want to reinvest the proceeds in something more sub-
stantial. There’s a certain degree of philosophical consistency
in accepting bitcoins as payment from these folks, so Hurley
convinced his colleagues it was a good idea. But Bitcoin’s wild
price fluctuations made the firm’s managing partner, Jordan
Rose, uneasy. She had a condition: Cash them out for paper
money every 24 hours. She wasn’t alone in her reasoning. Half-
way across the world, the Winheller law firm in Germany does
the same thing. The firm made a calculated decision to accept
bitcoins as payment to draw clients from that industry, and it
worked. The firm represents the owners of online exchanges
in Germany and South America, an entrepreneur who com-
mands a pool of miners and the maker of a Bitcoin ATM. But an
attorney at the firm, Lutz Auffenberg, said the capriciousness of
daily Bitcoin prices is too much for the firm to handle. “You can
pay in bitcoins. But we do not keep them,” he told me. “Because
of the volatility.”
Those price swings are why most businesses that want to
take bitcoins are frightened off. On any given day, the price of a
bitcoin could swing $10 in either direction. That doesn’t make it
very easy to plan ahead, which is an absolute necessity. I spent
two years writing about U.S. small businesses for CNNMoney,
and if there’s anything I learned talking to a few thousand
entrepreneurs, it’s that the ability to plan ahead is sacrosanct.
Revenue, costs, taxes—everything needs to be steady and
dependable. Lucky for them, merchant-friendly services like
the international digital wallet company Coinbase have popped
up. The San Francisco company charges a slim 1 percent to
convert your earned bitcoins into local currency (after the first
$1 million, which is free). That means businesses that don’t want
to ever expose themselves to Bitcoin volatility can use Coinbase

to accept bitcoins and change them into dollars on a daily basis.
This has opened the door for all kinds of businesses.
You’d think Subway is as corporate as it gets. There are
more than 41,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries, and
rest assured, they all emit that bread exhaust smell we Ameri-
cans know so well. Whether the signs are in English, Arabic, or
Russian, the logo and design are instantly recognizable. But it’s
not as cookie-cutter as it seems. These are individually owned
franchises, and entrepreneurs are free to experiment a bit. In
Japan, there’s a whole lot of fish in their sandwich menus. The
company’s corporate executives tell me you can get a mean
lamb sub in Southeast Asia that’s finger-lickin’ good. And in
Allentown, Pennsylvania, a cheery young MBA student is try-
ing out electronic money. Sapan Shah is accepting bitcoins at
his Subway franchise. He was 23 years old when I interviewed
him in late 2013, and he was three weeks into it. It’s totally weird
and unprecedented, but it seemed like an innovative, fun thing
to do. A $5 foot-long went for something like 0.006 BTC, an
awkward total that doesn’t lend itself too well to a commer-
cial jingle. But customers didn’t mind, and neither did Shah.
To his surprise, it took off overnight. Some folks told him they
traveled hundreds of miles just for the opportunity to bite into
a real-life sandwich bought with invisible money. The move
ended up being a positive attention-grabber of its own.
The transaction is painless and relatively simple. After an
employee makes the sandwich, Shah rings up the order on a
computer tablet. An app on the tablet automatically checks the
prevailing price of a bitcoin and converts the dollar price into
bitcoins. The app generates a black-and-white image on the
tablet screen (called a QR code). Instead of pulling out a wallet,
a customer reaches for her phone and scans the image. Presto.
The right amount of bitcoins gets sent to Shah’s account and

the transaction is done. Shah converts them to dollars once a
week so he can pay his bills. “We can’t pay our rent in Bitcoin,”
he told me.
Subway franchise owner Sapan Shah prepares a sandwich at his shop.
At about the same time that Subway was dabbling with dig-
ital money, on the opposite end of the country, Josh Arias was
just getting the hang of it. A tech-savvy customer had recently
walked into his barbershop and asked if he could pay in bit-
coins. Arias thought it wouldn’t hurt, so he accepted what was
then a fraction of a bitcoin worth about $30. Jay Yerxa kept com-
ing back and paying in bitcoins, and Arias kept taking them. He
warmed up to the idea over time, realizing how much money
he could save by lowering transaction costs. Arias could avoid
the stiff merchant fees when customers swipe their credit cards,
which usually cost 2.75 percent or more of every transaction. By
comparison, Coinbase only skimmed 1 percent off every hair-

cut. It doesn’t sound like much, but for an entrepreneur, these
numbers can mean the difference between keeping an estab-
lishment in tip-top shape and letting it slowly fall apart. Small
businesses typically operate on razor-thin profit margins. Sav-
ing that 1 or 2 percent adds up over the course of a year. Arias
also enjoyed how smooth the process is: A customer pulls out
a smartphone, and the deal is done in a flash. No need to count
cash or a trip to the register.
“The transaction speed is huge for me. I can accept it in sec-
onds,” he said.
More importantly, though, unlike the risk-averse attorneys
who cash out their bitcoins the first chance they get, Arias
embraces the rolling tide of market prices. That 0.2457 BTC he
received for that first haircut quadrupled in value to $110 a few
months later. Not bad for a single customer.
Reno barber Josh Arias

“The way it’s going right now, I definitely want everyone

paying in bitcoins,” he said over the phone. “It’s a gamble. It has
its ups and downs, but there have been more ups than downs.”
If it weren’t for that one Bitcoin enthusiast customer, Arias
might not have ever thought about taking the plunge. And that’s
how it usually works. Customers start asking if they can pay in
bitcoins, and business owners are forced to consider it. One fel-
low in Australia told me he thinks of himself as a Bitcoin evan-
gelist, because he never buys from a local shop without first
pestering them about accepting bitcoins. Business owners all
across the world have told me the same. And, not surprisingly,
it’s what led CheapAir.com to become the first-ever business to
allow customers to book flights with bitcoins.
Sometime in 2013, someone asked a customer service rep-
resentative at the Los Angeles company whether the website
would accept cryptocurrency as payment. Clueless as to what
in the world the person was talking about, the travel advisor
passed the question along to bosses. The email eventually
made its way to CEO Jeff Klee, who remembered reading about
Bitcoin some months back. Klee thought the company might
position itself as more forward-thinking and tap into a new
market if they were the first to do it, so he gave the go-ahead.
They started accepting them on November 21, 2013, and within
a week, the company had received $6,800 worth of Bitcoin
orders. That’s nothing when you consider the website sells $160
million in airline tickets a year, but it was still more than Klee
was expecting. And there was something else. This new option
offered a chance for Klee to reduce his exposure to credit card
chargebacks. Most customers don’t think about it, but the same
safety feature that protects you from fraudulent businesses and
lets you cancel credit card charges is a total pain for small busi-
ness owners. When someone steals your credit card and racks
up charges at a place like CheapAir.com, Klee gets stuck with

the bill. On the other hand, Bitcoin transactions are final, so
deals are worry-free for Klee.
“Credit card fraud is a huge problem for us,” Klee said.
“There’s so many people out there using stolen credit cards. The
process we have to go through to screen transactions that could
be fraud requires human labor to research. It’s very expensive
for us to figure out if it is a legitimate sale or not. With Bitcoin,
we don’t have that risk.”
I asked him why anyone would want to buy a flight with
bitcoins. Was it the highly private nature of digital currency?
Klee explained that couldn’t be it, because government travel
regulations require him to still ask for every customer’s iden-
tity. He thinks it’s just the ease of purchase. A few clicks on a
computer—copy your digital wallet address, paste it—and
you’re through. There’s no need to pull out a credit card and
type in 22-plus digits. Judging by the number of customers tak-
ing that option, Klee said the move was a hit.
“I think this is the kind of thing that’ll gain more momentum
over time. As more companies accept Bitcoin, it will snowball.
If you can buy more things with Bitcoin and it gains critical
mass, it’ll grow exponentially,” he said.
Within weeks of my conversation with Klee, Overstock.com
announced it too would start accepting bitcoins. It was a momen-
tous occasion. You could now buy everything from futons to
footwear in bitcoins. It was a major bet for Overstock.com,
a publicly traded company that Wall Street values at $378
million. The idea to accept bitcoins played right into CEO
Patrick Byrne’s Libertarian ideals. He projected the company
might receive $5 million in bitcoins in a year’s time. He was
wrong. It was an underestimate. The company raked in $1 mil-
lion in bitcoins in the first two months. Customers were using
the cryptocurrency to buy bed sheets, cell phone accessories,

appliances, computers, and much more.3 The world started
taking this weird electronic money more seriously.4
Back at that Subway shop in Pennsylvania, Shah no longer
seemed like such an oddball.
It’s not like every shop will take your bitcoins, though. The elec-
tronic money is useless in nearly every store you can think of.
I have yet to walk into any clothing retailer, restaurant, movie
theater, coffee shop, or supermarket that accepts them. Any-
time I mention it, employees behind the cash register just give
me a weird stare.
But true Bitcoin enthusiasts are hackers to the core, life
hacks included. Alex Krusz fits the bill. He’s a web developer in
Somerville, Massachusetts, who figured out a way to use them
anywhere. It all relies on a specific gift card system. Gyft is a
digital gift card that you can manage with your smartphone. It’s
a smart company backed by Google Ventures and several other
groups of rich entrepreneurs. The service lets you upload your
existing physical gift cards to your phone, buy new ones, send
them to friends and use them right on the spot. If it functions
smoothly, you’ll never need plastic again. Here’s the pivotal
detail: Gyft accepts bitcoins as payment. So, when Krusz shops
at Whole Foods, he opens up the Gyft app on his phone, uses
bitcoins to purchase a $100 Whole Foods gift card, and uses the
gift card to buy his groceries.
Sure, it takes an extra step and defeats the whole purpose
of efficient, digital transactions. And it’s worth noting Krusz
doesn’t really buy his high-priced, organic snacks with bitcoins.
It’s technically a gift card loaded with U.S. dollars. But with lit-
tle effort, he does manage to quickly convert bitcoins into food.
That by itself should defeat any questions about whether bit-

coins have actual value. Using this neat trick, you can get by
on just bitcoins with little extra effort. Using the Gyft system
should work at any major retailer, because the company has
deals with more than 200 of them, including CVS, Target, and
Victoria’s Secret.
Then there are those who don’t want to spend their bitcoins
at all. To them, this digital contraption is more commodity than
currency. These are the speculative investors who are drawn in
by the prospect that the value of Bitcoin might be in for another
explosive takeoff. After all, the price of a single bitcoin went
from $12 to $1,131 between late 2012 and 2013. You might as well
have been an early stage investor in Facebook, Instagram, or
WhatsApp. A few months’ savings could have made you a
millionaire.
David Rabahy is a 55-year-old software consultant in North-
ville, Michigan, who is doing what anyone his age should:
planning for retirement. In 2013 he decided to make bitcoins
part of his portfolio, so he spent $10,000 buying them from sev-
eral online exchanges. He also moved $25,000 out of his Roth
IRA with Fidelity and into SecondMarket’s Bitcoin Invest-
ment Trust. The combined funds briefly ballooned in value
and topped out at more than $100,000 during the peak in late
2013—before falling to about half that. But Rabahy doesn’t
mind. He plans to ride the market for a while.
“I feel fantastic,” he said. “I’m not in it for the quick buck.
I’m not selling at $400 or $500 or $600. I believe in this the way
Edison believed in electricity. This is a fundamental technology
for the ages. I’m in it for the long haul.”
To Rabahy, this is about principle. It irked him to see the U.S.
government bail out failed Wall Street institutions and pick
winners and losers. By contrast, no government has considered
offering financial assistance to any of the many collapsed Bit-

coin exchanges, like Mt.Gox. While that makes it more of a
risky investment than, say, AIG or Goldman Sachs, Rabahy said
those firms represent everything he opposes.
“Bitcoin is a true unadulterated open market. I couldn’t
ignore it,” he said. “It’s in line with my personal beliefs. Peo-
ple, individuals, companies all have to be responsible. If you
are responsible and you take care of business, you’ll earn the
success that you get. If you’re irresponsible, you’ll suffer the
consequences.”
He isn’t the only one nearing retirement with a hefty stake
in a highly speculative investment. Halfway across the globe
in Perth, Australia, is 60-year-old Mike Wallace. He’s a former
IT guy who worked at his country’s largest telecom and had
accrued nearly $1 million worth of real estate and stocks. But
he was open to something a little more risky. That’s when a TV
piece about Bitcoin popped up on the news.
“It was love at first sight for me,” he recalled. “I’d never even
heard of it. I’d kept away from electronic currencies in the past,
because they all didn’t look like they had legs to me. But when
I heard the word ‘Bitcoin,’ it just struck a chord with me. I went
straight to Google and that night transferred money straight to
Mt.Gox.”
He sunk $15,000 into 150 bitcoins. He’s seen that investment
rise from $15,000 to $150,000, then fall back down to $67,210.
He doesn’t mind the erratic pricing, because that’s exactly what
this portion of his savings is for.
“It’s part of the extreme speculative part of my portfolio,” he
said. “You’ve got to have some real estate, stocks, cash, and bal-
ance that among asset classes. This provides me a new asset
class that is not correlated with any of the other asset classes.
If the dollar goes up, gold does down. Oil goes up, dollar
goes down. But with Bitcoin, there’s no particular correlation

so far.”
It struck me as odd that he’d spend so much on a whim, so I
asked Wallace what his wife and two daughters think about it.
“They’re not really particularly interested,” he said. “To
them, it’s just one of Dad’s crazy things.”
The most recent entrants into the Bitcoin world are profes-
sional money, wealthy Silicon Valley types who sit on tons of
cash and like to think they can recognize a great idea when they
see one. Because if you invest $1 million into the right company
today, that might lead to cashing out $1 billion when the com-
pany goes public or gets bought out by a giant competitor. They
take all kinds of approaches: investing in Bitcoin-related com-
panies, starting bitcoin-collecting investment funds, and buy-
ing up bunches of bitcoins themselves.
Marc Andreessen’s strategy is to get behind companies that
deal with bitcoins, but he has said he doesn’t own too many
bitcoins himself.5 Keep in mind that this is the entrepreneur
who helped start Netscape, maker of one of the world’s first
Web browsers. In 2011 he was named CNET’s most influen-
tial investor, having placed huge bets on companies like Twit-
ter and Skype when they were still startups. He’s a powerful
investor with superstar status, so people were listening in early
2014, when he compared the value of Bitcoin’s technological
innovation to personal computers in 1975 and the Internet in
1993. By then, his venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz,
had invested nearly $50 million in Bitcoin-related startups
and announced it was still searching for investing opportuni-
ties. One of those was Ripple, a small group of computer pro-
grammers that, inspired by Bitcoin’s approach to processing
payments, developed their own Internet protocol for making

financial transactions.
Semi-celebrity investors Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are
taking a more Wall Street approach. The twin brothers, who are
best known for their legal battle over the creation of Facebook,
have created a Bitcoin-related investment fund. According to
documents filed with the Security and Exchange Commission,
they’re in the process of launching a Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust,
which will buy up bitcoins and allow investors to buy shares in
the trust.6 It’s essentially a way for everyday investors to bet on
the price of bitcoins without ever having to own a bitcoin. But
someone else has beaten them to the punch.
That someone would be Barry Silbert, an entrepreneur who
specializes in creating ways for investors to trade things that
most people don’t typically think can be bought or sold, such
as bankruptcy claims and private company stock. His company,
SecondMarket, moved into bitcoins early on and bought nearly
19,000 of them. It started a fund and drew in another 140 Bit-
coin investors into the pool. The result is something called the
Bitcoin Investment Trust, which is made up of about 100,000
bitcoins. That fund is slated to make its public debut in late
2014, when everyday investors with a brokerage account, like
TD Ameritrade, can move money into it by buying up shares
worth about 0.1 BTC each from its current investors. Sitting
down with me over coffee in New York, Silbert compared his
creation to the SPDR Gold Shares exchange-traded fund.
“The SPDR Gold ETF made investing in gold possible,” Sil-
bert told me. “The Bitcoin Investment Trust will look and feel
just like that.”
Silbert told me he moved $50,000 of his own savings into
the fund—and that’s apart from the $200,000 he has sunk into
buying bitcoins on his own. His company also has plans to
launch a digital currency exchange that will trade in all sorts

of alternative virtual money, so if the price of a bitcoin rises, he
wins. If it falls and some other virtual currency rises, he still
wins. I asked him what happens if this all collapses.
“If the price if Bitcoin goes away, to zero, and nothing else
emerges to take its place, this will be a big loss. This will be
a big hole,” he said. “But look, I’m an entrepreneur. You take
risks, and I think it’s a smart, calculated risk.”
So far, we’ve covered people who mine bitcoins, accept them as

payment, shop with them, and invest them. But what about the
actual process of buying a bitcoin? It’s not very easy—or fast
either. Bitcoins aren’t a manufactured product you can just buy
off the shelf. They’re actively traded on something that very
closely resembles a stock market, so you have to buy them from
someone else. There are three ways to do this.
Buy it from someone you know in person: This is the easi-
est way to do it, because you can pay in cash and seal the deal
immediately. However, the Bitcoin community is still so small,
there’s a slim chance you’ll find someone who owns any—
and is willing to sell some. I wouldn’t advise meeting random
strangers you locate online. It’s dangerous and just plain stupid.
The safest approach might be to announce it on a social media
platform like Facebook or Twitter and meet with an acquain-
tance or friend. The key is to exercise caution. Deals made this
way are in cash, and if you’re planning to buy an entire bitcoin
or two, that could mean stuffing hundreds of dollars into your
pocket.
Buy it from an online exchange: There are several to choose
from, and they’re all over the world. Two large American
exchanges with decent reputations are Kraken.com, located in
San Francisco, and CampBX.com, located just north of Atlanta.

There are many others based outside of the United States, such
as the large Slovenian operation Bitstamp.net. But be patient—
and on your guard. You’ll be sending money to an entity you’ll
never meet in person.
For starters, this isn’t the way to go if you want to acquire
a bitcoin in a day or two. These websites have a lengthy regis-
tration process that’s a bit like opening a bank account. Keep
in mind, that’s essentially what it is. You’re opening a trading
account, so these companies are doing their due diligence to
abide by government know-your-customer rules and anti–
money laundering laws.
For example, Kraken first requires you to get verified, which
means submitting a government-issued ID, address, proof of
residence (like a utility bill), Social Security number, phone
number, and date of birth. Bitstamp demands an identical pro-
cedure before you can start trading on the site. CampBX lets
you trade up to $1,000 a day with minimal personal informa-
tion, but it requires more if you plan to withdraw more than
that in a single day.
As for loading up funds into your account, that’s an exten-
sive process too. To get money into Bitstamp, most people will
have to wire money through an international bank transfer,
which takes two to five business days. CampBX asks for mailed
money orders, which can take up to two weeks.
Then there’s the fact that lots of exchanges are sketchy
fly-by-night operations that reveal little information about
themselves, such as where they’re located or who runs them.
Imagine if you were dealing with a bank and had no idea who
owned it or where it was headquartered. It’s that shady. One
example is BTC-e.com, which despite its aloofness, remains
one of the world’s top destinations for trading bitcoins online.
Search results on Google say the exchange is based in Bulgaria,

but the website itself states it is governed by laws in Cyprus.
Site owners have declined to identify themselves in the past
and dodge questions about how and where they operate. Even
trusted operations that have been open for years and traded
millions of dollars in bitcoins, such as Tokyo’s Mt.Gox (mtgox.
com), have fizzled out in the past. But this is the most popular
way to get into the Bitcoin game. Once you’re in, trading is rela-
tively easy. Just don’t expect to start quickly.
Once you’re set up, acquiring bitcoins on an exchange is
similar to buying commodities like gold or silver on a trading
floor. Sellers place sell orders, known as “asks,” at the price at
which they’re willing to let go of a bitcoin. Buyers place buy
orders, known as “bids,” at the price they’re willing to pay. The
exchange matches a seller with a buyer so they can conduct the
deal.
But keep one thing in mind. Nakamoto specifically designed
Bitcoin as a trustless system meant to get rid of third parties—
and that’s exactly what online exchanges are. Once you send
them your money, there’s no true guarantee you’ll ever get
it back. The tale of Mt.Gox, which is told later in this book,
explains this at length.
Buy it from a Bitcoin ATM: For most of the world, this isn’t an
option yet, but several entrepreneurs are working on it. Given
that bitcoins are virtual, not physical, these won’t spit out metal
coins. They’re actually just computers that take your money
and send your bitcoins to a digital wallet.
A few are already popping up around the world, but it will
be a while before they catch on in the United States. Manu-
facturers are trying to secure legal permission to set them up,
and nearly every state requires special money services business
licenses, so it’s an uphill climb. That’s why San Diego–based
Genesis Coin is setting up machines outside the U.S., north

and south of the borders. The company president, Evan Rose,
struck deals to place Bitcoin ATMs in Tijuana, Mexico, as well
as Quebec City and Whistler in Canada. Another company
is Lamassu, which is based in the British Virgin Islands and
manufactures out of Portugal. It already has dozens of working
machines in Australia, Finland, and Slovakia, but CEO Zach
Harvey told me he’s trying hard to expand in the United States.
He’s attempting to fill a giant void.
“If you wanted to get a bitcoin today—in one day—without
meeting a stranger, there is no solution,” Harvey told me.
Except I’m in New York, where there’s a fascinating group
that meets every Monday to do just that.
The violent jerks of the cab ride had my stomach turned

into a knot. I did my best to pay attention to Charlie Payne,
my CNNMoney pal sitting in the back seat with me, but the
momentum from the sudden pushes and tugs made it damn
near impossible. I tried to peer around the driver’s seat to reca-
librate and catch a glimpse of the road ahead as we made our
way south into New York’s Financial District. Now would be a
terrible time to puke, I muttered under my breath. We were just
a few minutes away from actually seeing some Bitcoin action
in person.
That’s the thing about a network and a currency that’s
driven entirely by intricate computer calculations. It’s all about
empowering individuals, but there’s rarely a human around.
This Monday evening was to be my initial trip to New York
City’s Bitcoin Center. The one-of-a-kind place where Bitcoin
enthusiasts could buy and sell their tokens on something that
was supposed to resemble a trading floor was appropriately
located at the southern tip of Manhattan, next to all the banks

and financial institutions this tiny little currency was meant
to overturn. We stopped at Wall Street, popped the trunk, and
lifted the camera gear.
It was 6:30, just over two hours past the stock market closing
time, so the sea of suits that would normally flood these shaded
cobblestone streets had cleared out. Now it was just a few tour-
ists here and there. I noted how empty it looked.
We took a right on Broad Street. I couldn’t help but stare in
awe at the massive, gray columns and elaborate façade of the
New York Stock Exchange—home to 2,800 listed companies
valued at $18 trillion. And as the listing place for AIG, Bank of
America, and Goldman Sachs stock, ground zero for the recent
financial crisis. Our destination was just past the towering NYSE
structure—across the street and one building over—marked by
a tiny, friendly Bitcoin banner flapping in the chilly wind.
Charlie and I pulled on the glass door and walked into the
tiny, dressed-down lobby. With the gray cement floor and high
ceiling, it looked half-warehouse, half-nightclub. We were
greeted by a small staff of smiling volunteers, and one handed
me a paper badge I hung around my neck. “HAK Hackathon
9034,” it read. I introduced myself, and in no time a small, ener-
getic man rounded the corner and stuck out his hand. The cen-
ter’s spokesman, no doubt.
“Hi! I’m James Barcia. You won’t be needing that,” he said,
pulling the badge over my head. I pulled it back down.
“Actually, I’d like to buy a bitcoin today,” I said. He gave me a
surprised look. If I was serious about that, I could do that once I
stepped inside, he explained. It seemed he’d seen few reporters
willing to experiment firsthand.
I asked if I could start recording the conversation, and he
agreed. I placed my iPhone beneath my notepad to not hold
it awkwardly between us. I hoped the murmur of the crowd

inside wouldn’t drown out his voice.
Right off the bat, Barcia started listing an odd series of dis-
claimers. “It is not a trading floor, it’s not a brokerage, it’s not a
clearinghouse. What we are at this stage is an information cen-
ter, built around Bitcoin advocacy. We try to grow the audience
for Bitcoin through Bitcoin 101 classes, which are free and open
to the public. We take walk-ins. We’re open 10:00 am to 10:00 pm,
seven days a week.”
“There’s really no sales going on here unless it’s an individ-
ual person-to-person sale,” he said.
From somewhere inside, I heard a man yell at the top of his
lungs, “Five-ninety bid, at six hundred!”
Barcia smiled. “When I said we’re not a trading floor, it
means we’re not an intermediary. We don’t take a commis-
sion of any kind. Everything’s free down to the open bar that
we have. Because what we want is people to see the technol-
ogy in use, so for that, we provide a little theater, a little bit of
hospitality.”
Without a meeting place like this, Barcia explained, Bitcoin
enthusiasts all over the city would scramble to meet at a Star-
bucks here, a Whole Foods there. All the center does is round
them up, and more than 100 show up every Monday night. For
newcomers to better understand the buying and selling pro-
cess, the center recreates the scene of a classic stock exchange
floor, like the big NYSE guys next door. But by “recreate,” I
mean actually do it. There are clerks—“mock clerks,” Barcia
stressed—taking orders from traders. And the yeller? That’s the
center’s auctioneer—that is, “mock auctioneer.” If they didn’t
have it this way, it would just be a quiet room with people whis-
pering and snapping pictures of each other’s smartphones to
swap QR codes and initiate transfers.
I raised an eyebrow. “So it’s not a trading floor, but there is

trading going on—on that floor.”
“Yes. It’s other people trading in our space,” Barcia
responded.
Another yell from the back: “Five-ninety bid, at six hundred
ask!”
Barcia continued: “It would not be easy to understand
how to transact using this technology if you didn’t hear or see
something.”
That seemed fair. I asked him to guide me through the right
manners of approaching someone to buy a bitcoin.
“But again, it’s very hands off,” he reminded me as we
walked. “To facilitate in any substantive way is probably going
to be not in line with the regulations. Given that there’s no reg-
ulations, we’re being extra safe.”
Barcia led us into the sparsely crowded, dimly lit room.
The nightclub-like glow came from the high ceiling’s neon
blue beams, which fanned out like large tines on a leaf rake. A
semicircle of fold-out tables had been positioned to corral two
dozen young men and women in the center of the room. On
one wall, a white projector screen tallied the deals of the night.
I couldn’t make out all the numbers, but it looked like bitcoins
were going for $600 a pop.
At the edge of the pit, a bearded man in a suit and orange
bowtie stood on a soap box, glancing at the paper in his left
hand and yelling the auction prices. He was the trading floor
squawker, as they say in finance.
“Fiiiive-ninety! We’ve got fiiiive-ninety! Five-ninety bid, at
six hundred ask!” he shouted with a grin. He seemed like he
was having fun.
Meanwhile, several young men with orange shirts draped
over their dress wear wormed their way through the crowd,
jotting down notes and scurrying back and forth between buy-
ers and sellers. We passed them. An imposing man in a bright
bowtie waited for us in the back, introducing himself as Nick
Spanos, one of the center’s founders. Charlie and I walked him
up a flight of stairs, allowing us to look down at the crowd below.
“A year or two from now we’ll be trading pork bellies for
bitcoins hopefully,” he said. “We want to be the first regulated
exchange in the spirit of the New York Stock Exchange. Every-
thing they do next door, we want to do over here.”
I found it odd to compare the NYSE, which easily trades $30
billion a day, to a half-empty room of Libertarians and com-
puter programmers. “But the New York Stock Exchange is trad-
ing with known companies that have commodities and assets
that we’re familiar with, trading in dollars, a currency that’s
been proven over the last few hundred years,” I responded.
Yes, but the block chain’s innovative design will win people
over when they recognize its revolutionary potential outside of
finance, he told me.
“The guy who invented the wheel loved it because it rolled,”
Spanos said. “He didn’t know it was going to be sending jumbo
jets into the sky. He didn’t know that…everything was going to
be invented around his wheel: clocks, machinery, and stuff like
that. That’s where we’re at with the use of Bitcoin so far. Bitcoin
will change the world. People are looking at it and trying to fit it
in a box in their brain; they’re trying to associate it with some-
thing they already know. It’s never existed before.”
Spanos pointed into the crowd. “There’s Goldman Sachs
guys in there. They won’t tell you. But there’s Goldman Sachs
guys looking to buy a thousand bitcoins…a lot of them said
they’re going to be working for us soon.”
We wrapped up our interview, and I walked downstairs to
hunt for someone willing to sell me a bitcoin. I approached the
bartender behind a foldout table and asked her for advice. She
introduced herself as Mira from Russia and offered to help.
“You have an Android?”
I pulled out my iPhone. She smirked. This is going to be a
little complicated then, she sighed.
I thought I had already done my homework. I had just
created a Bitcoin wallet earlier in the day at the office. It was
an easy process, no longer than 10 minutes. I just logged on to
Bitcoin.org, downloaded the third-party program MultiBit, and
figured this would be a cinch, I told her.
Except that I did it on my laptop, she corrected me. And
without my laptop, I couldn’t access that wallet. I’d have to
open a new digital wallet on my smartphone. The problem
is, at the time, Apple had flexed its muscle and purged every
Bitcoin wallet from its App Store. I’d have to run this all through
the Internet browser.
Mira directed me to Coinbase.com, and I started a new
account in under a minute. But I couldn’t maneuver the site.
She suggested Blockchain.info instead, and that worked fine.
The site gave me a wallet address and showed a zero balance.
She cheered, and I raised my glass in celebration.
“Do I really have to give someone this address?” I asked,
pointing to a long string that made my eyes glaze over: 162GDziX-
pMVd9afauFX3xLFWwNWgiYDHxf. It sure seemed inefficient.
Mira laughed, took my phone, and scrolled down, pointing
me to the QR code, a block of black pixels that doubled as my
address. Just have them take a picture of this, she said.
I approached a clerk—sorry, mock clerk—and asked what
the going rate was. He told me the folks in the room were sell-
ing at $600, and buyers were currently paying $590. I pulled
out my phone and checked Preev.com, a site that averages the
rate at three large online exchanges.
“It’s going for $580 online,” I said before realizing what was
going on. “Ah, but I guess there’s a premium for buying it now
in cash?”
He nodded. “You’d have to wait a few days to set up a bank
account on an exchange. Here, you get it right away.”
So then, $590. The price hadn’t budged all night, the clerk
told me. But with Charlie lugging around heavy camera equip-
ment, I didn’t want to keep him waiting. I told him I’d be willing
to do $595.
“That’ll put you at the front of the line,” he said, and darted
off. A few minutes later, the auctioneer started yelling my bid.
It didn’t seem to get anyone’s attention. Then a cheery fellow
wearing a straw trilby hat—and what looked like a blue lab
coat—walked over. He was clearly experienced—a fast talker
who breezed through the details and never batted an eye. He
saw the lost look on my face and slowed down, kindly walking
me through the deal.
We’d negotiate, I’d give him my address, and hand him the
cash. “We’re gentlemen here, so I’ll send you the bitcoin first,”
he said.
His name was Mark Anthony, and he’d been doing this for
years as a trader at the New York Cotton Exchange, then later
on the floor of the American Stock Exchange. With his pen,
he lifted the paper hanging from his pocket and revealed the
embroidered logo on his blue coat.
“I was one of those, like a lot of people, I kind of discounted
the idea of Bitcoin. I’m an investment guy now,” he said.
So we negotiated. He said $600, I bumped to $596, and we
met at $597. We whipped out our smartphones, and he snapped
a picture of the QR code on my screen. A minute later, I refreshed
the webpage and saw a 1 BTC balance. I reached into my cor-
duroy suit pocket, but he motioned for me to wait, and with
a finger, flicked back the narrow-brim of his hat. The transfer

hadn’t been verified yet, he explained. It wasn’t yet official until
the computers hooked up to the Bitcoin network could chime
in, which would take just a few minutes. Sure enough, in four
minutes, a tiny number “1” popped up on his screen, next to our
listed transaction. We were charged a 6¢ transaction fee by the
computer network of miners, and now it was official.
I handed him a wad of $20 bills, and Anthony called me an
amateur for not paying in higher denominations. We shook
hands.
“Good transaction,” he said. “And now you can see how fast
it was. It was frictionless, and the cost of the transaction was a
whopping six cents.”
The CNNMoney newsroom was now the proud owner of a
Bitcoin. What a rush. Cutting that deal was a blast, and I got
the sense that I had taken part in something special, brushed
against something truly innovative. But as I exited the build-
ing and walked onto Broad Street, now dark beneath a cloudy
night sky, the excitement wore off. My enthusiasm got replaced
by a pit in my stomach. Did I just spend $597 on a sham?
CHAPTER 5
But Is It Money?
it ’s easy to call Bitcoin “funny money.” Judging by today’s

standards, it’s nothing short of ridiculous. You can’t stuff them
into your wallet, because they don’t physically exist. No one has
ever seen a bitcoin. The metal coins pictured in news stories
are little more than novelty items. The real thing is nothing but
ones and zeros. The closest you’ll get to seeing a bitcoin is star-
ing at a few numerical digits on a computer screen. To top it all
off, they’re never technically in your possession. All you get is
a digital wallet that lays a claim to something that exists on the
block chain.
It’s evanescent, intangible—a digital ghost.
But it satisfies the three-prong definition of money.1 People
are willing to pay in government-issued cash to get one, so it’s
clearly a store of value (albeit a shaky one). Thousands of mer-
chants and websites accept them as payment and price their
goods in bitcoins, so it’s a unit of account. And in those circles,
whenever they’re used, it’s a medium of exchange.
Most people still get a knot in their stomach about the whole
idea, though. The virtual world might cut it for storing our
songs and movies, but our hard-earned cash? No way. The idea
of independent, electronic moola just doesn’t square with the
But Is It Money? 81
modern concept of the stuff: government-backed, printed bills.

Who can blame them? That’s the only form of it we know from
personal experience. Everyone in the modern world uses paper
currency. That’s why it’s easy to take the concept of money for
granted. It’s always with us and constantly in the same form.
But as with most things, it’s a matter of perspective. A Chinese
proverb is instructive here: “The fish is the last to know water.”
Who in 2014 doubts the purchasing power of a U.S. dollar?
It’s backed by nothing but the faith that the U.S. government
will make good on its debt. Yet Venezuelans under their coun-
try’s oppressive socialist regime are still clamoring for those
green U.S. Federal Reserve notes.2 Once upon a time, though,
gold and silver reigned supreme, and paper bills were seen as a
ludicrous plaything.
If we take a step back and examine our history with money,
a curious pattern emerges. Money is always changing form,
evolving right alongside us. It’s just like government and art,
a reflection of who we are at the time. When we were sim-
ple and barbaric, so was money. As we developed complex
business practices, money got complicated too. Books and
movies rarely give it a second thought and merely treat it as
background material, showing money as if it had always been
paper bills and coins. But it has a bizarre history. There have
been times when finance was conducted with sticks—even in
Britain as late as the American Revolutionary War. A great
place to start is a century ago on the Pacific island of Yap, where
a few natives in grass skirts taught European economists a thing
or two about money.
The year was 1903, and the young American anthropologist
William Henry Furness III traveled to Yap, a lonely speck in the
middle of the Pacific some 800 miles north of New Guinea.3 Ger-
many had a small outpost there, which allowed him to mingle
with the secluded tribe. To his surprise, this tiny society of a few
thousand islanders had developed a full-blown, complex finan-
cial system. In the absence of precious metal, the natives relied
on a strange form of coinage: massive, stone wheels. These fei, as
they were called, looked like flat, rocky donuts. Value was judged
by the quality and size of the stone, which sometimes ranged up
to 12 feet in diameter. The downside was obvious. These weren’t
exactly the kind of thing you could carry around for casual trad-
ing up and down the rolling green hills of Yap’s dense forest. On
the other hand, stealing your neighbor’s fei was, in some cases,
downright impossible. Immovable currency gave birth to an
unprecedented form of exchange. If a deal involved so much
money that it required moving an extremely heavy fei, both
sides would just agree that a transfer of ownership took place.
The islanders were past the crude notion of expecting someone
to physically possess a stone to signify wealth. The community
generally acknowledged who owned what. In fact, one village
recognized a certain family’s massive wealth, even though no
one had actually seen their fei. There was no use in punishing
the family for its misfortune: Their giant stone was lost at sea
during a storm as it made its way there from another island. The
lesson from Yap for economists at the turn of the 20th century
was something of a reminder: Money can be anything, as long
as people have faith that it works.
Former World Bank official Felix Martin uses the example
of Yap to illustrate a pivotal point in his book, Money: The Unau-
thorized Biography. Don’t mistake currency for money. Those
giant rocks were the Yap islanders’ form of currency. Their
money consisted of something deeper and harder to see.
“Yap’s money was not the fei, but the underlying system
of credit accounts and clearing of which they helped to keep
track,” he wrote.
But Is It Money? 83
An eight-foot-high Yap fei in the village of Gachpar
The method for keeping track of ownership—and who

owes what—that’s the key part of money we often overlook.
Sometimes that’s invisible, and it often takes a form that’s dif-
ferent than what we’re used to today.
For instance, take the first-known record of an accounting
system. In the ancient Mesopotamian city of Uruk around
3100 bce, the Sumerians began carving symbols into tablets to
represent ownership, such as receipt of grain.4 Fast forward to
about 1650 bce and travel a few hundred miles up the Euphra-
tes River to the Babylonian town of Sippar. A clay tablet found
there was inscribed with this promise: At harvest time, some-
one named Amil-mirra would pay 330 measures of barley to
whomever held that tablet.5 Receipts were issued whenever
someone deposited grain at a temple or palace. Harvard Uni-
versity professor Niall Ferguson has noted the fact that they
would “pay the bearer” instead of a specific named person
shows that debts were transferable—evidence of a lending sys-

tem that was complex and robust. There was no Babylonian
Federal Credit Union, but at least there was a mechanism you
could trade with and pass along wealth.
Move forward another millennium, sometime around the
fifth or sixth century bce. We’re in Lydia, an Iron Age kingdom
in what would later be western Turkey. This is what archeol-
ogists say is the most likely birthplace of the metal coin.6 The
concept was so new and effective, coinage soon caught on in
nearby Persia and Greece. It was a major achievement. Lugging
around bearer bond tablets became a thing of the past. This
new, metal-based system of account could be used to close any
kind of deal, because it easily transferred value and was light
enough to not be a chore. Of all the materials in the world, why
metal? The answer is rooted in the need for a monetary unit
of account to be something you can measure. Metal can easily
be melted down and forged into lumps of a certain size and
weight. Plus, once they’ve been etched, it’s not easy to create
fake copies. It also didn’t hurt that precious metals were rare
and had an alluring, brilliant shine.
When the Ancient Greeks adopted metallic coinage, they
were still left with a question of how to measure it. They used
stadia for distance and drachmae for weight. So the Greeks set-
tled on calling coins “drachmas.” Cities minted the coins. The
silver and gold coins usually showed the head of a city-state’s
patron god on one side and a city symbol or name on the other.
Athens, for instance, showed Athena and an owl. The whole
concept, however, was so new that people at the time still expe-
rienced this social technology with fresh eyes. Because of that,
their writings provide valuable perspective. From Aristotle’s
point of view, human beings created money merely to facilitate
trade.7 It was a human phenomenon whose only purpose was
But Is It Money? 85
as a means of exchange. That didn’t impart any inherent value

in the coins themselves.
“Money seems to be a nonsense and altogether a thing of
law and by nature nothing, because if its users change the cur-
rency, the original one is not worth anything,” Aristotle said in
his treatise, Politics.
Tetradrachm (4 drachma) coin used in Athens from around 410 bce
At around this time, Ancient China also used paper bank

notes that served as receipts of value stored elsewhere, much
like the Mesopotamian tablets of old.8 But more remarkable
was the Jixia Academy scholars’ sophisticated take on money.
They saw currency—for them gold, pearls, jade—as a ruler’s
tool. It was an emperor’s privilege, a way to monopolize control.
Independent currencies were nothing short of rebellion.
Back west, though, they were still grappling with the notion
that money was a manmade device. Even the Greek word for
money, nomisma, meant “something assigned by usage or cus-
tom.”9 They recognized it wasn’t natural. No god descended
from the heavens and gave it value. It was a constructed social
technology. And while it might not be worthless, it was in some
sense, meaningless without context. Money wasn’t metal. Metal
represented something else.
This wisdom was lost over time. The fall of the Roman
Empire provides a notable example. The Romans adopted
coinage and it worked for them for centuries. Remember, it
was a Roman denarius with Caesar’s face that the Pharisees in
the Bible showed Jesus when they asked him about taxes.10 But
metal took on a value of its own. As the ever-warring Romans
were saddled with military costs, emperors thought they could
get away with paying soldiers by minting more coins and sim-
ply reducing the silver content in each denarius.11 It was a
dumb move. By then, people valued the metal content itself, so
silver denarii were worth less and inflation kicked in. In 301 ce,
a pound of gold got you 50,000 silver denarii. Just 38 years later,
a pound of gold fetched 20 million denarii. The futile attempt
by government to pay debts by debasing a currency isn’t new.
Those Roman coins ended up circulating for centuries. The
system of metal coinage stuck around too, and kingdoms that
sprouted up all over Medieval Europe eventually started issu-
ing their own. Similar to the Chinese take on currency, minting
was a royal privilege. The actual metal in the coins became so
important, though, that the region’s shortage of silver became
a monumental problem. Kings saw the hunt for it as essential
to maintaining wealth and control, and the quest for it was
deemed a noble cause. The Crusades starting in 1096 ce were
partly an attempt to plunder the Muslim territories of their
precious metal, as were Spain and Portugal’s murderous con-
quistador trips to the Americas in the 1400s and beyond.12 Yet
monarchies too made the mistake of attaching a static value to
metal. Spain caused its own inflationary spiral by importing
massive loads of silver from a 45,000-ton mountain of it in Peru.
There was also the nasty fact that royalty retained control of the
mint, allowing them to get away with looting their own subjects
by debasing currency. This practice, called “seigniorage” (from
But Is It Money? 87
the French term for feudal lord, seigneur), didn’t sit well with
the noble classes who became poorer at the king’s expense.
It especially didn’t work when kings would borrow massive
amounts of money to fund wars, only to default. And who
would question them? They could simply kill a detractor in the
public square. But borrowing was not just for kings. As mer-
chants became increasingly important to society, the modern
practice of banking also arose to process complex, high-value
transactions.13 IOUs were issued that could be traded or inher-
ited. Private paper money had appeared.
A turning point came in England, when an outsider from
the Netherlands took the throne in 1689. The recently deceased
King Charles II had just defaulted on his debts, and the new
king, William of Orange, was at risk of repeating that financial
mistake. That’s when a Scottish trader suggested a brand new
public-private venture: the Bank of England.14 It would prom-
ise to fund the king as long as the bank could retain control of
issuing money in the form of bank notes. The modern financial
system was starting to take shape. It wasn’t exactly progressive,
however. British subjects at the time were still using a crude
form of currency called tally sticks: notches of wood that would
detail tax payments and could be split down the middle so that
each side had a receipt.15 But once this Paleolithic practice was
done away with in 1834, what remained were precious metal
coins and bank notes backed by gold and silver.
The system worked well enough that it caught on around
the world. But over time, a bimetallic standard of gold and
silver didn’t cut it, because it caused awkward monetary prob-
lems. If a nation’s silver coins were undervalued, they would
be siphoned off to a place that valued them more highly, and
the first country would suddenly have a silver coin shortage.
Nations dropped the idea and adopted the gold standard by
1880, meaning that units of currency were fixed to a certain

weight of gold.16 It all depended on the country’s stockpile of
the stuff. Under this new system, prices remained stable and
international trade exploded. And because paper bills could
be cashed in for a specific amount of gold, governments were
barred from haplessly printing money. Any devaluing of the
currency would have immediate consequences. Now paper had
unquestionable value, because gold had value. Aristotle’s mis-
givings about inherent value in metal were long gone.
But governments found the gold standard unwieldy
because it was so limiting. The restrictions placed on central
banks meant that their hands were tied. If a country entered a
recession and unemployment spiked, politicians were limited
in how they could manipulate the value of currency to address
national economic policy. And if someone were to find a mas-
sive gold reserve and flood the market, everyone’s currency
would be worth less. The world’s brief flirtation with the gold
standard ended in 1913 just before the outbreak of World War I
as international cooperation fizzled out.17 That was also the
year the United States established its own central bank to man-
age monetary policy, the Federal Reserve. The repercussions
were felt in no time. By the final stretch of the war in 1917, the
UK inflation rate topped out at 25 percent.18 It was the same in
the United States, where inflation peaked at 18 percent in 1918.19
But no country serves as a better example of monetary policy
gone wrong than Germany.20 The country had issued domestic
war bonds it couldn’t repay, and in 1923, it was overburdened
by war reparation demands from the vengeful Entente Powers
who had claimed victory. Everyone wanted German marks,
so Germany gave them what they wanted—by printing more
marks. The solution was shortsighted. Hyperinflation set in,
and the country was soon printing trillion-mark bills.
But Is It Money? 89
The idea of gold-backed currency didn’t die out all at once,

though.21 The unified system was gone, but some governments
still allowed for people to cash in paper currency for gold. That
was done away with during World War II, when major powers
convened in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to come up with
a new system: pegging every country’s currency to the U.S. dol-
lar.22 It was Gold Standard Lite. As long as the U.S. kept gold
reserves, other countries didn’t need to. But the U.S. dollar grew
so prominent that by 1971, it was clear the world had an insatia-
ble appetite for it. President Richard Nixon ended the ability to
convert dollars for gold, and the chain to gold was broken. At
that moment, money everywhere became entirely fiat. It was
money defined by government decree, backed by faith in gov-
ernment instead of metal. Its worth came from something of a
self-fulfilling effect. The government mandate to use it caused
people to say a currency had value, which gave it value. Now
governments were totally free to maneuver their economies
around—at the expense of the public at large, which has seen
inflation slowly eat away at their currency’s purchasing power.
An issue of the New York Times cost 15¢ in 1970.23 That went up
to $1 in 2004 and $2.50 a decade later.
Now consider the world of today. The U.S. dollar remains the
reserve currency of the world, and it’s backed by nothing but the
faith that the U.S. government will make good on its debt.24 It’s
clear that expectation remains strong, because there’s a healthy
market for U.S. Treasury bills even as the national debt climbed
past $17 trillion (more than the country’s GDP in 2013).25 Then
what can we make of those who say the U.S. dollar is actually
worthless paper because it’s not backed by gold? These are the
same folks who argue for a return to the gold standard citing an
inherent value in gold, because it’s always been money. But his-
tory shows that isn’t true. Currency has been paper, gold, silver,
sticks, stones, and tablets. But money has always been the sys-
tem of accounts that lies beneath all of that.
Think back to the philosopher Aristotle and his realization
that money is a means of exchange—there’s no inherent value
in whatever tool is being used to conduct that trade. But there
is a requirement that supersedes all others: faith that it works,
that someone else will accept it as payment too. That’s why any-
one in feudal England would gladly take a stick with just the
right notches, and scribbles on a clay tablet would be enough
to convince someone to brave bandits and lions in the Mesopo-
tamian desert. It’s why the Knights of Malta, facing a gold and
silver shortage during a war in 1565, stamped Non Aes, sed Fides
on their copper coins: “Not the metal, but trust.”26 It’s a techno-
logical innovation, a means to an end.
The question now facing the world, which has moved into
the age of computers and virtual networks, is whether we are
willing to take money along with us into that realm. By pre-
senting an entirely automated and digital form of currency,
Bitcoin is the first revolutionary advancement in that direction.
It has features that could be the next stage in the evolution of
money. It might even be the first iteration of that next money.
The stakes are high. There’s no telling how exactly it’s going to
work, and the process of trial and error will mean some peo-
ple’s savings will be wiped out. Some might see this challenge
as contrived and forced. Doesn’t money work for us already?
Isn’t the current system of banking good enough? Prepare to be
disappointed.
CHAPTER 6
The Case for Bitcoin
Banking the Unbanked

Ding. The elevator doors slid open, and all of us inside the
crowded box stood still. We had nowhere to go. A mother and
her children were standing right in front of us, blocking the
exit. One by one, we shuffled around her. I heard some exasper-
ated sighs, complaints about this being a routine annoyance. It
wasn’t until I stepped outside that I realized why we were stuck.
The line of families waiting to see clerks at the government
welfare office snaked around the room several times, reach-
ing all the way to the elevator on the far end. Babies wailed. A
pregnant woman who had probably been standing for over an
hour was shifting her weight uncomfortably from one foot to
the other. A young man with tattoos running down his arms
gave me a cold stare. We were at the Joseph Caleb Service Cen-
ter in Miami’s neighborhood of Brownsville, where 41 percent
live below the poverty level.1 This was the local office for the
Florida Department of Children and Families’ ACCESS pro-
gram, which provides food, money, and medical services to
those in need. This was during the worst of the recession, when
nearly one in 10 Floridians were on food stamps. At the time,
I was writing for the Miami Herald, and I went there to see for
myself how families were experiencing these troubled times.
Statewide budget cuts had denied the Department of Children
and Families’ request to add another 150 people to help process
social welfare applications. Their team of 4,500 could barely
keep up with the recent flood of requests. As a result, the line
inside this damp, muggy room moved at a snail’s pace. I still
remember that day vividly, because it showed me how slow and
painful the process is of getting help to those who need it most.
Some of the folks were there for the food stamps. Others
were there for the cash welfare that the federal government
doles out to poor families with children. But the food stamps
aren’t stamps. And the cash welfare isn’t cash. In both cases, the
financial help comes in a plastic payment card that looks like
your typical credit or debit card. It’s called an Electronic Bene-
fits Transfer card, EBT for short. It’s the system adopted across
the United States. For the most part, it’s a great idea.
Every month or so, the government loads it up with funds,
and the less fortunate of us travel to a nearby grocery store
to buy what we can: breads, cereals, fruits, vegetables, meats,
dairy, and seeds. Naturally, the help comes with strings
attached. You can’t buy tobacco, pet food, or alcohol. As for the
financial help, that comes from the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program (TANF). It isn’t much—a poor family
of four in Florida gets $364 a month, max—but it’s sure better
than nothing.2
However, a closer look at that TANF money actually reveals
a great deal of waste. And it’s not because that money gets
blown on vices, like booze and casinos. It’s actually because
much of that money gets siphoned off by banks.
It’s an issue that’s plaguing the poor nationwide. It hap-
pens every time welfare recipients withdraw cash from their
The Case for Bitcoin 93
EBT accounts at ATMs. They get slammed with a fee, usu-

ally around $3. If that doesn’t sound like much, consider how
this is experienced firsthand. Let’s say you’re a single parent
who’s barely scraping by in California, where the average wel-
fare payment is $463 per month. The money just got loaded
onto your card, and you’re going to shop for school supplies
at a local store that won’t process small dollar debit card
transactions—a routine situation. You need cash, right? So,
you head to a nearby ATM and pull out enough cash for the
day. Maybe that’s $40. The EBT cards in California are made
by Xerox, so ATM fees kick in at most banks. You just paid a
7.5 percent fee for your own money.
That very situation gets repeated several times a month, and
it adds up. In California, the poor spent $19 million on ATM
fees alone in 2013.3 While that’s a tiny fraction of the $3.1 bil-
lion California spent on that welfare program, it’s still a mas-
sive amount of money that could have gone toward assisting
another 3,419 families that year at the average rate. And for the
actual families in this situation, that’s money better spent on
clothing or rent.
Now, there are several counterpoints to address. Why not
just pull out more money and limit your trips to the ATM? It’s
not safe to walk around with loads of cash in your wallet, par-
ticularly if you’re living in a blighted neighborhood. As for the
banks, don’t they have a right to charge when non-members
use their services? Sure they do—even if they’re profiting from
the most disenfranchised of us. But that’s not the point. What
matters here is that a sizable portion of the population isn’t a
member of any bank, anywhere. That’s why they’re getting hit
with these outrageously large surcharges.
We’re not talking about some far-off place like the desert
of Djibouti in Africa. No, this is going on in Detroit, Miami,
Phoenix—and just about every other metro area. In the typical

large American city, more than 30 percent don’t have a bank
account—or leave it untouched and rely instead on extraordi-
narily expensive alternatives that often prey on the poor.
Patrick Murck, the attorney for the Bitcoin Foundation, was
right when he warned senators in 2013 that “there is a rising
tide of unbanked and underbanked people, right within our
borders.”
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which over-
sees the nation’s banks, surveyed American households in 2011.
It found that 17 million adults are totally unbanked. Another
51 million are “underbanked,” which means that they keep a
bank account somewhere, but they instead depend on expen-
sive check cashing stores, payday loans, and pawn shops.4 After
all, when you live paycheck to paycheck, what good is a savings
account? The statistics in some cities are staggering.
Total
Under- Unbanked/
Metropolitan Area Unbanked
banked Underbanked
Households
Atlanta, GA 9.7% 25.7% 746,232

Austin, TX 10.2% 20.4% 185,130
Bangor, ME 3.9% 27.1% 19,530
Birmingham, AL 12.1% 33% 190,773
Charlotte, NC 8.9% 27.8% 272,314
Columbus, OH 8.1% 25.3% 239,812
Dallas–Fort Worth, TX 9.8% 27.5% 907,509
Des Moines, IA 7% 23.2% 68,856
Detroit, MI 10.7% 19.4% 530,362
Houston, TX 11.9% 28.4% 892,645
Jacksonville, FL 6% 25% 186,000
Kansas City, MO/KS 10% 20.3% 257,247

Las Vegas, NV 6.2% 33.2% 286,438
Little Rock, AR 7.8% 27.8% 117,480
Los Angeles, CA 9.7% 18.6% 1,231,899
Louisville, KY 8.4% 23% 179,294
Memphis, TN 11.1% 16.4% 155,925
Miami, FL 9% 22.3% 715,205
New Orleans, LA 12.4% 23.2% 180,492
Orlando, FL 7.4% 23.5% 244,419
Oklahoma City, OK 9.3% 26.4% 188,853
Phoenix, AZ 10.6% 18.9% 504,450
Reno-Sparks, NV 10.9% 24.9% 62,650
Riverside–
12.7% 22.3% 484,400
San Bernardino, CA
San Antonio, TX 15.5% 26% 328,265
Overall, more than one in four American households is in

this tenuous situation. In some cities, it surpasses one in three.
The causes are mixed. In the most desperate of cases, the person
simply makes too little income to qualify for a bank account.
Often times, it’s because people just aren’t financially literate.
They don’t realize when they’re making mistakes with their
money. Consider the 2006 study conducted by the University of
Buffalo’s School of Management, which showed that, on aver-
age, only 52 percent of high school seniors understand basic
concepts about personal finance and economics.5 For those liv-
ing at the lowest end of the pay scale and who are subject to
exorbitant fees by loan sharks, there are distinct dangers in not
understanding how compound interest works. It’s a problem if
a person doesn’t know how 30 percent interest tacked on to a
debt can make that obligation balloon in no time. If knowledge
is power, then the opposite is also true. Ignorance is weakness.
What the poor and underserved don’t know presents an open-

ing for others to take advantage of them.
So pulling out cash from an EBT card at a bank ATM is
expensive. But it’s also bad for the working poor who cash their
paychecks and dish out the typical 3 percent fee.6 Let’s ponder
the situation faced by the 15 percent of Americans living at the
poverty level and making $11,720 a year.7 Assuming they don’t
pay taxes up front, they receive a $450 paycheck every other
week. If they cash that check at the going rate, they end up pay-
ing $13.52 each time. That doesn’t sound too bad, until you real-
ize they spent $352 in a single year. Nearly two weeks of work
went to just getting their money.
The problem isn’t always lack of bank access. Sometimes
it’s that access to a financial institution also comes with
strings attached. In Oregon, if you receive unemployment
benefits and don’t already have a bank account, your weekly
pay is placed on a prepaid U.S. Bank debit card. But as the
Huffington Post showed in 2011, this is another case in which
some welfare money is wasted and doesn’t actually go to those
who need it.8 The bank allowed for four free ATM withdraw-
als per month, but $1.50 fees kicked in after that. For those
with little money in the bank and barely any incoming cash
flow, frequent trips to the ATM are a must. The fees become
practically unavoidable.
It’s also becoming popular for low-wage employers to pay
their workers with prepaid debit cards. Restaurants and retail-
ers are attracted to it, because they’re promised lower costs if
they swap paychecks for payroll cards. The downside? Banks
charge an array of fees: maybe 50¢ for a card purchase here,
another $2 for out-of-network ATM withdrawals there—and
one even charges a $7.50 inactivity fee if the account isn’t used
for 60 days.9
In all of these situations, the common theme is that peo-

ple are paying outsized fees to access their own money. This
is exactly the kind of problem addressed by a digital currency
that runs on a peer-to-peer network, the way Bitcoin does.
Transaction fees are vastly reduced by cutting out middlemen
like banks and check cashing stores.
But what good is electronic, Internet money to the poor?
As it turns out, many of them already have the means. There’s
a greater likelihood someone with a lower income will own a
cell phone than use a bank account. While 84 percent of those
making less than $30,000 a year own a cell phone, only 57 per-
cent use their bank account regularly.10 It makes sense. Mobile
phones have become relatively cheap, even as they’ve grown
in importance as an everyday utility—and replaced landlines.
Meanwhile, most of those with lower income use their cell
phones to access the Internet. In fact, for many of them it’s the
primary way to go online, because it’s too expensive to keep a
computer at home.11
The problem with lack of banking access doesn’t hit all
Americans equally. It hits blacks and Hispanics the worst.
The FDIC survey shows that 55 percent of blacks either don’t
have a bank account or barely use one. Meanwhile, 49 percent
of Hispanics endure the same. That stark number—and the
hellish financial situation they experience as a result—is the
reason two New Yorkers launched a mobile banking platform
for Spanish speakers called Refundo. It’s mobile banking for
those who have had trouble opening accounts on their own. It
was an idea that Roger Chinchilla and Grimaldy Dominguez
came up with in 2009, when they were running their account-
ing software startup, Rushtax. They noticed that whenever
they asked their customers for a bank account to know where
to deposit an IRS tax return, customers would merely shrug.
They had no such thing. The realization hit the guys like a ton
of bricks: Latin American families were still going through
the same hardships that Chincilla and Dominguez witnessed
more than a decade ago growing up together in Queens. As
kids, they watched helplessly as Hispanic workers ended every
week with a trip to their only financial outlet: check cashing
stores. Every visit took a bite out of the paycheck. When it
became clear that the Hispanic community remains under-
served by banks, Chinchilla and Dominguez decided to take
action themselves.
The point of highlighting these circumstances isn’t to
demonize banks. They still play an important role as the chief
source of credit when people want to buy homes, cars and
other high-ticket items they can’t afford to pay up front. And
the switch from actual food stamps and government checks to
EBT has actually been quite a success: For users, it’s safer than
carrying cash or checks. For taxpayers, it’s an effective way to
track money and ensure the poor aren’t spending charitable
benefits improperly. The takeaway here is that transaction fees
should be less expensive. Presently, they put a damper on the
flow of money to people who need it.
But it won’t take a brand new, cheaper form of money to
push banks out of the welfare and payroll card business. Gov-
ernment and public pressure is already exacting its toll. After
folks in New York complained about high bank fees on prepaid
payroll cards, State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman fired
off letters to 20 banks demanding answers about their programs
in 2013. Sometime later, JPMorgan Chase landed a target on its
back after it mistakenly mailed 4,000 bad replacement cards to
people in Connecticut—and also became the target of hackers
who possibly accessed personal data on nearly half a million
prepaid card holders. By early 2014, anonymous insiders told
Reuters the bank had plans to leave the prepaid card business.
It had become too much of a hassle.12
If the poor and working class are forced to return to the old
way—cashing paychecks for stiff fees—they aren’t any better
off. This is where a robust electronic, peer-to-peer money sys-
tem could make a difference. At a U.S. Senate hearing on Bit-
coin in 2013, Massachusetts bank commissioner David Cotney
made that very point. Even though he listed the many dangers
of having an independent computerized currency—consumer
protection, national security, money laundering—he still sees
the bright side.
“The potential benefits are similarly multifaceted: speed
and efficiency, lower transaction costs, and providing an outlet
for the unbanked and underbanked around the world,” Cotney
told senators.
Indeed, as if these stories aren’t difficult enough, remember
that the United States is presently the financial capital of the
world. It’s worse elsewhere. Gallup’s global financial inclusion
study is telling. Leaving out a few relatively rich nations, the
Middle East and North Africa have it worst. Only 18 percent
actually have an account at a formal financial institution.13
Next in line is Sub-Saharan Africa, with 24 percent. In these
regions, this problem is well-documented. There’s seldom a
bank nearby, and pulling out cash leaves a person vulnerable
during the long stretch home on highways that—depending on
the country—could be rife with bandits or paramilitary groups.
In Sudan, there’s the more-than-decade-long genocide and
war that has claimed 300,000 lives and displaced more than 2.5
million people.14 In Uganda and the Central African Republic,
warlord Joseph Kony continues to wreak havoc with his Lord’s
Resistance Army of child soldiers (U.S. Special Forces opera-
tives in early 2014 joined the hunt to track him down).15 These
are not environments that are well suited to installing a fleet of

ATMs—or walking home with a wad of cash in your pocket.
Indeed, one need not rely on the most drastic tragedies
to make the point that Africa is ill-equipped to fully bank its
1 billion people. Look instead to its lack of infrastructure. In
Sub-Saharan Africa, only 29 percent of the roads are paved and
only one in four people have access to electricity. That imme-
diately increases the difficulty of installing ATMs and making
that walk home. Yet 60 percent of those in this region have cell
phone coverage.16 That curious development is what makes
Africa a prime spot for the development of electronic money.
In fact, it’s already well underway.
Kenya’s biggest mobile network operator, Safaricom, took a
major innovative leap forward in 2007 when it created a low-
cost, phone-based payment system, M-PESA. The program
works like this: You deposit cash into your mobile account, and
that money becomes “e-float” units measured the same way as
the currency. Now you can send others that money via SMS.
There’s no longer a need for trips to the bank every time you
want to use your money, and it reduces the likelihood of get-
ting mugged. As New Yorkers pay for their morning coffee by
rummaging through their checkbook wallets and fumbling
with credit cards and cash, tech-empowered Kenyans doing
afternoon shopping simply whip out their cell phones and
have store clerks do the same. Send the SMS, and presto! The
payment is made.
The program, which exploded in popularity right off the
bat, has been a smashing success across Kenya, because it has
effectively banked some of the bankless. That is, despite the
fact that the country’s central bank has had reservations about
classifying M-PESA as an actual banking service. By early
2014, Safaricom found that 18 million of its 20 million mobile
phone customers use M-PESA.17 That means the number of

folks banking through their cell phones has far surpassed the
8 million or so who own a formal bank account. A surprising
statistic: Phone-based money transactions have become such a
fundamental part of Kenya’s economy that 43 percent of GDP
flows through M-PESA.
What’s truly impressive is that this caught on despite major
structural difficulties. Sure, it’s great that 95 percent of Kenya’s
41 million people get mobile coverage.18 But only a quarter of
the country lives in areas with a dependable and distributed
source of power. The result? There are 19 million mobile sub-
scribers who get phone reception but live off the grid. Think
about that odd scenario. That means many people are getting a
phone, then have nowhere to charge it. There’s even a booming
business in setting up charging stations, kind of like when U.S.
Internet cafés were all the rage in 1999. But mobile subscribers
still manage to make it work, because cell phones and M-PESA
have become a fundamental part of everyday living.
These types of digital payments don’t only change how
people access their hard-earned money. They also affect how
people spend it. The main reason is M-PESA’s small transac-
tion costs. Safaricom charges a nominal fee for making with-
drawals, typically well below the rate charged by Western
Union for money transfers. Instead of making fewer deals
that are expensive, people tend to make many tiny ones.
Examine the difference between the use of checks and mobile
payments in Kenya during a one-year period starting in 2007.
On an average day, the nation counted 39,000 transactions
involving checks, each worth 216 million shillings. Mean-
while, there were 107,000 mobile transactions worth a measly
3 million shillings each.19 This alone provides a clear case for
electronic payments: Shrinking transaction costs lessens the
annoyance of moving your money. There’s less friction, and

hence, less waste.
The manner in which M-PESA is being used also shows why
digital money with low transfer costs is the way of the future.
Having a widespread digital network lowers the difficulty of
sending payments great distances to people in remote areas.
Safaricom is well aware of this power. The mobile provider’s
typical commercial tugs on your heartstrings with the “Send
Money Home” tagline; images show young professionals send-
ing remittances to faraway parents. What better way to show
your love than sending Mom some cash? In short order, the pay-
ment system became a must-have app in Kenya. What was pri-
marily a money transfer service has since evolved slightly into a
mobile wallet function as well. Part of that is because Safaricom
found itself a competitor: Mobile operator Zain launched Zap
money (a service which later became Airtel Money).20 M-PESA
has since expanded to neighboring Tanzania, where the Uchumi
supermarket chain now lets customers pay via cell phone.
M-PESA’s spectacular results were cited by a representative
of the U.S. bank lobby during the Senate Banking Committee’s
2013 hearing on Bitcoin. Paul Smocer, who leads the Financial
Services Roundtable’s technology policy division, told senators
that Bitcoin’s future success would be measured by its accept-
ability. And if things went well, digital currencies could follow
in M-PESA’s path, giving a key service to the underbanked.
It’s worth a reminder that M-PESA is not a peer-to-peer
currency the way Bitcoin is. The popularity of M-PESA does
not imply an independent, nationless money system will meet
similar success. But it does show the potential benefits of bank-
ing the unbanked—and doing so in a way that’s less wasteful
than sticking to brick-and-mortar institutions. Kenyans have
told researchers they feel safer without having to carry physical
cash; there’s peace of mind that money sent to family members

will actually get there (the old way was stuffing cash in enve-
lopes and sending them via cross-country minibus); and shop-
keepers say the conversion to digital cash has made for a more
robust marketplace.21
Latin America and the Caribbean are also poised to lever-
age a digital currency revolution, and for the same reason as
Africa. The build-out of mobile phone infrastructure has out-
paced other services. As of 2012, more than half of the region’s
600 million people were subscribed to a cell phone service,
and the rate of growth is speeding up.22 They outnumber the 39
percent who have a formal bank account.23 So, while most peo-
ple remain unbanked, they need not be. In fact, twice as many
Latin Americans are willing to use their cell phones to make
payments than those in the United States or Europe.24 Brazil
provides a great example, where mobile banking caught on in
2010, and more than 3 million people created new user accounts
in a single year. The rise of Internet-capable smartphones will
be a game-changer, especially because they already make up
one in five phones in the region. That’s expected to more than
double by 2017.
That will make it easier for folks to receive money from
abroad, and that’s pivotal for a region that so heavily depends
on remittances. In fact, the money that Latin American workers
in the United States send to poor family members back home
is a substantial source of what flows through the financial veins
of Latin America. In some countries, it makes up more than 10
percent of GDP.25 And if you look at the region as a whole, on
any given year, migrants send home 250 million money trans-
fers that average about $300 each. The aggregate total actually
outweighs all other foreign aid from governments, banks, and
charity organizations.
Consider the experience of many immigrants who make

their way to the United States and Canada. It’s custom for
someone who makes the trek, once he or she secures a steady
job, to send financial help to parents or siblings struggling back
home. A single U.S. dollar goes a long way in a place like Guate-
mala or Nicaragua. That’s what makes it worthwhile to pack up,
leave everything and everyone you know, and venture north—
even if this new home ends up being unwelcoming and down-
right exploitative of your labor. This is a point that gets lost on
those clamoring for taller fences, heavily armed troops at the
U.S.-Mexico border, and crackdowns on illegal immigration. If
you pause for a second and think about this through a com-
passionate lens, it’s all about seeking economic opportunity to
better the lives of those back home—and make the region more
self-sustaining in general.
But there are significant fees for sending money back home
via wire services and transfers between banks. The impact
gets magnified when every dollar counts. My own family has
seen this firsthand. For years, my mother in Florida sent what
little money she could to her retired mother in Chile. It aver-
aged about $50 a month. That might not sound like much,
but during the winter months it made a huge difference to an
elderly woman who could now afford a higher gas utility bill.
That meant she could keep the heater on constantly, instead of
turning it on only at night and being left to shiver in the cold
during the day. For my mother, there was no use trying to send
money between bank accounts, because the fees alone—$70
a pop—outweighed the help. Instead, she settled for wiring
money via Western Union. That service used a sliding scale of
fees, and sending $50 cost her $5. But what if sending money
home was cheaper? What if sending $10 at any given time were
a frictionless action—and cheaper too? Until I started writing
this book, I never thought to ask my mother what a difference it

would make if the cost of every transfer were reduced. She said
that, in retrospect, she would have broken up her remittance
into smaller, weekly payments. It would have given my grand-
mother a smoother cash flow instead of forcing her to wait for
that single deposit every month.
Banking the unbanked—and easing the delivery of money
to those who need it most—are the two strongest cases for a
digital currency. And I’ll be the first to say that it doesn’t even
need to be Bitcoin. But there’s clearly a place for more efficient
money that catches up with the pervasive communication net-
works that already connect us all so well. This potential hasn’t
been lost on the dinosaurs in the financial industry.
Just as talk about Bitcoin was getting hot in 2013, JPMorgan
dusted off a patent for an electronic payment system it had filed
more than a decade earlier, added some Bitcoin-like features,
and resubmitted it with the U.S. government.26 At the time, the
bank didn’t explain the impetus for the move. But a close look
at the old patent and this newer application shows that the
bank was planting a stake in the ground. JPMorgan acknowl-
edged that there’s no efficient way to send money online to
people or merchants. Its answer: a system made up of digital
wallets, seamless transfers, and anonymity. Sound familiar?
There is also a feature that would work as an add-on to Inter-
net browsers, letting you shop online without having to enter
credit card information or fill out forms. A so-called “Internet
Pay Anyone Account” lets you move money without identify-
ing yourself, and it’s as easy as sending an email. Here’s how
JPMorgan described it: “The credit pushes can be made com-
pletely anonymously, with the recipient of the credit having no
way to determine from where the credit originated.” There’s
also a feature that online businesses and charities will find
useful: a virtual private lockbox. Accepting donations? Publish

its address without worrying someone can use that to empty
the account. It only accepts funds.
What’s most interesting, however, was that the patent appli-
cation included what sounded like a cross between a stark
realization and a confession: The modern financial system is
outdated. Transaction fees are just too high. JPMorgan’s anal-
ysis boiled down to three points. First, debit and credit card
fees charged to online merchants, which start at 1.4 percent or
higher, are holding them back from selling lots of low-ticket
items. It just doesn’t make financial sense for the seller, no mat-
ter how many shoppers want to buy them. Second, shopping
on the Web has evolved, and product makers are now selling
directly to customers. They’re circumventing retailers, so pric-
ing is more competitive than ever. Every penny counts. In this
environment, it doesn’t make sense to keep charging so much
to facilitate the deal. Third, the digitization of media has made
it so consumers are more frequently buying music, movies, and
video games online—again, low-cost items that don’t make
sense with hefty bank surcharges. “A new marketplace has
emerged for low-dollar, high-volume, real-time payments,” the
application said.
It might not be immediately obvious, but opening the
floodgates for zillions of tiny transactions will change the
world—profoundly.
The Might of Micropayments

Head to the Financial Times website (FT.com) and try to peruse
through their day’s stories. At some point, a message will pop
up on your screen that stops you dead in your tracks.
“High quality global journalism requires investment,” it
says. They’re right. Nothing has undercut great reporting quite
like the Web—or rather, the terrible business decision news

companies made long ago to not charge for their content. Now
let’s review our options:
It doesn’t seem like too much of a hassle for the most basic
online access. And given the excellence of this newspaper’s
reporting and writing, 89¢ a day is a steal. But unless you’re a
devoted fan, you’re not going to lock yourself into a year-long
$325 contract. In fact, this high paywall prevents you from read-
ing FT, so you’re less likely to become that devoted fan. At least
the New York Times’ website, nytimes.com, allows you 10 free
articles a month before a pop-up asks for a $3.75 weekly sub-
scription fee.
It’s commendable that some news organizations are finally
taking a stand and no longer giving away content for free. News-
papers and magazines have been doing that for more than a
decade at their own peril. I’ve already witnessed several rounds
of mass firings at three different newspapers that can attest to
the bad results. Seasoned reporters who had a firm grasp of how
politics and business works were deemed too expensive to keep
on the payroll, especially given their higher wages and benefits.
They were replaced by interns and per diem employees, young

and inexperienced, who could churn out short news posts and
would not demand health insurance. This cost-slashing hap-
pened repeatedly as news organizations struggled to keep up
with the drop in advertising revenue—fueled by the fact that
readers could get their news for free online. During a particu-
larly rough patch between 2007 and 2012, the United States lost
27 percent of its full-time journalists, bringing the total who still
had a job to 38,000 nationwide.27 Considering the civic role we
play in relaying information to the citizenry, that left roughly one
lone reporter to cover the laws, actions, and functions of each
local government. And that’s assuming journalists ignored state
and federal government, as well as all business, science, and art.
The water-cooler conversations that went on in every news-
room went something like this:
JOURNALIST 1: Print is dead. The industry is doomed. We’re all

going to lose our jobs.
JOURNALIST 2: What did we expect? We don’t charge for any-
thing on our site, and the ad revenue doesn’t pay enough.
JOURNALIST 3: But we can’t raise a paywall. No one’s going to
buy in. They’ll just get their news from news aggregators like
Yahoo or AOL. It’s a race to the bottom.
What got lost in these conversations, however, is that the way

we currently handle money is one of the reasons paywalls are
so high—and why some folks won’t pay for them. Currently,
credit-card processing fees attached to each online purchase
form a price floor, a minimum that company needs to charge in
order for the deal to be profitable. But if those surcharges take
a smaller slice of each purchase, it suddenly becomes feasible
to pay as you go—in finite fragments.
To properly consider a working scenario, imagine three ele-

ments. The first is a functioning digital currency, like Bitcoin,
that can be broken down into infinitesimal parts. The second is
an add-on to your Web browser that automatically pays what-
ever website you visit a pre-designated amount anytime you
read an article. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say it’s equivalent
to 10¢. Depending on your reading habits, that might not even
give you pause. The third is that news organizations accept
those incoming payments. Again for simplicity, price compe-
tition means that they all charge about the same: 10¢ per story.
Let’s add it all up. Throughout your day you read a few news
articles; some on your phone, others at your work computer,
a few at home. Without giving it a second thought, each time
you click, a dime gets deducted from your account. Even when
you stop to think about it, you don’t mind paying whatever that
was, maybe 90¢ a day. Your lunch was more expensive. Hell, the
detour you took after work cost you more in gas than that. And
besides, it sure seems like a bargain when you consider that it
paid all those hard-working journalists who just informed you
about the new treatment for diabetes, details about an upcom-
ing debate on taxes, and the latest hot stocks.
Wait a minute. That comes out to $328.50 a year. Isn’t that
about the cost of the Financial Times subscription described
above? It sure is. But you didn’t pay the FT alone. Every news
site that contributed something worth reading got its fair share.
In fact, so did a few small-time bloggers who wrote something
memorable or broke some incredibly important news.
Some call it “micropayments.” Others say “nanopayments.”
Regardless of the scale, it’s a hotly debated issue among tech-
nologists, because the concept is expected to catch on, and its
effects will be revolutionary. Entrepreneurs who independently
produce media that gets consumed online—news, fiction
stories, poetry, music, photography, graphic art—have a better

shot of getting paid for it. By distributing payments more evenly
across all media producers, micropayments give your local,
dedicated blogger better footing. Her blog post probably won’t
be seen by as many readers as the average piece on nytimes.
com, but at least she’ll be compensated for it. That, in effect,
democratizes the payment process, so an independent journal-
ist has an equal chance of getting paid for her work. She doesn’t
have to suffer and give away content for free just because she’s
independently employed. The same goes for musicians who
share their compositions online for others to download. Sure,
the Web is rife with media piracy and duplicated mp3s. It’s easy
to grab an entire album and not pay for it. But wouldn’t you pay
10¢ for a song if you knew every penny went to the artist and
not the corporations that sit between you both?
It’s worth noting that this system doesn’t exist right now.
Independent journalists and artists can’t charge you 10¢ per
story, because fees levied by PayPal and banks make it impos-
sible. If you’re a blogger making $3,000 per month and use
PayPal, the service charges 30¢ for every transaction, plus a 2.9
percent fee.28 It’s not exorbitant by any means, but it doesn’t
allow for micropayments.
Consumers arguably would be better off, because a micro-
payment system properly attributes your consumption. You
don’t overpay. And as different forms of media gravitate toward
the Web, the same reasoning applies to all sorts of things.
Imagine if you only paid for the television programs you actu-
ally wanted to watch. The entire industry would undergo a
dramatic shift. Networks would have to rethink how they fund
programs. When viewers stop watching a certain show (and
therefore paying), networks might be more likely to cancel
that program sooner. Then again, programs with a dedicated
audience of paying fans are more likely to stick around. It’s dif-
ficult to say whether quality programming would win out over
brainless reality shows, but one thing is for sure: It’s a demo-
cratic process, and the one with greater support wins.
However, there’s at least one obvious downside to micro-
payments for businesses. By providing smaller funds in a more
widely distributed fashion, they also make for increased vol-
atility in revenue. When I paid my $99 annual subscription
to the Economist, the publication received my money up front
and was better able to assess its current finances and plan its
business in the coming months. If I paid per story, it would be
immensely more difficult to plan ahead. Then again, by vastly
lowering the difficulty and annoyance of payment, the news
magazine is more likely to receive a steadier flow of revenue.
At least for the news industry, the emergence of digital
currency is well timed. For all the cynicism about actually
charging customers for reading content, news sites are finally
embracing paywalls. By mid-2013, more than 500 of the 1,400
daily publications in the United States had instituted them.29
Lo and behold, revenue from circulation grew for the second
straight year.
The first major newspaper to venture into uncharted terri-
tory was the Chicago Sun-Times, which erected a Bitcoin pay-
wall in April 2014.30 A careful look at the company’s decision
shows that the paper is merely dipping its toes into the water.
For instance, the Sun-Times partnered with the Bitcoin transac-
tion processer Coinbase, allowing the newspaper to vastly min-
imize its risk of exposure to volatile bitcoins because it never
has to actually hold them. For a nominal fee, Coinbase con-
verts the day’s Bitcoin payments into dollars and sends them to
the merchant every 24 hours. More relevant to our discussion,
though, is that the Sun-Times has not offered pay-as-you-go
micropayments. The new deal is merely that you can now pay
your yearly subscription in Bitcoin. Here’s what it looked like
on its site. Customers have the choice to either send a payment
to the listed address or whip out their cell phones and scan the
QR code at the left.
Still, just the fact that a recognizable entity took that step
forward shows a willingness to experiment. In a corporate
statement, editor-in-chief Jim Kirk said he aims to “keep the
Sun-Times current and evolving with changing technology.
Accepting bitcoin payments is one of many ways we are work-
ing to stay digitally focused.”
If micropayments do catch on, it will probably develop
from online tipping. Some of that already exists, but it’s sparse
and uncoordinated. Occasionally, hackers (particularly those
who claim to do a public service) accept bitcoins as tokens of
gratitude. For example, one is a mysterious vigilante who calls
himself Jester (JΞSTΞR, to be more accurate). For the sake of
brevity, just think Batman for the online world. He’s a pro-
U.S. military type who takes down Al Qaeda–related websites,
attacks servers that host them, and seeks vengeance on whis-
tleblowers who have exposed U.S. government secrets. On his
personal site, jesterscourt.cc, he directs would-be supporters to
donate to the United States’ Wounded Warrior Project or the
United Kingdom’s Help for Heroes. But if they insist on sending

him money directly, they can ship it to his Bitcoin wallet.
Formalized Bitcoin tipping services have popped up here
and there, but none has become substantial. The first popu-
lar one, YouTipIt, was launched by a few computer program-
mers as a side project in 2010. But it shut down two years later
when it ran out of money and started coming under scrutiny
by Germany’s finance regulator.31 Another, BTCTip, appeared
as a “Twitter-based microtipper,” but the beta service ran into
problems after a website security breach.32 The latest is Tipper-
Coin, an automated service that lets you easily tip someone on
Twitter if you like something they said. What hasn’t yet flour-
ished as a system, however, is the digital currency equivalent
of effortlessly dropping a coin in someone’s tip jar—no matter
where you go.
When I start thinking about it that way, my mind immedi-
ately goes to musicians. Becoming a full-time composer and
performer increasingly looks like a nowhere road, especially in
the post-Napster age. Theft of artistic work has put financial
pressure on record companies, which ultimately means more
pressure on musicians themselves. I’ve talked about this with
dozens of professional musicians ranging from local bands in
New York clubs to European metal rock stars. And I’ll admit
that I too have received ripped mp3s from friends. We all have.
But even our traditional payment systems aren’t enough to
undo the damage. The prospect of surviving as an independent
musician is still untenable today, even as fans pay for individual
songs via iTunes and Amazon or stream free music on Pandora,
which pays royalty fees through advertising.
There have already been a few cases in which artists cir-
cumvent distributors, like record companies, and go directly to
their fans. It worked for Radiohead in 2007, when the British
band released the album In Rainbows online for free a few

months before its physical release, asking fans to “pay what you
wish.” As expected, piracy went through the roof.33 More than
2 million copies were swapped online for free on platforms like
BitTorrent in the first month of its release. And most fans got
off without paying at all. But upon release of its physical disc,
the 10-track album immediately topped the Billboard chart
and went on to generate more sales than the band’s 2003 album
Hail to the Thief. In the first year, the band sold 3 million copies
in CDs, paid downloads, and special edition box sets.34
What micropayments can really do, though, is add fuel to the
kind of fire that’s kindled by performers like Amanda Palmer.
The punk-cabaret musician is adamant about directly connect-
ing to her fans and offering her music for free, with the unspo-
ken agreement that if you love it, support it. She famously raised
close to $1.2 million directly from fans on the crowdfunding web-
site Kickstarter in 2012. In an impassioned TED talk the next year,
she laid out a vision of the future, in which musicians discard
with the concept of “celebrity” that keeps fans at a distance and
instead connect with them directly, especially for financial con-
tributions.35 “I think people have been obsessed with the wrong
question, which is: How do we make people pay for music?” she
said during that TED talk. “What if we started asking: How do
we let people pay for music?” Lessening the difficulty to send
money their way takes a big step toward making that happen.
Can it really work, though? The best example yet is the
touching tale of how the Jamaican bobsled team made it to
the 2014 Winter Olympics. The team had no chance of travel-
ing to Sochi in Russia, because unlike their competitors from
rich nations who had lucrative corporate sponsorships, they
were broke. But the idealistic Internet community came to
the rescue. It was driven by nostalgia over the 1993 movie Cool
Runnings, the underdog Disney film about how a real-life group

of athletes living on an island where the average temperature is
85° Fahrenheit managed to compete in a sport designed specif-
ically for sub-freezing climates. And it worked. In just 12 hours,
users of the wacky digital currency Dogecoin raised nearly
$25,000—enough to help the team make the trip.36
While I’ve focused on those in creative professions, it won’t
be long before politicians get wind of this as well. Just think
about how often you get passionate about a certain politi-
cal issue, say, school funding or gun rights. What if, during a
politician’s election bid, you could send a few cents their way
with a simple click? On April 17, 2014, Texas Attorney General
Greg Abbott became the first politician to accept bitcoins as
contributions to his campaign for state governor. In the days
that followed, most reports focused on how this Republican is
catering to the free market crowd. But just beneath the surface
is the hint that campaign finance could be in for a remarkable
change. If it’s easier and faster to raise lots of money in tiny
donations from many people, politicians have less incentive to
rely so heavily on a few, powerful donors—and more reason to
raise it from the voters themselves.
Privacy in the Age of Big Data

Another major selling point for Bitcoin is its ability to hide who
you are during a transaction. You buy what you want, sellers get
their money, and everyone’s happy. There’s no need to know who
each other is. But who cares if your purchases can be done with
near anonymity? Isn’t that only for people buying illegal stuff?
Anyone who takes that cavalier attitude toward shopping
privacy should better acquaint themselves with the kind of
data collection that takes place—and the potential there for
real damage. If you’ve gone out shopping anytime in the last
few years, you’ve surely run into the following scenario. You
reach the cashier, swipe your credit card, then the cashier asks
for your zip code.
As any person would, you ask, “What for?”
“It’s for marketing purposes,” they say; or perhaps, “It’s just
for internal use.” What you don’t hear is that the retail shop has
struck a deal with another company that will match the name
on your credit card to your zip code. That narrows it down to
maybe one person. If it’s correct, this retailer now knows where
you live. But they actually know much more than that.
Nearly all major retailers have ongoing deals with market-
ing companies that are experts at finding out everything they
can about you, the consumer. That information comes from a
relatively new type of company, one that doesn’t ever get talked
about at the dinner table: data brokers. But you should know
them, because they know you. And they’re changing the world.
Data brokers do exactly what their name implies: They col-
lect and sell information about you—all kinds of it. Much of
it is publicly available, such as your name and address. The
rest comes from private companies you’ve done business with
before—such as car dealerships and hunting catalogs—that
are willing to sell information about your transaction with
them. The consequence is a lively, thriving, and quickly grow-
ing market that—unbeknownst to you—buys and sells your
name, address, birthday, credit score, employment history, esti-
mated salary, recent purchases, and much more.
All you did was give up your zip code, and now this clothing
store knows that you missed a credit card payment last Christ-
mas, and you never did pay that parking ticket in Atlanta. That’s
a problem, because these retailers are preyed upon by hackers
who tap into their databases and steal your personal details.
Target experienced that during the 2013 holiday shopping
season, when it lost data on up to 110 million Americans. That’s

a third of the country. The same thing happened to millions
who shopped at Michaels craft stores and Neiman Marcus.
There’s a term for those unfathomably deep oceans of infor-
mation that these companies are collecting, buying, selling and
analyzing: Big Data. It doesn’t necessarily just refer to your per-
sonal details. That information could be just about anything:
temperature at specific locations around the globe, the vol-
ume of car traffic in a given city, viewership numbers for a TV
show, etc. It’s something I discuss constantly with major cor-
porations, researchers, and experts in academia, because there
are two major issues at play. The first is that there is incredible
potential to advance science, increase efficiency, avoid calami-
ties, and better tailor our lives to our personal preferences. The
other is that it erodes our privacy—and that’s where a crypto-
currency like Bitcoin comes in. By anonymizing transactions,
Bitcoin allows you to shield yourself from this kind of data col-
lection at the source: your interaction with merchants.
Most of our direct interaction with Big Data consists of
low-hanging fruit, the easy stuff. Retailers want to track our
purchases, because it helps them more efficiently stock store
shelves and better direct their advertising. There’s clearly value
in that, because companies are willing to pay you for it. That
explains the discount you get with that membership card to
that national pharmacy chain. It’s tracking all your purchases.
The occasional rebate is your compensation.
So what’s the downside? For starters, the swapping of our
most personal details happens behind closed doors, so we don’t
know how it’s shared or who acquires it. No one I’ve ever met
actually reads every contract they encounter when they sign
up for email, social media, smartphone apps, and streaming
media services. If you’ve never combed through one, this might
be a surprise. The vast majority of these end-user license agree-

ments (Silicon Valley simply refers to them as EULAs) give a
company permission to share the data they gather about you
with others. And you can be absolutely sure they do. But there
are currently no disclosure laws that force anyone to let you
know how you’re being torn apart, sown back together, bought,
and sold.
I had breakfast with Gary Kovacs, who led Mozilla as
CEO as it developed the Firefox Web browser, to talk about
this issue. He’s passionate about privacy (Mozilla was named
“Most Trusted Internet Company” of 2012) and is concerned
about third parties that track your online activity. That became
especially true after he found out that several companies were
tracking his own daughter while she surfed online—on kids’
websites, nonetheless. Here’s how he described the industry
for your data:
“It’s a black market,” he said. “No one knows exactly what’s
going on.”
But we do occasionally get a glimpse. It’s not pretty.
Just after New Year’s Day in 2014, a couple living in the
Chicago suburbs got a nondescript letter from OfficeMax.37
It looked like the usual junk mail. Except this time, it was
addressed this way:
Mike Seay
Daughter Killed in Car Crash
Or Current Business
The couple was shocked. It had been less than a year since
they lost their 17-year-old daughter. Ashley was with her boy-
friend when their SUV slid off the road, crashed into a tree
and killed them both. Somehow, this company knew. But more
importantly, this mail showed that somewhere out there, some

unnamed company had built a personal file on the Seay family—
documented its tragedy—and thought it relevant enough to keep
in its marketing profiles. Seay called the company demanding
an apology. OfficeMax said it was sorry and later admitted that
it had teamed up with a third-party firm for its mailing.
“Why would they have that kind of information? Why would
they need that?” Seay told a local television reporter. “And how
much more information, if they have that, do they have on me
or anyone else?”
That’s one example that shows how the consumer data col-
lected is sometimes misused. But there’s something bigger to
worry about. If your aggregated data gets into the wrong hands, it
becomes absolutely dangerous. And I’m not talking about some
genius hacker breaking into a company’s server. That sad truth
is that if they pose as a legitimate company, they can just buy it.
As of this writing, the U.S. Secret Service and the top prosecu-
tors of Florida, Illinois, and several other states are investigating
how a Vietnamese hacker managed to obtain sensitive consumer
data from one of the three big credit bureaus, Experian. Accord-
ing to court documents and my interviews with those familiar
with the case, a young man living in Vietnam named Hieu Minh
Ngo masqueraded as a genuine company and struck a deal with
one of the many relatively unknown data aggregators of U.S.
public records, Court Ventures. Armed with that batch of infor-
mation, Ngo launched an identity theft website where others
could buy the names, Social Security numbers and much more
on millions of Americans. In 2012 Experian acquired Court Ven-
tures. It wasn’t until Secret Service agents started investigating
mysterious wire transfers coming from Southeast Asia that any
of this became apparent. Ngo was arrested in Guam and pled
guilty to three fraud-related counts in March 2014.38
And now for your second glimpse into the world of data
brokers. When news of this broke in April 2014, another data
aggregator, U.S. Info Search, was dragged into the spotlight
because it was feeding data to Court Ventures, which fed data
to Experian, which fed data to Ngo.
This hints at how interconnected and complex the swap-
ping of your personal information really is. And even if one
data broker is responsible, all it takes is one weak link in the
chain to put you at risk. It turns out that Ngo had long ago tried
to buy data from this small, Columbus, Ohio–based firm but
was turned away. However, because U.S. Info Search had an
ongoing agreement to provide data to Court Ventures, Ngo got
what he wanted anyway.
Angered by the fact that Experian kept directing media
attention to U.S. Info Search, the small firm CEO Marc Mar-
tin posted a lengthy note on April 7 blasting the credit giant.39
“Experian sold data to an identity thief, and now expects some-
one else to pay for notifications and credit monitoring,” he
said. Martin also accused Experian of not properly notifying
victims that their data was exposed, and hiding the extent of
the damage. But one thing in his letter stands out above all the
rest: his description of Experian’s services (edited for grammat-
ical errors). Keep in mind, this is a former client he’s talking
about—one that his firm fed with your information:
Experian not only sells credit reports, but makes a good profit
from routinely selling their entire credit file of U.S. residents to
companies around the world via “licensing agreements.” And
many of these companies in turn sell the data to other peo-
ple and companies. This data can include SSNs, driver’s license
info, DOBs, employment, relatives, and much more.
Martin declined to speak with me to elaborate on what I’ve

already described, as did Experian. But the court documents
make the point clearly enough. There’s a lot of data flowing
around in dark places we can’t see, sold to folks we don’t know,
who do with it whatever they please.
A digital currency like Bitcoin has the potential to replace
credit cards—which have your name etched into the magnetic
stripe for all to see—with a payment system that can keep its
users from knowing one another. The seller doesn’t have to
know who you are. If they don’t know anything about you, they
have nothing to collect, amass, exploit, and put at risk. It won’t
stop the collection of all your publicly recorded details, but at
least you can keep your purchases to yourself.
A Record for When It Matters

Bitcoin might be nameless, but it’s not entirely anonymous.
Buyers and sellers never have to share identifying information
about one another except for their digital wallet addresses.
However, the system’s public accounting book, the block chain,
records every transaction for all to see. It might seem coun-
terintuitive—a system of money that’s totally traceable offers
heightened privacy. But it all comes down to who knows which
digital wallet is yours. That gives law enforcement an effective
tool for hunting down criminals, should they ever connect the
dots between a digital wallet and its real-life owner.
That’s why it’s utterly stupid to conduct illegal activities with
bitcoins. It’s a wonder why so many people who buy drugs or
other illicit goods online think they’ll get away with it in the
long run. To anyone even remotely familiar with the way Bit-
coin works, this is old news. But its pervasive use in the online
black market (which I’ll expand on later) is sufficient evidence
that few have yet to fully grasp the concept. If people under-
stood its potential for law enforcement, there’d be less talk
about how Bitcoin is great for laundering money and more talk
about how anyone conducting illegal activities with bitcoins
is a fool. All it takes is having the right rules put in place and
thorough forensics following Bitcoin-related drug busts. In
that sense, bitcoins are the equivalent of irradiated bills like the
ones used by investigators taking down major crime syndicates.
The proof of guilt is the money in your possession.
The way to do that, according to several financial regulators,
is to start tracking digital wallets when people receive their first
bitcoin. In other words: at the exchanges. That’s where most
newcomers enter the world of virtual money, so it makes for
a good security checkpoint. By applying the same know-your-
customer rules already in place at banks, law enforcement con-
nects a name to a wallet. From there on, an irrevocable map is
drawn that follows your every financial move. But that infor-
mation doesn’t need to be shared with everyone else, much in
the same way that a person’s financial investments are personal
information and don’t need to be broadcasted to the world.
This is what smart governments—the ones that are proac-
tively setting up rules to accommodate digital currencies—are
grappling with right now. The subject of anonymity came up
multiple times during the Senate Banking Committee hearing
in late 2013. The meeting was meant as a way to get politicians
up to speed on digital currencies, so Bitcoin was lumped in
with E-Gold and Liberty Reserve, two experiments in elec-
tronic money that ended when they were shut down by law
enforcement for being large money laundering operations.
In some ways, that association was useful because the same
dangers persist. Criminals online are indeed flocking to Bitcoin,
because it’s hard to trace without the enforcement of the most
basic know-your-customer regulation. But the reason that isn’t

around is because governments haven’t yet held digital curren-
cies to a higher standard and treated them as real-life money. If
they did, users would be subject to the same scrutiny as credit
cards, allowing police to look back and comb through all of
your spending.
At the hearing, a U.S. Secret Service representative, Special
Agent Edward Lowery III, told senators that international crim-
inal organizations are drawn to digital currencies because they
operate largely in the shadows and are, by their very nature,
transnational. That highlights the need for governments to act
in unison on this issue. Ernie Allen, president of the Interna-
tional Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, explained
that distributors of child pornography use bitcoins and other
digital currencies, because of “a perception of anonymity.” But
as Allen astutely noted, “If the perception of anonymity dimin-
ishes, we believe the criminal use will diminish with it.”
The way to do away with that perception is to make two
points clear to consumers: Bitcoin makes you anonymous
when you’re shopping, but not to the law. That’s why Mythili
Raman, one of the federal government’s top prosecutors, told
senators, “To be clear, virtual currency is not necessarily syn-
onymous with anonymity. A convertible virtual currency with
appropriate anti–money laundering and know-your-customer
controls, as required by U.S. law, can safeguard its system from
exploitation by criminals and terrorists in the same way any
other money services business could.”
There’s already a bright scholar that’s looking into the
matter, and she’s poised to be the go-to expert for the FBI,
INTERPOL, and others in the years to come. Sarah Meiklejohn
started researching the ability to trace bitcoins while earning
her PhD in computer science at the University of California in
San Diego. Her interest in security and cryptography led her

to wonder whether Bitcoin’s public ledger could be used to
identify spending patterns. She teamed up with colleagues at
UCSD and George Mason University, got a few grants from the
National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research,
and set off to look into the matter.
Meiklejohn discovered that by monitoring the block chain
and making occasional Bitcoin purchases herself, she could
cluster thousands of digital wallets together and figure out
who were the operators. On the drug-selling website Silk
Road, for instance, Meiklejohn made fewer than a dozen
transactions and was able to spot 295,435 digital wallets that
used that service.40 Her research team could also identify indi-
vidual markets, knowing the difference between exchanges
Mt.Gox and BTC-e.
The team’s conclusion sounds like a warning to would-be
criminals: “An agency with subpoena power would be well
placed to identify who is paying money to whom.”41
For all the talk about Bitcoin being a bastion for bandits, it’s
more like a boon for anyone wearing a badge. Imagine the sit-
uation that follows if someone gets caught receiving mail order
drugs from a Bitcoin deal. Police can check out that person’s
digital wallet, figure out who received money to ship the drugs
and have immediate proof they can show in court. Criminals
are better off lurking on the streets with cash in their pock-
ets, Meiklejohn told me. Bitcoin has a long—and perfect—
memory of everything you’ve ever done.
“When you go buy drugs with cash, you get caught in one
transaction. That’s all they can prosecute you on,” Meiklejohn
said. “If you get caught buying drugs on Silk Road and they
look at your transaction history, you get caught on every trans-
action you’ve made. It’s much more serious.”
If only law enforcement is given permission to connect your

name to your digital wallet, this would allow for better privacy
in the marketplace and more effective criminal investigations.
There are currently limits to forensics, though. Online black
markets that sit as middlemen to illegal transactions have
employed a “Bitcoin tumbler” that moves money around so it’s
harder to track bitcoins from buyer to seller. Without a man-
date that identifies individual wallet holders, the Meiklejohn
method of clustering can only track down what marketplace
took your bitcoins—not necessarily who eventually received
them as payment. But the potential that already exists isn’t
lost on law enforcement agencies. Some have already reached
out to Meiklejohn for advice. And financial regulators are cur-
rently devising rules that will force exchanges to keep records
of their customers.
“Every bitcoin is by nature a marked bill. All that’s required
is putting together some pieces—like getting the exchanges
involved,” Meiklejohn said.
Money with Strings Attached

If there’s one aspect of digital currency that gets overlooked with
consistency, it’s the unique feature that the money is program-
mable. That quality makes it distinct from the physical money
we know today. Paper dollar bills and gold are physical objects
that have value all on their own, and they retain that value no
matter where they are or how they’re used (in everyday peace-
ful life, anyway). Physical money bestows power and wealth on
others merely by being in their possession. You wouldn’t doubt
someone sitting on a mound of gold coins is rich. The treasure
heap is hers, and she can spend it as she pleases. But comput-
erized money is different, because it’s really just software that
abides by a certain set of rules, a protocol. Those rules can be
adjusted at a moment’s notice. All it takes is rewriting the code.

It’s sort of like inscribing rules onto a gold bar or a paper bill.
This essentially turns money into a contract.
There’s already something in real life that vaguely resem-
bles this: bearer bonds. Although most folks have never
touched one, a bearer bond is a kind of document that prom-
ises to pay a predetermined amount to whoever holds it.
Technically speaking, it’s a debt security typically issued by a
business or government. They all say something to the effect
of, “This bearer bond promises to pay the bearer X dollars
upon settlement of this bond.” In the world of contracts, it’s
great for anonymity, because anyone can cash it out. But for
the sake of comparison with virtual currency, it doesn’t hold
up. Bearer bonds aren’t money, and the rules only apply at one
entity, like a specific bank.
Digital currency can take rules a step further, because it’s
entirely customizable. Whoever creates it—or issues it to
someone else—can tell it to perform a certain way. No mat-
ter what instructions are written onto a paper dollar bill or a
gold bar, you can ignore it. But a virtual unit of money could be
restricted to only work on weekends. Or at certain shops. Or in
a particular person’s possession. The possibilities are endless.
It’s this aspect of virtual money that most excites Dan
Kaufman, the director of information innovation at the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency. That’s quite something,
considering this is the man responsible for identifying the most
amazing, cutting-edge technology projects at the U.S. military’s
top research lab. Why would someone who works with the
Defense Department be interested in something like Bitcoin?
Because money is power, but control over how that money is
spent is better than that. It’s authority—and that means it can
root out bad behavior.
Over dinner with a few reporters in New York, Kaufman

explained how very rudimentary versions of this already exist:
restricted prepaid debit cards. His son attends college at the
University of Maryland, where something called the Terrapin
Express program allows students using a special card to buy
food, books, and other things on campus. But “Terp dollars” can’t
buy alcohol. So Kaufman can periodically fill up his son’s card
without having to worry about subsidizing rounds of beer pong.
“I know he’s going to do bad shit, but I feel like he should
earn that himself,” he joked. “Terp dollars are awesome. I put
some money in his account. It can only buy good things. So, I
started thinking about foreign aid.”
In its current state, foreign aid doesn’t work, Kaufman said.
It’s difficult to ensure that money appropriated for disaster relief
isn’t diverted elsewhere, and even then, there’s little recourse.
The money has been spent. There’s a lot of history to back this
up. One recent example is Afghanistan, which receives more
than $1 billion in U.S. aid each year. Corruption and waste are so
prevalent that the U.S. government hired independent auditors
to look it over in 2011. Their conclusion, made public in early
2014, was that the government can’t trust a single one of Afghan-
istan’s 16 ministries.42 The United States has run into the same
problem with Pakistan, where it gave more than $200 million
after 2001 on the condition it would be used to fight terror. By
2009, most of it had been used instead on large-scale weaponry
like antimissile defense systems and naval-targeting armaments
that do nothing to fight off rifle-wielding insurgents but a lot
to fuel the military buildup against neighboring India.43 But at
least governments can apply political pressure as retaliation. All
the vaccination charity Gavi could do in 2012 when it discovered
Sierra Leone officials were overpaying for ambulances and buy-
ing themselves lavish cars was simply cut off aid.44
The problem is exacerbated, because of the current limita-

tions of money. Kaufman used this example: The United States
sends money to a dictator, stipulating that the funds are meant
for buying his starving people wheat. Instead, he sends it to his
personal Swiss bank account.
“What can I do?” Kaufman said. “Well, I can yell at him. I
can sanction him. I can write letters to him. I can threaten him.
But it’s all kind of bullshit, right? And then I can go over to the
Swiss, and they’re like, ‘Money is money, my friend. It’s not our
war.’”
All the journalists in the room burst out laughing.
“You can’t enforce morality,” Kaufman said, shaking his
head. “You just can’t.”
He then clasped his hands together and raised an eyebrow.
“Now imagine the following. I invent a new currency, and I can
do foreign aid in this currency. And you buy wheat, or you buy
a school bus, or you buy purified water, or whatever. Build a
mosque—whatever cool thing you want to do.”
Except this new money is digital, and it does what you tell
it to do. It only works if it’s spent as permitted. So when that
dictator wires it to his Swiss bank account, it never goes in that
direction. It just sits there in his original bank account, waiting
to get spent the right way. Now the United States doesn’t have
to chase after anyone. The money does the job of enforcement
all on its own.
“The protocol is everything,” I said.
“That’s right,” Kaufman responded. “I’ve found the right
protocol, and I’ve done the right encryption on it, so now I don’t
have to ask the Swiss to do anything they don’t want to do…
magic money, right?”
No one at DARPA is actively working on something like this
yet, Kaufman said. But there’s certainly an appetite for this.
A Runaway Inflation Escape Pod

If there’s one reason above all others why Bitcoin is a Liber-
tarian dream, it’s because the currency is independent of state
control. No government determines how many bitcoins are
produced. The system regulates itself. It’s a simple concept, but
it’s attempting the biggest power grab in modern financial his-
tory. Rogue money is as antiauthority as it gets.
Governments everywhere jealously guard their currencies,
because it gives them economic control. The license to cre-
ate and destroy money is powerful. It affects prices and inter-
est rates, which collectively determine how you get paid, buy
things, save money, and invest. That covers just about every-
thing in the economy.
The ones in charge of this task are central bankers. To
them, the nation’s economy is akin to a machine. To keep it
working properly, buttons must be pushed. Levers must be
pulled. The most important gauge is the supply of money.
That’s the fuel. If the economy gets too slow, they hit the gas
pedal and pump more petrol into the engine. If it’s going too
fast, they cut off the fuel and hit the brakes. This control gives
central bankers the ability to steer the economy—and avert
financial disaster.
When they flood the system with cash, we can thank them
for the economic policies that create easy money and lower
interest rates: abruptly making our salaries higher and home
loans affordable. We can also curse them when those same
policies make cheeseburgers more expensive and our savings
accounts lose their value. That rise in prices is inflation, the
manmade economic condition that comes from the devaluing
of your dollar. You could say it’s like a hangover. We’re addicted
to the immediate high of easy money, and we pay for it later
with a case of delirium tremens.
This authority has almost always belonged exclusively to

governments, but there have been brief periods in which inde-
pendent institutions have had their own money. Just over a cen-
tury ago, it was common for a bank to create its own notes that
represented value stored in a vault somewhere. This started to
change in the late 1800s, when national governments around
the globe awarded specific banks a special privilege: the right to
issue notes for the entire country.45 Since then, central bankers
have led us into booms and busts that—depending on whom
you ask—make them heroes or villains.
There are those who question whether central banks
should even have this power. Their voices grew even louder
after the Great Recession of 2007–2009, because governments
were seen as complicit in fueling the housing bubble. As the
United States gripped with the aftermath of a period of easy
money, the policies were criticized by two distinct groups on
opposite ends of the political spectrum: the Tea Party on the
far right and the Occupy movement on the far left. While they
disagreed vehemently on immigration policy and state funding
of welfare programs, they both came to the conclusion that the
federal government had abused its monopoly on the supply of
money. Libertarians like the two-time Republican presidential
candidate Ron Paul, now a retired congressman, have called to
end the Federal Reserve.
Such a drastic change won’t come easily—if it ever comes at
all. The prevailing view by modern economists is that central
bankers serve a useful role manning the machine. Neither polit-
ical party, Democrat or Republican, has any intention to dissolve
the nation’s central bank. No other major country is considering
that either. But Bitcoin presents a workaround: a competing cur-
rency. Instead of yanking the levers away from central bankers,
Bitcoin creates something outside their control.
To be clear, the point of an independent digital money is not

about avoiding taxes. It is about having a currency people can
run to when they’re fleeing inflation. It’s a lifeboat on a sinking
cruise.
Do we really need an escape pod? Is it really that bad? In
most places, the answer is no. Most of us are unfamiliar with
inflation that spirals out of control. Modern, developed coun-
tries have not seen hyperinflation in decades, and there’s a gen-
eral sentiment among central bankers right now that they’ve
learned to tame that beast. But one need not look back too far
to see that this monster remains with us.
Zimbabwe’s recent monetary crisis sounds like something
out of a first-year college economics course. When Zimba-
bwe shed its colonial name of Rhodesia in 1980 and became
an independent state, its new Zimbabwean dollar was more
valuable than the U.S. dollar. It had a small, nascent economy,
so its largest currency denomination was the Z$20.46 But gov-
ernment spending went unchecked. It approved bonuses for
60,000 independence war veterans in 1997 without ever bud-
geting for it. President Robert Mugabe found himself in the
awkward situation of digging into empty coffers. He tried rais-
ing taxes, but that didn’t work, because trade unions protested.
The government resorted instead to the less prudent option:
Simply print the money. That’s how the veterans got paid. And
it’s how, the very next year, it also funded its participation in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s civil war. Over the next
decade, inflation mounted. The government began printing
ever higher denominations of currency. Prices skyrocketed.
What could buy you a dozen cars in 1998 only paid for a loaf
of bread in 2008.47 A billion Zim dollars got you a bag of cof-
fee. Businesses were forced to raise their employees’ wages too,
but they always lagged behind, so everyone felt poorer anyway.
The unforgettable moment came in 2009, when the govern-

ment issued the 100 trillion dollar bill. The eyes just glaze over
the zeros: $100,000,000,000,000. That’s 14 of them you just
skimmed. The currency was clearly worthless. Zimbabwe had
become a nation of starving billionaires. Within weeks, Zimba-
bweans ditched their paper and operated solely on U.S. dollars
and South African rands.
This kind of outrageous situation isn’t limited to upstarts

under dictatorial control in the poorest corner of the globe.
How about Argentina? With coveted attributes like ample
coastline, cattle and copper, the South American nation is a
commercial powerhouse. The sum value of its economic out-
put ranks it near Sweden and Norway. A century ago, it was
poised to lead the world’s economy. But the country has experi-
enced what the Economist has slyly dubbed “one hundred years
of ineptitude.”48 The worst of the decline came in the form of
rampant hyperinflation which started in the 1970s and peaked
in 1989 at 4,923 percent a year.49 At its darkest hour, food prices
rose so quickly that people resorted to riots and looted stores.
To hear about what this was like, I reached out to Mario

Diament, one of my college journalism professors at Florida
International University. He experienced the financial turmoil
firsthand during the 1980s, when he wrote political analysis
pieces for a weekly magazine in Buenos Aires. The value of his
country’s peso was in free-fall.
“The rate of the Argentine peso to the U.S. dollar was chang-
ing by the hour,” he said. “Everyone knew prices were chang-
ing. Children knew.”
At supermarkets, the price labels on products were marked
over and raised several times a day. Car dealerships, knowing
that today’s pesos would soon be worthless, promised to pay
you back in three months every cent you paid today. But in 90
days, whatever you spent on your car “was now the value of
an hour’s worth of parking,” Diament recalled. When workers
received their monthly salary check, they would race to the
nearest currency exchange to swap it for U.S. dollars, which
retained their value by comparison. Stores still took pesos, so
a curious daily ritual appeared. Shoppers would head to an
exchange just before the day’s activities, and swap their U.S.
dollars for only as many pesos as needed. The smartest shop-
pers returned to the exchange two or three times a day to min-
imize the loss in their money’s value. Hearing this, I was taken
aback by the waste of time, effort, and fuel. This is madness.
“Yes it is,” Diament replied.
This is why some people find the mere thought of inflation so
repulsive. Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain’s former prime min-
ister, described inflation as “an insidious moral evil” in her 1980
speech before that country’s Conservative and Unionist Party.
“Inflation destroys nations and societies as surely as invad-
ing armies do,” she said. “Inflation is the parent of unemploy-
ment. It is the unseen robber of those who have saved. No
policy which puts at risk the defeat of inflation—however great

its short-term attraction—can be right.”
This is where Bitcoin comes in. Its protocol says that only so
many bitcoins are produced each year. The system is never at
risk of a sudden flood of brand new money. By its very design,
Bitcoin is anti-inflationary. So, just like Argentines fled to the
U.S. dollar, anyone afraid that their currency is losing value can
flock to Bitcoin. It’s a refuge currency.
“That’s the holy grail for people who believe in freer mar-
kets and currency,” Adam Gurri told me. He’s a Libertarian eco-
nomics writer for the Umlaut, an online journal that discusses
innovation and public policy.
Like so many of Bitcoin’s other aspects, there’s nothing quite
like this right now. The closest thing to it worldwide is gold.
Have you ever dozed off on the couch watching TV, only to
wake up at 3:00 am in a sleepy stupor? If so, then you’ve prob-
ably caught those cash-for-gold, hour-long infomercials. You
know the ones: An older, distinguished-looking man walking
through a Palm Beach retirement community tries to sell you
the idea that the economy is headed for the tank and your sav-
ings are only safe if they’re kept in 438.9-ounce gold bars. The
problem is, you have to go through a broker. And they take a
cut. And it’s awfully difficult to break up gold bars to make pay-
ments. And no one takes gold as payment anyway.
What’s truly revolutionary, though, is what happens if a
large portion of the population ditches their dollars for bit-
coins. If enough people become currency refugees, the central
bankers can push their buttons all they want. No one will be on
the other end taking their money and putting it to use. A mass
exodus leaves the king with no one to rule.
“Governments like to believe they have some role in steer-
ing the economy through their central banks. If people can just
turn on a dime and use their own currency, that severely limits
the government’s ability to do so,” Gurri added.
The mere thought that people can flee their currency on
a whim might be enough to force governments to think twice
before devaluing their own paper bills. This nagging worry
might also reduce a common problem: Politicians are addicted
to using inflation as a means to reduce the real value of their
government’s debt to outsiders.
But it’s time for a reality check. I left this aspect of Bitcoin
last, because it’s rife with all sorts of problems. The first deals
with the effect this mass currency flight would have on the price
and availability of bitcoins themselves. It’s basic economics.
What happens when there’s a sudden, violent rise in demand?
The price goes up. This is especially the case if we’re talking
about a relatively small, niche currency like Bitcoin.
Here’s how the scenario might play out. The small, fictional
country of Hyperinflatia starts experiencing—you guessed
it—hyperinflation. Everyone there decides it’s time to trade in
their pesos for bitcoins. The world’s Bitcoin exchanges all get
hit simultaneously with millions of orders for bitcoins. It’s a
flood of willing buyers. Bitcoin owners willing to sell their bit-
coins now see a market opportunity, and they naturally want to
profit, so they raise their prices. Now, the citizens of Hyperinf-
latia are dealing with a double whammy. Their pesos are worth
less, and bitcoins are worth even more. They might as well go
for dollars, or euros, or something else that’s widely traded.
The second problem with this idea is that this relocation of
financial power is absolutely an antiauthoritarian revolution—
and those currently at the helm won’t sit idly by. To gauge what
type of response we can expect from the U.S. government, I
reached out to someone who’s watched federal machinations
up close for decades: Ron Paul. The congressman from Texas
had just retired after 36 years in Washington, DC, where he

had fought against every aspect of government intervention on
currency. I asked him what the federal government would do if
Americans started flocking to Bitcoin en masse to escape any
future inflation.
“Governments absolutely demand a monopoly on money
and credit. They’re not going to give it up easily,” Paul told me
by phone. “If they lose control of interest rates—when that hap-
pens and they’re trying to save the dollar—they’re not going to
want any competition. They’re going to come down very, very
hard. Just think of what we do to the various countries we don’t
like. We punish them with financial controls. We freeze their
assets. They will do what they can to come down hard on it.
Congress would get involved, because they can’t stand the
embarrassment if the dollar goes down in value.”
Don’t expect the government to wait until inflation kicks
in, Paul warned. He expects lawmakers to first move on behalf
of those with something to lose in the money game—banks,
credit card companies, and transaction processors.
“Let’s say all the forces in the credit card industry get
annoyed, and they lobby. I don’t doubt for a minute that special
interests will come down like that,” Paul said.
But what if—just for the sake of argument—that exodus
does happen? Let’s say people manage to buy bitcoins in secret.
After all, even in places with strict currency controls, there’s a
lively black market for dollars. What then?
“It’ll go down in history as the destroyer of the dollar,” Paul
said.
CHAPTER 7
The Case against Bitcoin
it ’s fair to call Bitcoin a startup currency. It has all the mak-

ings of a startup. Let’s do a tally. It came out of nowhere; noth-
ing like this existed before 2009. It’s disruptive technology that
will shake up our old, well-entrenched institutions. Its earliest
adopters are tech-savvy folks driven by idealism. The whole
system is maintained by a handful of computer coders.
Now for a healthy dose of realism: Three out of four start-
ups fail.1 Bootstrapped projects rarely make it off the ground,
especially when they’re perceived as principled crusades. Then
there’s the tricky task of getting people to buy what you’re
hawking. Make no mistake, Bitcoin is indeed peddling some-
thing: a totally new concept of money. It’s a hard sell.
It all comes down to trust, convincing someone that this new
version of money is at least as trustworthy and reliable as the
physical coins and bills we’re all so accustomed to. It demands
confidence that the reward for your hard labor is safe. It’s an
epic battle. In one corner is physical money, used by humans
for more than 5,000 years. In the other corner is money that
exists only in the digital world and relies on the Internet, which
for most people is less than 25 years old.
The conflict is daunting in its simplicity. People know how

metal coins and paper bills work, how they look and feel. We’re
reminded of their power every day we buy our groceries, fill up
our gas tanks, and pay for a movie ticket. And we trust them
enough to give up most of our conscious lives to receive it as
reward. A survey of those aged 25 to 54 showed that employed
American parents spend 54 percent of their day at work.2 We’re
all willing to toil away—in a steamy kitchen, an uptight office,
a noisy classroom—as long as we’re paid in physical money.
We’re not okay getting paid in bananas or books or video
games. Why not? Because we’re not under the delusion that
those things can pay for rent.
That reveals two things. The first is that we’re only willing
to get paid in something that we know others will accept as
payment. It’s a feedback loop where you accept dollars because
everyone else accepts dollars. This self-generated obstacle
forms a major barrier for any new idea of currency, like Bitcoin.
The second insight runs much deeper beneath the surface,
and it’s something most of us never question: our faith in our
money.
British historian Niall Ferguson put this into perspective in
his book, The Ascent of Money. Take a look at the back of a $10
bill. You’ll find the phrase we all know so well: in god we trust.
“But the person you are really trusting when you accept one
of these in payment is the successor to the man on the front,
Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the U.S. Treasury.”
Ferguson’s point is that when you accept dollars for your goods
or labor, you’re trusting that the government won’t get reckless
printing money and make it worthless.
That trust quickly expands outward. You have faith that
the U.S. president will safeguard the nation’s currency. You
trust that Congress will step in if things go wrong. Powerful
The Case against Bitcoin 139
business interests will keep bureaucrats from tanking the econ-

omy. Voters will replace them if necessary. American politics is
accountable. The Constitution will be upheld. You believe the
system works.
Bitcoin fails on every single one of these points. There is no
expectation that businesses will let you buy from them with
bitcoins. Rare is the person who’s willing to get paid in bitcoins
alone. There is no one to entrust with the fate of its value. There
is no recourse if things go wrong. Perhaps most importantly,
though, most people don’t even know it exists. Less than half
of Americans have ever heard of it, and only 13 percent of them
trust it enough to prefer receiving bitcoins over gold.3 From
my everyday interactions with friends, family, and strangers,
it’s safe to say even fewer people understand it. Some of these
things might change over time. But as of right now, Bitcoin is a
poor competitor to the dollar we use today.
The fault is not in the software, but in ourselves. So far, the
Bitcoin protocol has proven robust and secure. But huge barri-
ers remain, because of how Bitcoin is perceived by the general
public. They just don’t trust it. People see Bitcoin’s origins, its
reliance on automated programming, and the very fact that its
code is a freely accessible open-source project as weaknesses,
causes for doubt. Are they being prudent and wise? Or petty
and fearful? It actually doesn’t matter. If they don’t take a leap
of faith, Bitcoin won’t work.
I can count nine snags Bitcoin must overcome to make good
on the promises I detailed in the previous chapter. None of
these is particularly easy to solve, and I don’t pretend to have
the answers. But they’re worth mentioning because something
this groundbreaking and powerful deserves a skeptical look.
Investors should hear warnings before they load their hard-
earned savings onto a ship that’s embarking on its maiden
voyage. People who plan to start paying in electronic money

have a duty go into this soberly. Businesses ought to know the
dangers associated with the newfangled money they’re about
accept as payment.
The Origin Story

This is probably the worst. Are you really going to trade in your
proven, working U.S. dollars sitting in a federally insured bank
that’s “backed by the full faith and credit of the United States”
for a monetary system created by a faceless stranger? Bitcoin’s
creator decided to keep his identity hidden—at least up until
the publishing of this book. It casts a shadow of doubt over the
entire concept of Bitcoin.
Imagine if an architect secretly constructs a gorgeous,
10-story building, complete with Art Deco–style archways, hor-
izontal banding on the façades, and a ziggurat pyramid roof.
Then, on her own volition, she disappears. Do you pack up
your stuff and move in? Do you feel safe doing it? How are you
sure it’s a safe structure? And wouldn’t you wonder why she slid
into the shadows? It’s not just odd. It’s highly suspect.
Satoshi Nakamoto’s vanishing act doesn’t exactly inspire
confidence. I’ll leave it to someone else to espouse at length
on the reasons he decided to remain anonymous. Maybe he
feared law enforcement would unjustly hunt him down. That’s
a valid worry. Or maybe he just wanted to distance something
as incredible as Bitcoin from something as flawed as a human
being. What if Nakamoto is actually an accomplished college
mathematics professor who has served time for murder? Or
what if he is a genius child living in the snowy mountains of
the Yukon? Or how about a self-taught, stay-at-home mom?
The world wouldn’t take their currency experiments seriously.
It sounds petty, but a clean record and college pedigree weighs
heavily in real life. We humans are a dreadful bunch, quickly

resorting to ad hominem attacks that focus more on judging
the person producing the idea than gauging the validity of the
concept itself. It reduces the value of others’ creations, discov-
eries, and contributions. History has countless examples. Take
the man who first proposed the existence of subatomic parti-
cles called quarks, George Zweig. As a young graduate student
who had never published a single scientific paper, his inexperi-
ence was the very reason the research center where he worked,
CERN, wouldn’t publish his findings in 1968.4 Perhaps Naka-
moto feared a similar, baseless rejection. Whatever the moti-
vations were, they suggest Nakamoto didn’t have confidence
that people would judge him fairly. If Nakamoto didn’t trust
the public, why should people be expected to trust Nakamoto’s
creation?
Nakamoto’s disappearance doesn’t help the case for Bitcoin.
Here’s an experience that served as a personal gut-check. On
my way into the newsroom one morning, I tried explaining Bit-
coin to my friend Gary Mcdonald, a security officer at CNN’s
New York offices. His first question was a doozy:
“So who’s behind this? Who created this?”
As I explained Nakamoto and Bitcoin’s mysterious begin-
nings, Gary’s smile grew wider by the second. I stopped when I
saw he could barely contain himself any longer.
“Naaaah,” he said. “No way. You can’t trust that.”
On the other hand, anyone can figure out where U.S. dol-
lar bills come from. The cotton-fiber paper notes are printed
by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Larry R. Felix is in
charge over there, if you must know. New bills are issued by
the Federal Reserve, with Janet Yellen at the helm. These aren’t
people the average American can easily get on the phone, but
at least we know their names.
The Empty Throne

The next snag for most people is the very thing that makes
Bitcoin so innovative: It’s a decentralized, peer-to-peer system.
While that attracts free minds and free spirits, it repels the
Average Joe who just wants to know someone is in charge.
After all, there’s a benefit to concentrating power into a sin-
gle person or team. They’re motivated to perform well, because
they’ll be rewarded in money or reputation. There’s punitive
reinforcement too. When something goes wrong, they can be
held accountable. There’s no such thing with a peer-to-peer
system. The protocol is in charge. Wait, so who is making sure
this whole Bitcoin thing doesn’t crash? That brings us to the
next point.
Volunteers Run the Show

This will come as a surprise to anyone who isn’t knee-deep in
a technological field. Bitcoin is an open-source project, which
means its software is wholly cared for by a community of devel-
opers who volunteer their time and expertise to scan the code
for bugs, rewrite when necessary, and add improvements to the
system. As an open-source project, anyone can see the source
code, the blueprints that reveal all the magic—and potential
mistakes to be exploited.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the open-source
model. It works stupendously well for many of the tools we
use today. The fact that anyone can read through the source
code means that bugs are spotted faster and fixed more quickly
than proprietary software that belongs to a single company
and is heavily guarded. It also means that computer program-
mers from around the world can keep it up to date with the
latest, niftiest technology, so open-source projects also tend
to be more advanced and cutting-edge than their proprietary
counterparts. There’s a one-in-four chance you browse the Web

with Mozilla Firefox, which is open source, and that works just
fine. WordPress remains one of the world’s top blogging plat-
forms, used by more than 200 million websites. Linux is a com-
puter operating system that runs on thousands of machines
across the globe, everything from home computers to the U.S.
Navy’s nuclear submarine fleet.5 Another is OpenSSL, the soft-
ware most often used to encrypt the communication you have
online with your email, social media, and bank.
But open-source projects have a flaw. If they’re mismanaged
or underfunded, the whole thing can crash—and no one’s to
blame. No one owns the project. It’s a labor of love. Our experi-
ence with the security software OpenSSL serves as a warning.
It was behind an event in early 2014 that shook the Internet
for a few days. A few computer researchers looking through
OpenSSL’s code on their own discovered a massive, gaping
security hole. The program that was on servers at major web-
sites had a “heartbeat” function that pinged your computer
to make sure it was still there. The problem? Outsiders who
weren’t supposed to read your encrypted conversation with
a website could use that ping to tap into a computer’s mem-
ory. If using OpenSSL is the equivalent of enciphering letters
before sending them by mail, this was like leaving a window
open that lets anyone peer in as you read the letter. It defeats
the purpose. This “Heartbleed” bug had been inadvertently
placed into the OpenSSL code two years prior and had quietly
undermined more than 66 percent of major websites. Security
experts I spoke to at the time called it the worst Internet bug
ever. The OpenSSL Software Foundation raced to patch it,
quickly sent fixes to the millions of devices and websites that
relied on it, and everyone hoped no one had secretly exploited
it. But on April 15, the Canadian Mounted Police arrested a
19-year-old who, they say, used the Heartbleed bug to hack into
the country’s tax agency and steal the Social Insurance Num-
bers of 900 taxpayers. The episode forced the country to delay
its tax-filing deadline by nearly a week. How did something so
pivotal to the infrastructure of the Internet—our communi-
cation, our finances, our safety—end up with such a massive
flaw? OpenSSL is maintained by a handful of volunteers. Only
four are considered “core programmers.” The organization’s
president, Steve Marquess, would later tell me that, altogether,
the team of volunteers contributes the work of three full-tim-
ers. This is the dark side of open source: being underfunded
and understaffed.
During that ordeal, I spoke to Marc Gaffan, who cofounded
the cloud security provider Incapsula. He said the Heartbleed
incident showed how open-source projects leave no one to
blame for a mistake. There’s no liability. No one is culpable.
But the point here isn’t that open source should give up culprits
for us to condemn; it’s that this is what you get with volunteer
projects.
“What do you expect? You got this for free. You get what you
pay for,” he said.
And that’s how Bitcoin is currently maintained. Bitcoin’s
core developers are extremely talented individuals who love the
project. Their involvement is about benevolence, not personal
gain. They pour their hearts and souls into it. There’s nothing
categorically improper about what they’re doing. Gavin Andre-
sen, Pieter Wuille, Nils Schneider, Jeff Garzik, Wladimir J. van
der Laan, and Gregory Maxwell all care deeply about this proj-
ect. Otherwise, they would be spending their free time doing
other things. But it will be a challenge to convince everyday
people to adopt a leaderless currency kept alive by passionate
volunteers.
Beware Deadly Bugs

This one comes up a lot, especially among tech-savvy folks
who would love Bitcoin—if it weren’t for their constant fear of
software flaws. Bitcoin is purely a software play. It’s all it is and
all it ever will be. The software makes it powerful, but if there is
even a tiny glitch, the whole system could come crashing down.
This is a weakness you can’t ignore.
It’s not the same in the physical realm. A single, miniature
mistake at the Federal Reserve won’t suddenly wipe out the
savings accounts at every bank. The cash under your mattress
won’t burst into flames. It would take a concerted effort by sev-
eral people at the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury to seri-
ously hurt the dollar. And it wouldn’t happen in the blink of
an eye. These kinds of things happen to the beat of a steady
drum—even if it rumbles quietly in the background. Red flags
go up. Disaster can be averted.
I can hear the counterarguments rolling in. Airplanes
rely on digital systems, but we fly in them without a second
thought. Our cars have more than 50 microprocessors in
them, and key systems run on software. It’s gotten to the point
that folks in the auto industry tell me there’s a joke engineers
share at Toyota: The only reason they put wheels on a car is to
not scratch the bottom of the computer chassis. But most peo-
ple don’t think about that. Tell them something runs entirely
on software, and they immediately think about how many
times Internet Explorer crashes on them. They remember all
those times their banking app shut down halfway through a
transfer.
The OpenSSL Heartbleed bug, which forced everyone
everywhere to change their passwords, showed what a tiny cod-
ing mistake can do. There’s no telling what kind of damage a
software glitch can do to the Bitcoin system.
It’s All on You

You should see the horror on people’s faces when I tell them
you can actually lose your bitcoins with a single click. Just
delete the private key to your digital wallet. Misplace that, and
you’ll never get it back. After all, it’s just a file. It’s no different
than an mp3.
By cutting banks out of the equation, Bitcoin empowers
individuals. But it also shifts the entire responsibility of keep-
ing that money safe to you. Consider that a digital wallet isn’t
just a wallet. It’s also an account. There’s a difference. If you’re
anything like the average person, you keep just enough money
to get you by in your wallet, but you keep most of your money
in the bank. It’s not because it’s more convenient to carry less
cash. You do it because it’s unsafe to walk around with hun-
dreds or thousands of dollars at a time. Yet Bitcoin is more like
having a collection of wallets. You keep some key pairs on you,
others at home. You can keep your private keys stored in an
offline device. But your private keys are not locked behind a
fortified institution where your money is insured by the Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation. That’s where banks have a
real advantage over bitcoins. If someone robs a bank, they take
the bank’s money, not yours. If someone makes off with your
bitcoins, you’re out of luck. No one is going to pay you back.
This is a turnoff to all but the most bold.
François Velde, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago, made this point in an essay he wrote about
Bitcoin in 2013.6 “Although some of the enthusiasm for Bitcoin
is driven by a distrust of state-issued currency, it is hard to imag-
ine a world where the main currency is based on an extremely
complex code understood by only a few and controlled by even
fewer; without accountability, arbitration, or recourse.”
He continued: “Bitcoin is free of the power of the state, but it

is also outside the protection of the state.”
It’s not easy to steal someone’s bitcoins. The system’s tight
security is designed to prevent that very thing from happen-
ing. But that’s a double-edged sword. If you misplace your dig-
ital wallet’s private key or forget the passphrase that gave you
access, your stash of bitcoins is as good as gone. It takes a brave
person to take on the responsibility of safeguarding your own
money and know that you are the first and last line of defense.
Just ask James Howells, the British man who chucked out a
hard drive containing the private keys of 7,500 bitcoins (when
they were worthless). When the price of a bitcoin reached
$1,000, his old drive was worth $7.5 million. But it was too late
to get it back from the city dump.7
The lesson here is that Bitcoin isn’t for the faint-hearted, or
the irresponsible, or those who would rather sit back and let
others guard their money for them. You need to understand how
the system works, know how to use a computer, and be famil-
iar enough with technology to recognize when you’re making a
bad decision. Maneuvering through the tech world is only easy
if you know how to properly avoid bad turns into dangerous
alleys. If you fall for a phishing scam by opening an email and
clicking on a bad link, you could download a virus that secretly
scans your computer for access to your Bitcoin wallet.
Most of us have gotten past this kind of worry in the modern
world. Our money is safe at a bank, and we don’t have to think
twice about it. Even if you keep your cash under the mattress,
you can still tell when someone has physically broken into your
home. It’s not as easy on a computer. You can’t always tell if your
digital door has been unlocked. A hacker could have tunneled
into your computer to spy on you and steal your bitcoins, and
without diligent antivirus and malware updates, you probably

wouldn’t know.
Bitcoin is frequently described as a Wild West. It sure is. It
takes true grit. There are bandits around every corner. Many
so-called banks and exchanges are actually fly-by-night oper-
ations to whom you can’t entrust your money. But hey, it’s free
roaming out there, pardner. Are you ready to saddle up your
horse, slip that revolver into your holster, and ride out? If you’re
not the tech-savvy, adventurous type, Bitcoin isn’t for you.
Copycat Coins
There’s nothing to stop anyone from taking Bitcoin’s openly
available code and creating an identical digital currency. What
if a few computer developers and economists get together and
come up with a better Bitcoin? Let’s say they make this New
Bitcoin easier to use and give it nifty new features. Currently, so
few people use bitcoins that the market for New Bitcoin could
easily outnumber and overpower the old version. What then?
The value of old bitcoins would most likely drop. People’s sav-
ings would take a hit. Businesses would be disinclined to accept
them as payment. Anyone who ditched dollars for bitcoins
would feel foolish, because this drop in value would feel like
the very inflation they sought to escape. Even a one-month, 10
percent drop—which is common in the Bitcoin world—would
be worse than anything the U.S. dollar has experienced.
It seems ridiculous to just start your own electronic money.
But that’s already going on. There’s Dogecoin, Litecoin, Isracoin,
Zetacoin, Primecoin, Peercoin, and Auroracoin. Some of these
are actually based on Bitcoin, and none of these has caught
on. But there’s nothing stopping a competitor from dethron-
ing the king. There were many social media platforms that
drew in millions of people—including the incredibly popular
MySpace—before Facebook appeared and wiped them all off

the map.
This kind of head-to-head potential for total replacement
doesn’t exist in modern currencies. What stops this from hap-
pening right now in the physical realm with U.S. dollars is that
it’s illegal to create an identical system (massive printers, cen-
tral bank, and all). Europeans use euros, and no one can come
up with an identical version that could quickly be adopted by
a population greater than the 740 million people in Europe.
One could say the same for every nation. No matter what new
currency pops up, it won’t be a perfect competitor to Nigeria’s
naira or Yemen’s rial or Egypt’s pound. Any successful digital
currency could be a direct competitor to Bitcoin.
There’s significant incentive for starting a new, better Bit-
coin. Those who got into Bitcoin early and collected or mined a
few thousand of them became millionaires when the price hit
$1,000 and they sold their stock. It only happened to a handful
of people. But that set a precedent. It introduced the world to
a get-rich-quick scheme that would have seemed impossible in
the past. Can’t get wealthy with money that already exists? Cre-
ate your own!
This is why Warren Buffett, when asked about Bitcoin as a
guest on CNBC, expressed reservations about its value. “You
can replicate it a bunch of different ways,” he said. “And the
idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my
view.”8
This isn’t an analysis that’s reserved for Columbia MBAs
and stock valuation geniuses either. Many times while intro-
ducing this to people unfamiliar with Bitcoin, this is their knee-
jerk response: “So I guess I can create my own money?” The
perception that a new version of Bitcoin can just pop up is dis-
comforting—justifiably so.
Commodity vs. Currency

Bitcoin has an identity crisis. Some see it as a commodity like
gold. Its usefulness as an investment is dependent upon its
gaining value over time. The traditional investing rules apply:
Buy low, sell high. There’s also an understanding that prices
might be volatile—they could wildly swing up and down—but
overall there’s an expectation its price will eventually increase.
Contrast that with those who view it as a currency. To make it
functional as money, it needs to hold a steady value so people
and businesses feel comfortable trading with it. Prices need to
be unwavering enough that merchants can calculate revenue
stream and easily figure out how to apply sales tax.
It’s difficult to have both of these happen at the same time.
Speculative investors like shaky prices, because they can find
opportunities to buy on a low day and take advantage of a peak
day. To everyday users who want it as a currency, shaky prices
complicate transactions. If you buy an espresso in bitcoins just
as the price dips briefly, you’ll overpay and regret it hours later.
Similarly, long-term investors like continuous growth in value.
But if that’s expected, anyone using bitcoins as a currency
would rather hold them instead of spend them. That’s terrible
for the Bitcoin economy, as this creates disincentive to use your
money. It’s essentially deflation, the opposite of inflation. Eco-
nomic activity slows down, and the system starts tumbling into
a downward spiral. It’s not easy to escape. Japan’s economy has
been dealing with this for two decades, leaving top economists
perplexed and policymakers feeling hopeless.
Andrew Schiff is an investment consultant at Euro Pacific
Capital who thinks that deflation is Bitcoin’s biggest hurdle.
“Bitcoin is a great idea in terms of how the market can take
back its own fate and take away the monopoly of currency
issuance from central banks,” he said. “But the kind of price
appreciation you’ve seen in 2013 is incompatible with it being

a currency.”
Catherine Mann, an economics professor at Brandeis Uni-
versity, thinks the volatility alone will prevent Bitcoin from
truly taking off. The problem is inherent in the fact that a bit-
coin lacks a stable source of value. People generally agree what
the price of gold is, or a U.S. dollar, or a ton of grain. That isn’t
true with an electronic token. “Absent an established under-
pinning, a stable value, Bitcoin won’t be used the way it was
intended—as a currency,” she said. “The number of bitcoins
you need to use in a transaction has varied from 100 to two.
That highly volatile price undermines its use as a means of
exchange.”
Bitcoin’s track record so far shows that it doesn’t serve well

as a currency or investment. It’s too unstable. Its 9,775 percent
growth rate in the year starting December 2012 wasn’t just
explosive—it was nuclear. But it fell nearly 50 percent two

weeks later.
This shows how speculative it can be, which is good for

neither long-term investors seeking it as a safe commodity nor
casual users and businesses that need something steady to rely
on for conducting transactions. This scares off newcomers.
It’s Rebellious
We’re not all activists, and most people are risk-averse. Bitcoin’s
best attributes are that it’s groundbreaking technology that’s
individually liberating and inherently disruptive. That’s not
for everyone. Alternative money is also something of a political
statement. It attempts to wrestle some control out of the gov-
ernment’s hands.
Most mainstream economists, especially those in academia,

agree that central banks have a place in our society to maneu-
ver the economy. When I asked University of Michigan eco-
nomics professor Miles Kimball about Bitcoin, his take was
that the idea of a digital currency is great. But he’s not a fan of
an independent currency that’s outside the control of the state.
“It’s unlikely governments will let go of monetary policy—nor
should they,” he said. “What Bitcoin does is that it really shows
governments are behind the curve. Governments should be
creating their own version of Bitcoin. Governments should
be ashamed they haven’t.”
The same thinking applies for people who strictly agree
with a political party. For American liberals, an independent
currency threatens to upset their desire for a more robust gov-
ernment. Bigger schools, a wider welfare system, and increased
government involvement in our lives costs money. While
some of this money comes from increased taxes, the truth is
that much of it comes from leveraging the national debt. But,
as explained in the last chapter, the presence of a legitimate
alternative money puts pressure on a government to be fiscally
conservative (minimizing debt and avoiding inflation to keep
that debt low).
For modern-day American conservatives, the same pres-
sures apply. National debt is, in large part, what allows for
sustained massive spending on the military and tax breaks for
corporations and the rich. It would be more difficult to keep
this up if an alternative currency exerts demands on the gov-
ernment to be more selective in its spending habits.
In that sense, Americans who fall squarely in either political
party are correct in seeing Bitcoin as a hazard. This currency
absolutely undermines the system. Traditionalists need not
enter here.
Perfect Tracking
With all the talk about nameless digital wallets and nearly
anonymous spending, this point gets lost on most people. How-
ever, as explained in the last chapter, Bitcoin’s public ledger
records every single transaction. If there’s ever a law that man-
dates a person must register their digital wallet (as is expected),
law enforcement now has the ability to track your every finan-
cial move.
This point was covered in the last chapter as a potential
positive with Bitcoin and similar digital currencies. It is in the
sense that it’s great for building a case against a caught crim-
inal. But for those who fear the growing, unwarranted mass
surveillance of innocent people, Bitcoin only empowers gov-
ernment agents. It’s no different than credit card transactions,
which leave a detailed history, documenting how much you
spent, where, and on what.
Much of this chapter reads like cynicism. It’s not. This is the
culmination of hundreds of conversations I’ve had with regu-
lar folks: new fathers, single mothers, retirees, college students,
razor-sharp Wall Street traders, and wide-eyed teenagers.
While all of them find Bitcoin and the idea of electronic money
exciting and fascinating, each of them has expressed concern
about at least one of the points I’ve listed. And they’re right to
be cagey about this. Money is not to be taken lightly. We’ve all
earned our pay by laboring away for hours, giving up the pre-
cious time we could have spent with our families, friends, or
ourselves. We’re not just guarding our cash. We’re fearful about
turning entire days or weeks of our working lives into some-
thing wasted. It’s natural to be distrustful about something that
turns everything we know about money upside down.
James Rickards, a money expert who authored the book

Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis, summed it
up best. Although he respects the technology that underpins
the Bitcoin protocol, he can’t take his mind off all the poten-
tial there is for things to go wrong. “There’s technological risk,
financial risk, legal risk, tax risk,” he said. “What’s the upside?
I’d rather go to Las Vegas and play roulette, because I enjoy it.”
There’s no need to be fatalist about Bitcoin. None of the
points made here necessarily sentences Bitcoin to death. But
each of these will need to be addressed before a currency that’s
made of invisible ones and zeros overcomes our inhibitions
and gains our confidence. Bitcoin’s success depends entirely
upon whether people believe. That gets at the very heart of the
definition of money. A unit of exchange that no one trusts—be
it gold, paper, or computer code—is nothing at all.
CHAPTER 8
The Rise and Fall

of Mt.Gox
for a second , Antoine Bourgouis felt as if he’d just won

the lottery. The 34-year-old French executive living in Tokyo
saw ¥100,000 pop into his bank account, and he could barely
believe his eyes. It was money he feared he’d never see again.
By all accounts, it might as well have dropped out of the sky in
a neatly wrapped gift box. Bourgouis had gambled months ear-
lier by dumping it on a glitch-ridden Bitcoin trading website. It
had been so long since he’d heard back from the site’s admin-
istrators that, for a while, it looked as good as gone. But there it
was: $1,000 worth of cold hard cash.
It was February 25, 2014. Mt.Gox.com, once the world’s No. 1
spot to buy and sell bitcoins, was now a blank white page.
An estimated $400 million was gone. Thousands of trading
accounts were suddenly rendered inaccessible, and they weren’t
just in bitcoins. Some were in euros, others in U.S or Australian
dollars. Each ranged in size from a few bucks to entire college
savings. Had the site been hacked? Was the company defunct?
Did everyone’s bitcoins just disappear in a flash?
The Rise and Fall of Mt.Gox 157
Bourgouis was just as clueless as anyone else. But he knew

he was among the few who made it out unscathed. His fellow
traders were up in arms, groaning in public forums and talking
to reporters about how they’d lost it all. In fact, given the fury,
Bourgouis was better off keeping his head down. He had actu-
ally done better than survive. He prospered, receiving double
what he’d originally put in.
Four months earlier, Bourgouis had transferred ¥50,000 to a
newly opened Mt.Gox account. With it, he bought five bitcoins
and watched them blast off like a rocket. But he couldn’t stom-
ach the daily price swings. Compared to the liquor and video-
game penny stocks he’d traded a few years earlier—including
one company that went bankrupt—this was madness. A bit-
coin was going for $192 on Tuesday, then $200 on Wednesday,
and back down to $175 on Thursday. The stress was too much.
Bourgouis’ appetite for risk was better suited for his day job, a
conservative chief financial officer for a retail chain.
His five bitcoins doubled in value a few weeks later, and
Bourgouis wasted no time selling them to another trader. But
when he tried to cash out his ¥100,000, Mt.Gox administrators
suddenly got pushy. They wanted proof Bourgouis was who he
said he was. He provided everything they asked, and got noth-
ing in return. He tried again in December. Then again in Janu-
ary. When it appeared in his bank account nearly 90 days after
he’d requested it—a day after the site shut down—he didn’t
know how to explain it. But he was glad he pulled out in time.
“Thank God I did not buy again,” he told me by phone.
“With Bitcoin, I think I’m done. That was fun, it was interest-
ing, but it was really a strong reminder that this is really pure
speculation. There is no regulation, no guarantee, no safety
net, nobody controlling what the numbers are. Even right now,
nobody really knows if Mt.Gox was a big scam or really a secu-

rity leak. It could just be another Ponzi scheme. Who knows
where all the bitcoins went?”
How did it get this bad?
For all the cynicism that Mt.Gox was a house of cards waiting
to collapse, the truth is, it actually was a house of cards. Magic
cards, that is.
The website’s first iteration was the brainchild of Jed McCa-
leb, a bright computer programmer obsessed with peer-to-peer
networks.1 He had created eDonkey 2000, which reigned as the
top music-sharing site in the post-Napster era, and by 2006 he
was looking for another disruptive project.2 He came up with a
novel concept: a website where card collectors could trade their
decks like stocks. In this case, it would be players of Magic: The
Gathering, a popular fantasy-themed trading card game that
draws the Dungeons & Dragons crowd.
I could proceed with a thoughtful explanation of this eccen-
tric game, in which cards showing breathtaking landscapes
yield magical energy called “mana,” which lets you cast spells
with fanciful names like “lava axe” or “burning vengeance.” I
still keep a small collection around that I use as bookmarks,
leftovers from my socially awkward middle-school years. But
I digress.
McCaleb noticed that players were starting to migrate to
an online version of Magic without any physical cards, and
he thought a virtual trading floor would serve them well. He
bought the domain MtGox.com and sometime in early 2007
launched Magic: The Gathering Online eXchange.3 After a few
months, it didn’t catch on, so McCaleb abandoned the project
and eventually turned the website into a place where he could
advertise his next project, The Far Wilds, a video game of duel-
ing knights and warring kingdoms.4
Then, in the summer of 2009, McCaleb heard about Bitcoin.
He was fascinated with the liberating idea of an independent
currency, but he couldn’t find a decent place to buy them him-
self. That’s when it clicked: Mt.Gox might be more useful here.
He rebuilt the site as a place to trade bitcoins instead of Magic
cards and launched it July 17, 2010. For a time, it ran solely on
PayPal transactions.5 The Bitcoin community was tiny in those
days, so word spread quickly that it was eons ahead of its com-
petitors. McCaleb advertised his site to Bitcoin enthusiasts,
touting that it was always online, automated, faster, and eas-
ier to use. Users who kept their money on the website could
keep buying and selling bitcoins at their leisure. He started off
charging a 2 percent surcharge on every transaction and later
dropped it to zero. But as the site gained in popularity and user
demands started coming in, McCaleb became bored with the
project. He never meant to become the administrator of a tiny
stock market. And for a man who loves playing digital architect,
the heart of the task was essentially complete. “It’s not techni-
cally interesting,” he would later say. And so, he looked for a
buyer and found one in Japan: a young French fellow by the
name of Mark Karpelès.
At that very moment, Karpelès was still getting used to his
new home in Japan. But let’s backtrack. The mild-mannered
25-year-old had spent years in Paris working for Internet
companies and had long dreamed of moving to Tokyo. Like
so many other computer geeks before him, he was drawn by
an infatuation with Japanese culture and anime, the nation’s
unique animation style. When his employer, the e-commerce
platform Nexway, finally agreed to let him work from abroad,
he packed up his ginger-colored munchkin cat and a few hard
drives, and left in a hurry. He documented every minute detail

on his personal blog, from walks off the subway to baking apple
tarts.6 In those years, he was an open book. No one knew him,
and he had nothing to fear. How that would change years later.
Back then, Karpelès was merely another cheery young man
with entrepreneurial dreams—and a whimsical online per-
sona. He was MagicalTux, PHP coding extraordinaire and a
high-tech MacGyver who boasted he could save a broken Sea-
gate hard disk armed with only “a business card, some wires,
and a torx screwdriver.” He spent much of that first year in
Japan touring his new country, uploading videos on YouTube
of train rides in the forest, street parades, and fireworks. A
few months in, he finally got around to starting Tibanne Co.,
named after his feline companion. He used that as a platform
to launch several web-related business ideas.7 The first came
in 2010 when he created Kalyhost.com, a service where others
could host their own websites with guaranteed privacy. He set
himself apart by being one of the first few businesses anywhere
in the world to accept bitcoins as payment—at a time when
they were going for pennies. Then came another Bitcoinerrific
idea: smsZ.net, a text message service that would charge half a
bitcoin for every Short Message Service sent worldwide.
Even as Karpelès tried to make himself a businessman, the
fun-loving escapist kid inside him hadn’t left. He spent his
downtime immersing himself in the computer video game
Minecraft—think Legos in an 8-bit world. There, he would
hack away at pixelated blocks for hours. He’d dig deep into the
digital dirt to mine for gold and iron ore. He constructed giant
bridges that spanned across the blocky landscape. He built
cyber citadels to his heart’s delight.
But then another virtual fortress caught his eye: Mt.Gox.
Its owner was no longer interested in keeping it running, and
Karpelès thought he could take it to the next level with smoother

transactions and a better interface. He showed McCaleb his
experience with web programming and system administration,
and they reached an agreement, with the Frenchman buying 88
percent of Mt.Gox through his fledgling startup, Tibanne. On
March 6, 2011, McCaleb announced he was passing the torch to
MagicalTux, and the site’s fate was sealed.
Facing growing demand from wannabe traders, Karpelès
immediately started hiring technical staff—and paying them
in bitcoins, of course. Meanwhile, he tried to keep up with the
surge of customer money flowing his way by establishing bank
relationships around the world. People had to send money to
Mt.Gox to start trading, so the company was inundated in wire
transfers. The service was clunky, and the initiation process
was a bit of a hassle, but by most accounts, the small business of
Tibanne was faring well. Karpelès charged a 0.65 percent fee on
every transaction, and the volume was growing steadily.8 Sure,
he only made $1,000 or so that first month. But six months
later, Mt.Gox would easily be raking in that much each day. Not
bad for an automated service with a tiny staff.
He quickly realized the difficulty in running an exchange
within the constraints of the Bitcoin system, though. “A trad-
ing system requires all the stuff that we do not know (yet) how
to run decentralized,” he wrote in a public post early on. One
problem was figuring out a way to successfully deliver real-
time, instantaneous transactions. The Bitcoin system doesn’t
verify them right away. Another issue was having the site serve
as a responsible, trusted middleman in a system designed spe-
cifically to cut them out. These would be two problems that
would haunt Mt.Gox until its collapse.
As if those headaches weren’t enough, malicious bands of
Internet trolls soon appeared. Karpelès was at the helm for
only a month when Russian cyber bandits decided to flood

Mt.Gox with illegitimate web traffic, performing what’s called
a Distributed Denial of Service attack (DDoS for short). The
anonymous attacker demanded Karpelès pay a $7,000 ran-
som. Karpelès felt helpless as he watched his website get
overwhelmed with malevolent computers sending him more
than 6,000 connections every second, but he refused to give
in. He took down the service for four days as he scrambled to
find a new server and install some protective software. And
while he did manage to bring the site back up with better
defenses, the experience left newcomers with a bitter taste.
Mt.Gox collected money like a mini bank, but the fact that
it was still susceptible to a low-scale hack showed it wasn’t
ready for prime time.
As a safety measure, Karpelès would later say, Mt.Gox kept
the vast majority of its clients’ bitcoins offline, meaning that
private keys weren’t accessible via the Internet, so they were
safe from hackers. “We always keep only 2 percent of the bal-
ance online, which means that even in the case something hap-
pens to the online coins we could still guarantee 98 percent of
users,” he said.
In some ways, though, hackers were the least of his prob-
lems. Karpelès was busy setting up companies around the world
to gain legal permission to accept money from abroad, and
financial firms weren’t playing nice. One by one they shut out
Mt.Gox, choking off the exchange’s ability to receive incoming
cash from abroad. In the spring, Karpelès struck a deal with an
exchange in Australia, Technocash, only to have it fall through
a few months later. It was the same in Hong Kong with HSBC,
Karpelès announced online after he traveled there. “HSBC
officially stated that they do not want to see anything related
close or far to bitcoin, and kicked [us] out. We asked if it’d be
possible to get back in and got politely told that it wouldn’t hap-
pen anytime soon.” Talks with banks in Canada were met with
mixed results. Then Karpelès was blindsided when his long-
time bank in France turned on him too. He took the matter to
court, asserting his universal individual right under French law
to access basic banking services.9 One of the only venues that
seemed to be working just fine was the American e-commerce
company Dwolla (and even that would cause him problems
soon enough). In the meantime, Karpelès met with lawyers and
accountants to mitigate the situation everywhere, finding the
financial world slowly shrinking all around him.
Meanwhile, the banks that did work with him didn’t even
play fair. There were complaints that wires sent to Mt.Gox were
more expensive than originally promised. As it turns out, some
were improperly charging fees under the assumption that they
would have to convert currency to Japanese yen on the way to
Mt.Gox’s Tokyo headquarters, when Mt.Gox actually accepted
all kinds of currencies. Padding each transaction with $30 or
more caused customers grief, and Mt.Gox’s public image took a
beating in the process.
These quandaries couldn’t have come at a worse time.
Those pivotal first few months were the time when any entre-
preneur should be keenly focused on growing the enterprise
and establishing a sound business plan. But instead, the head
of Mt.Gox was barely keeping his head above water, doing the
equivalent of a doggy paddle to survive the tempestuous waves
splashed by powerful banks clinging to the status quo. Add to
that the surge in growth that simply outpaced what he and his
tiny company could handle. From April to June 2011, the num-
ber of users on the site increased tenfold from 6,000 to 60,000.
Users in the United States sent or withdrew $6.8 million over
the Dwolla service in June alone.
All the while, Karpelès maintained a small frame of mind.

As financial complexities swirled all around him, he retreated
to the most minute of tasks. During two days in June 2011 when
his exchange traded a quarter million bitcoins worth a com-
bined $4.6 million, Karpelès sheepishly announced he had
spent the last 48 hours manually checking nearly 1,000 of his
frustrated customers’ delayed pending transfers. It was start-
ing to get out of control. When riled customers complained
about a supposed hacked account and called for more security,
Karpelès threw his hands up.
“Mt.Gox had a growth far too fast to give us enough time for
this,” he posted at a forum online.
Sure enough, in October the site got hit with another DDoS
attack, with nefarious types flooding servers and slowing down
service. Then came a major glitch, caused by a bug in Mt.Gox’s
software, that dumped sellers’ ask orders and brought trade
to a screeching halt. That was followed by yet another DDoS
offensive that consumed all of Mt.Gox’s computing power and
locked out users. Karpelès assured customers there wasn’t any
data breach and bitcoins were safe and accounted for. When a
fourth major DDoS attack slowed down trading again, Karpelès
told users why he thought attackers were being so relentless.
“It is not a secret Mt.Gox is the largest Bitcoin exchange,”
he said. “Mt.Gox is an easy target for anyone that wants to hurt
Bitcoin in general.”
As Mt.Gox grew in popularity in 2012, Karpelès also made
himself a key player in the way Bitcoin was perceived by polit-
ical leaders around the world. That year, he helped form the
Bitcoin Foundation and secured himself a prestigious spot
alongside other Bitcoin entrepreneurs and academics. During
that time, however, confidence in Mt.Gox began to erode.
U.S. customers complained that withdrawals over Dwolla
were delayed for weeks. When the company’s European bank

imposed daily transfer limits, wire transfers sometimes took
two weeks or more. Business partners grumbled that Mt.Gox
wasn’t paying them on time. All of it was quite the antithesis to
a digital currency system developed to cut third parties out of
the picture. Karpelès admitted they were “working on improv-
ing the situation with liquidity,” but provided few other details.
The strangest kerfuffle occurred when Mt.Gox announced that
it was expanding with full force in Canada and the United States
via a new partnership with CoinLab, a Seattle-area startup with
venture capital support—only to call the whole deal off.
Amid the chaos, customers noticed something curious was
starting to develop as well. It was becoming harder to get your
money back. Mt.Gox set caps on how much traders could cash
out in a single day, limiting it to $1,000. Users who were will-
ing to go through a verification process—and wait until Kar-
pelès’ tiny staff could process the request—got higher caps. But
everyone was required to start providing photo identification, a
utility bill, or other proof of address. Karpelès assured he was
doing his best to operate within nebulous currency laws and
abide by strict bank anti–money laundering regulations. But
banks were dropping him anyway.
Still, the numbers kept ballooning. By March 2013, Mt.Gox
was handling 2.2 million active Bitcoin wallets (and keeping an
eye on another 18 million). It opened 60,000 new accounts that
month. By April, it was creating 20,000 new accounts each day.
A staff of 22 outside the Tokyo office worked furiously to verify
accounts and deal with customers while a dozen in the office
kept the website up and running.10
Then, unbeknownst to those trading on Mt.Gox, it blew up
on May 9, 2013. That was the day U.S. Magistrate Judge Steph-
anie Gallagher signed off on a warrant allowing the federal
government to quietly seize $2.1 million Mt.Gox kept in a Wells

Fargo account.11 It belonged to just another client with a vaguely
important-sounding name: Mutum Sigillum LLC. But Shaun
Bridges, special agent with the Secret Service, knew that was
a subsidiary of the world’s top Bitcoin exchange. The Secret
Service alleged that Karpelès was operating his business ille-
gally as an unlicensed money transmitter. The agent pointed
to two questions Karpelès answered on a Wells Fargo bank
account application form. One question asked, “Do you deal
in or exchange currency for your customer?” The other said,
“Does your business accept funds from customers and send the
funds based on customers’ instructions…?” The correct answer
to both was obviously yes and would have required Karpelès
to register with the Treasury Department and abide by strict
know-your-customer rules. Karpelès said no.
The feds struck again the next week on May 14, when U.S.
Magistrate Judge Susan Gauvey gave the green light for Home-
land Security Investigations Special Agent Michael McFarland
to seize another $2.9 million, this time at a little-known credit
union in Iowa.12 Few noticed when the feds raided Dwolla
Account No. 812-649-1010, held at the Veridian Credit Union.
The third blow came as the CoinLab deal fell apart. The
American firm sued Mt.Gox, seeking $75 million in damages. In
response, Mt.Gox claimed CoinLab was unfairly withholding
$5.3 million of Mt.Gox’s customers’ funds.13
All in all, Mt.Gox was out $10 million. News of this wouldn’t
appear until months later. But all three events were unseen
explosions, like submarine-destroying depth charges dropped
deep into the ocean abyss. Only bubbles appeared at the
surface.
It suddenly became nearly impossible for traders to with-
drawal their money from Mt.Gox, and no one knew why.
Customers were up in arms about what they perceived to be

a liquidity problem, and they attempted what would amount
to a run on the bank. But the withdrawals were painstakingly
slow—to the point of arousing suspicion. Longtime clients
began to tell incoming Bitcoin enthusiasts to stay away from
the website entirely. A careful few listened. Daniel Weyer, a
mechanical engineer for a Nebraska power company, heeded
the advice he heard from others and went to a competing
exchange instead. He would later tell me how fortunate he
feels for jumping into this hobby late enough to know to steer
clear of Mt.Gox.
But many more were like Alex Krusz. The web developer
from Somerville, Massachusetts, thought the largest exchange
in the world was naturally the place to be. Sometime in August,
he pulled $500 from his bank account, walked into a CVS phar-
macy store, picked up the red MoneyGram phone and listened
as it autodialed the wire service’s customer support line. He
transferred all of it to Mt.Gox, bought five bitcoins and watched
them soar in value in the coming weeks.
It began to unravel publicly in August 2013, when technol-
ogy news websites discovered both federal seizures and raised
the question of whether Mt.Gox—which had lost a combined
$10 million—was actually insolvent.14 It was worse than the
startup just getting the wind knocked out of it. Losing that kind
of cash would be a death knell for any small business, even one
bolstered by longstanding and friendly bank relationships,
insurance, and dedicated customers. By comparison, it seemed
that Mt.Gox didn’t stand a chance. Governments were clamp-
ing down on its financial network, and banks were kicking Kar-
pelès by the wayside.
Landon King, a real estate IT specialist living near the
Atlantic Coast in North Carolina, saw the writing on the wall.
He had been mining bitcoins for years with friends and had
become intimately familiar with the technology and legality of
the system. It didn’t seem likely to him that the U.S. govern-
ment would make such a bold move without reason.
“There were other exchanges that operate in the U.S., and
the government didn’t go after them. So I knew if the govern-
ment was targeting a specific exchange, they were doing some-
thing shady. That turned me off,” he said.
King fled from Mt.Gox the first chance he got. Instead of get-
ting in line like everyone else to cash out his stash of bitcoins, he
simply moved them over to CampBX, an exchange in Atlanta.
It wasn’t so easy for Krusz. While he managed to transfer
some of his bitcoins out, he wasn’t able to get them all. Mt.Gox
unexpectedly demanded he provide more proof he was actu-
ally himself and asked him to fill out a short questionnaire
explaining how he’d use the money. Krusz found it bizarre
and annoying, so he never got around to doing it. A part of him
thought the whole thing would just cool off. But then there was
that nagging thought in the back of his head. He’d noticed the
site had a poor security record, and they hadn’t been transpar-
ent about recent problems.
“I figured it was know-your-customer laws and regulatory
pressure,” he recalled. “But they may have known they had
financial troubles waiting and they wanted to stall by making
it harder to pull money out. There’s no way for me to know.”
By late 2013, the Karpelès who would frequently write to
customers online and provide cheery, hopeful updates about
the company had gone AWOL. Public announcements were
brief and stiff. Clients clamored, but there was mostly silence
on the other end. Mt.Gox was clearly in decline, with the lucky
few who could pull their money out fleeing to competing
online exchanges, like Slovenia’s Bitstamp. And the captain
who should have been at the helm of this sinking ship was
instead preoccupying himself with a tiny pet project: his very
own Bitcoin Café.15 Like any frustrated professional who fan-
tasizes about owning their own bakery in some quiet, idyllic
Tuscan village, Karpelès had cooked up the wild idea of spend-
ing $1 million on a bitcoin-accepting French bistro on the first
floor of Mt.Gox’s Tokyo offices. For a while, the idea of launch-
ing it meant everything to him. His proudest achievement at
the time? Hacking a cash register all by himself, insiders told
Wired magazine. As the company bled money, customers, and
professional relationships, Karpelès shifted his attention to
tiny tasks he could master all by himself. He had once again
retreated to minor distractions. Old habits die hard. Like any
skilled computer programmer, he had a passion for build-
ing things. And when complex laws and bitter politics got in
the way of the big dream, he created smaller ones that were
absent all of that bureaucratic nonsense. It became painfully
clear Karpelès had never stopped being the solo programmer
more comfortable behind a computer screen than in front of
a boardroom.
But even as things got worse for Mt.Gox, Bitcoin was on
the rise. The price of a bitcoin went from $120 in October to
$1,100 or so in December. Even to folks who’d never heard of
this wacky online money, Bitcoin was starting to look like a
lucrative proposition. And Mt.Gox was the apex of this hot new
commodity.
It was around this time that I began to write to Karpelès
and his staff repeatedly. He never called me back. It’s only by
looking back at the extensive digital footprint he left behind—
in hundreds of online discussion forums, many of them since
taken down—that I’ve been able to piece together what he
thought, planned, and felt throughout this entire journey.
The big shakeup came on a Thursday evening, February 6,

2014. That’s when, without warning, Mt.Gox halted all trading and
froze every account. It had already been difficult to pull money out
of Mt.Gox, but now you couldn’t even use the website. The com-
pany sounded a major alarm, saying that there were serious prob-
lems with the way bitcoins were withdrawn from Mt.Gox wallets
to external digital wallets. A fix was desperately needed. Was this
another screw-up by the website? No, Mt.Gox said. It was much
worse. This time, it was a problem with the bitcoin protocol itself.
Karpelès blamed a little-known software glitch dubbed
“transaction malleability.” Remember that all transactions
have to be verified by the computers hooked up to the network.
Each deal has a unique identifier, called a hash. Transactions
are only set in stone on the block chain every 10 minutes. That
leaves a rather large window for nefarious activity. Well, it turns
out that you could submit two versions of a transaction—the
right one and an exact copy with a falsified hash. Either one
could get logged into the public ledger. For expediency, Mt.Gox
processed customer withdrawals by relying on hashes—not the
actual transaction itself on the block chain. Its internal records
had fallen out of sync with the backbone of the Bitcoin system.
What could crooks do with this? They could pull money out
of their Mt.Gox account and hurriedly send the Bitcoin net-
work a forged copy. If the one with the fake hash made it into
the block chain, they could then return to Mt.Gox and claim
the exchange never sent the money. Please send it again, they’d
ask. They’d point to the block chain and claim the deal never
made it there. And Mt.Gox, only looking for the original hash,
wouldn’t realize the record was actually there. Mt.Gox would be
duped into refunding the money. It’s essentially receipt fraud,
and it might have gone on for weeks, months, or even years.
The tone in Mt.Gox’s public explanation was ominous, calling
the glitch a software bug that needed the attention of Bitcoin’s

small team of volunteer computer developers.
“The problem we have identified is not limited to Mt.Gox,”
it said in a press release. “Bitcoin transactions are subject to a
design issue that has been largely ignored.”
The shock sent the price of bitcoins plummeting around
the world. Within a few days, peoples’ bitcoins lost a quarter
of their value, with bitcoins trading as low as $600. Mt.Gox had
singlehandedly eroded faith in this technological experiment.
After all, if the currency is nothing more than software, and the
program is flawed, then what’s the point?
Within days, however, it became clear the problem could
have been avoided. Other exchanges had accounted for the
glitch and programmed careful safety measures to work
around it. And besides, in the real world, receipt fraud can only
go so long until a retail store wises up and realizes it’s issuing
unreasonable refunds over and over again. Investors and busi-
nesses cried foul. Why hadn’t Mt.Gox done the same? Karpelès
promised customers he and his team were working furiously
to disentangle the confusing knot in which they were tied up.
They’d announce a fix soon and resume trading. Customers
waited impatiently, nervously checking their accounts several
times a day to see if trading would resume.
The first sign Karpelès wouldn’t deliver on his promise came
a few weeks later on a Sunday, when he abruptly resigned from
the Bitcoin Foundation he helped create. Karpelès explained
to his colleagues there that he had to bunker down and address
his struggling startup, and they understood.
“Mt.Gox did the right thing to take care of business matters
at hand,” fellow board member Elizabeth Ploshay told me.
“Mt.Gox has their hands full. They needed to handle what’s
going on with their exchange right now.”
Competitors were less forgiving. The CEOs of six exchanges

and digital wallet companies raced to reassure investors that
the Bitcoin network was just fine.16 Mt.Gox was merely a stain
that needed to be wiped clean, they said. Bitstamp, Blockchain.
info, BTC China, Circle, Coinbase, and Kraken issued a joint
letter scolding Karpelès and laying out plans to “reestablish the
trust squandered by the failings of Mt. Gox.”
“This tragic violation of the trust of users of Mt.Gox was the
result of one company’s actions and does not reflect the resil-
ience or value of bitcoin and the digital currency industry,”
the letter said. “As with any new industry, there are certain
bad actors that need to be weeded out, and that is what we are
seeing today. Mt.Gox has confirmed its issues in private discus-
sions with other members of the bitcoin community.”
The man who had shouldered much of Bitcoin’s growth was
now its No. 1 enemy.
A day after he quit the foundation, Karpelès took his web-
site offline entirely. What was once the world’s largest Bitcoin
exchange became a blank, white page on February 24. He
wiped the company’s Twitter account too, deleting every tweet
it ever sent. No explanation was given. Mt.Gox refused to speak
to outsiders. Traders were stunned. Some even showed up in
front of the company’s Tokyo offices, holding up signs demand-
ing to know how the bitcoins had disappeared.
But while the website might have been blank to the everyday
person surfing the Web, a look at the website’s code revealed
something else:
A Mt.Gox acquisition? What did it mean? It was anyone’s

guess. But at that very moment, a Bitcoin-trading blogger by
the name of Ryan Selkis shared a document that had been sent
to him anonymously. It was titled “Crisis Strategy Draft,” and
it read like a public relations pitch explaining how to clean up
the company’s tarnished image. But there was something else:
damning information detailing the extent of the damage.
According to the document, Mt.Gox had lost 744,408
bitcoins—worth about $400 million at the time. The reason: the
Internet-connected “hot wallet” had leaked, allowing someone
to siphon out the contents of the extra-secure “cold storage.”17
“The reality is that Mt.Gox can go bankrupt at any moment…
with Bitcoin/crypto just recently gaining acceptance in the
public eye, the likely damage in public perception to this class
of technology could put it back 5–10 years,” the document read.
“This isn’t about saving Mt.Gox anymore.”
The purported plan: Shore up liabilities to investors, give
Karpelès the boot, flee Japan, and rebrand as Gox. These were
bold moves to avoid a bank run—the very kind Bitcoin was
designed to get rid of.
Mt.Gox wouldn’t say publicly whether the document was
legitimate or not. However, there was at least one sign that
lent it credibility: Just a day after Karpelès shut down Mt.Gox,
he bought the website address Gox.com from a domain collec-
tor just outside Manchester, England. The seller, Andy Booth,
wouldn’t call me back, but the proof was there. I teamed up with
a computer researcher at Berkeley and combed through the
Internet registration records showing when they made the deal.18
There was more. The document claimed to reveal all of Mt.
Gox’s finances. If it was right, then the company had raked in
$10.7 million in sales and $2 million in profit for the year start-
ing on April 2013. Those are solid numbers—until you realize
that the $10 million seized by the U.S. government and Coin-
Lab had turned the entire business upside down, not to men-
tion the $400 million lost in customers’ funds.
Most traders who spoke to me voiced utter disappointment.
They were in one of two camps: The Mt.Gox team improperly
secured its clients’ money, or stole it themselves. Either way,
it became clear they had trusted their money to an outfit that
didn’t know how to properly handle it. Among them was Mic-
kael Saladi, a 29-year-old in Miami who had kept four bitcoins
with Mt.Gox and was sour about losing what was once worth
$4,400. The lack of professionalism is what bothered him most.
The least Mt.Gox could do is say what’s going on, he told me.
Instead, all he had was that empty white page.
Karpelès finally appeared in public that Friday, February 28.
He ditched the usual T-shirt and jeans and showed up in a gray
suit, a loosened tie around his neck. He was flanked by several
lawyers as he sat down before a crowded room full of reporters.
Dozens of cameras were pointed directly at him. The shy young
man who moved halfway around the globe to launch a dream
was about to crush it in one fell swoop. The company was fil-
ing for bankruptcy protection in Japanese court. Mt.Gox had
lost 750,000 bitcoins, they explained—plus another 100,000 of
the company’s own stash. It amounted to nearly half a billion
dollars. Hackers had somehow managed to pick the biggest Mt.
Gox pocket of all, thanks to what Karpelès merely described
as a “weakness in our system.” The attorneys did most of the
talking, but Karpelès issued the apology.
“We are working on it and, anyway, in the meantime, we are
sorry for troubles caused by this,” said an emotionally reserved
Karpelès. “We had a problem with the system that caused a loss
in bitcoins to our customers. We identified the problem, and we
are working on this.”
This was the situation Karpelès feared most. Years earlier,

back when he just started managing this obscure website,
Karpelès had promised its tiny group of users that he’d do
his best to leverage it into the world’s successful introduction
to Bitcoin. Even then he was worried about the heavy burden
on Mt.Gox to pull that off, warning them on a Bitcoin forum
that “the immediate future of bitcoin is heavily reliant on the
public and political perceptions of what we do, and how we do
it.” And yet here he was, surrounded by strangers with cameras
asking accusatory questions about the failure on his watch. He
had betrayed the trust of more than 100,000 people, and none
of them had any recourse with their hard-earned money. How
pleasant it would have been at that very moment to reverse
time and be away from it all, back behind a computer, just Mag-
icalTux chopping away at digital blocks and building pixelated
castles in the sky.
Karpelès stood up, put his hands at his side, and lowered his
head. Following the tradition of his new adopted home, he let
out a long sigh, gave a deep bow of shame and held it. His heavy
breathing was muted by the rapid-fire rat-tat-tats of snapping
cameras that echoed in the tiny room. Mt.Gox was dead.
In the days that followed, something began to dawn on every-

one. Bitcoin had evolved from an academic experiment limited
to the world’s tiny community of cryptographers to an eco-
nomic powerhouse whose combined value was worth more
than $5 billion in bitcoins alone. And yet the folks leading this
monetary revolution were guys who would rather build com-
pilers than companies. Mark Karpelès was only one example.
I reached out to Evan Rose in San Diego, who was starting
his own Bitcoin ATM company at the time, Genesis, to see if he
felt the same. After all, he was in his mid-twenties himself. He

was more passionate about that point than anyone else.
“What we’re seeing right now is the evolution of Bitcoin
from amateur hour to professional money coming onboard,”
he said. “The people running the systems right now are not
necessarily businessmen. For the most part, they’re people who
came into this project without grasping the value or risk of it.
The ecosystem is maturing, but it’s a little scary for everyone
involved.”
That point was especially apparent to those outside of the
Bitcoin world. Peter Leeds, an analyst in Toronto who pays
attention to speculative penny stocks, pointed out that Bitcoin
is essentially going through growing pains. He compared it
to the swell in technology startups in the late 1990s—and the
crash that followed.
“If you look back at the dot-com bubble, people were run-
ning businesses, but they didn’t know how to run a business.
This is the same thing,” he said. “A lot of the people getting
involved with Bitcoin don’t understand the complications
behind it. They’re getting involved too young, too early, and
they’re taking on a whole new concept that’s bigger than them.”
That became even more apparent when, shortly after fil-
ing for bankruptcy protection, Mt.Gox relaunched its website
and allowed clients to log in and view their supposed account
balance. Customers were quick to note that a static number on
a screen means nothing. There’s no telling where that money
resides. There’s no way to withdraw funds. There’s no proof it’s
actually there.
Some thought it was like a bad joke, a feeble attempt to
keep stringing them along. Jake Dearlove, a creative director
at a London advertising agency, didn’t think it was any better
than a mirage. His 0.5024 BTC were as good as gone, he told me.
When I asked if he felt the $289 loss in any real way, he said it
felt like more than that. After all, that was worth $550 just a few
weeks before. “I’m actually quite annoyed,” he said. “It does
seem odd to me that they’d go through this effort to update
us. Why would they? They must have some interest in keeping
some kind of positive equity associated with the name.”
It got even worse when Karpelès announced that, whoops,
they’d found 200,000 of the lost bitcoins. It was in an old
wallet they hadn’t checked for months. Traders were beside
themselves. What started as gross incompetence now reached
comedic levels of stupidity. Nick French, a Colorado beekeeper
who sells his honey for bitcoins, was appalled. Sure, he was still
hopeful he’d one day see his 5 bitcoins again. But with every
passing day—and subsequent Mt.Gox gaffe—his hope of get-
ting back that $2,898 worth of bitcoins was fading.
“They have some serious problems. Two hundred thousand
coins just show up somewhere? Come on. I don’t believe it.
What’s next? They’ll say it wasn’t really 200,000, then pull it
back? No. I don’t trust them anymore. I don’t know the whole
story. I thought it was a hacking problem. Then there are reports
of the CEO hiding the money. I don’t know what to believe. But
it’s caused a lot of problems for a lot of people.”
Weeks after I had spoken to French, Dearlove, and many
others around the world, a Tokyo court blocked Mt.Gox’s
attempt to restart its business through a bankruptcy. A court-ap-
pointed administrator, bankruptcy trustee attorney Nobuaki
Kobayashi, announced that Karpelès would be investigated to
see if he was liable for the exchange’s failure. The company was
set on a course for liquidation—essentially a meltdown where
no one gets any money back. Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit
involving an estimated 50,000 rattled Mt.Gox clients claiming
more than $200 million in losses waited in the wings, with lead
attorney Jay Edelson saying that liquidation “would be a disas-

ter for customers.” Whatever the company’s fate is, it won’t be
easy on anyone.
For all of its failures, though, the fall of Mt.Gox is merely the
tale of a business gone belly-up. Karpelès’ actions turned out
disastrous, but at least his intentions seemed good-natured and
sincere. And those who traded on the site merely wanted to buy
and sell these new, fun tokens. It wasn’t a wretched hive of scum
and villainy. That role belonged to an underground empire few
had ever heard of before 2013: Silk Road.
CHAPTER 9
The Dark Side of Bitcoin
the biggest hit to the Bitcoin-fueled online black market

came on a Tuesday afternoon, October 1, 2013, on the quiet
second floor of a small library in San Francisco. A pale, thin
man sat at a corner table near the science fiction section, typ-
ing away at his laptop. It was Ross Ulbricht, a computer-savvy
29-year-old from Austin, Texas, who was living with a couple
of roommates just a few blocks away. Court documents would
later allege that this one man commanded Silk Road, the largest
criminal bazaar on the Internet—all from his computer. But at
the moment, Ulbricht was chatting online with someone who,
unbeknownst to him, had secretly been talking to law enforce-
ment. It was 3:15 pm, and Ulbricht was unaware that half a dozen
FBI agents were closing in on him. They were in plainclothes as
they slid past rows of books and beige walls. When they finally
reached him, the agents grabbed him and pinned him against
a floor-to-ceiling window overlooking Diamond Street.1 The
agents quickly seized his computer on the assumption that it
housed evidence of a vast, illegal empire and access to 26,000
bitcoins belonging to Silk Road customers.2 That same day, the
FBI took control of the Silk Road website and shut it down. For
the thriving online community of druggies, thieves, hackers,
and assassins, it was the end of a lawless escapade. For the rest
of us, it was a moment of awakening. The criminal underworld
had found a new way to do business: Bitcoin.
In the days that followed, Bitcoin’s image took a brutal lash-
ing. Few had ever heard of the digital currency, and now it was
being paraded as the go-to money for illegal activities. That
view wasn’t unfounded. The shutdown of Silk Road provided
a unique view into the inner workings of a massive black mar-
ket—and Bitcoin’s place in it.
The website that launched in early 2011 was essentially an
illegal eBay, allowing independent vendors to post their wares.
Buyers made purchases through the website, which played a
role as the middleman connecting them both. But what made it
notable was its rapid success. To date, the most revealing details
about Silk Road come from a 33-page FBI document request-
ing Ulbricht’s arrest warrant.3 In its first two years or so, the
website had brokered 1.2 million illegal deals worth 9.5 million
BTC and claimed a commission of 614,305 BTC. Those statistics
meant that a single online black-market kingpin had amassed
5 percent of all bitcoins in the world at the time. But what made
this a more incredible feat is that it was essentially the meteoric
rise of a black market startup. Here’s how this dark eBay’s num-
bers translate into 2014 dollars: It had brokered $4.1 billion in
deals and raked in $266 million in revenue. It had 3,877 vendors
selling to 146,946 people around the globe. What made it all
possible was Bitcoin’s pseudo-anonymity.
Online black markets were around before Silk Road. They too
relied on virtual money that was difficult to trace back. There was
Costa Rica–based Liberty Reserve, which received anonymous
wire transfers and offered electronic tokens in return. Another
was E-Gold, which provided gold-backed digital dollars. Both
became go-to currencies for trading drugs, weapons, and child
The Dark Side of Bitcoin 181
pornography.4 But the U.S. government was able to shut them

down in 2007 and 2013, because they were centralized monetary
systems.5 Bitcoin, by comparison, has no single entity that can
shut it down. Users of Liberty Reserve and E-Gold migrated to
bitcoins, and Silk Road became their home.
Silk Road couldn’t be accessed with any old Web browser,
because it only existed on the Tor network, the Internet-with-
in-an-Internet that masks the location of all computers that
are connected to it. (It’s a great tool for keeping political dissi-
dents safe, but it does the same for criminals.) That offered one
layer of anonymity, because you could visit the website with-
out anyone knowing the location of your computer. But Bitcoin
changed the game. Buyers could make purchases without ever
knowing who was selling them the drugs. Sellers would mail
vacuum-sealed packages of cocaine, heroin, or LSD to strange
addresses and remain clueless as to who paid them. Bitcoin’s
nameless digital wallets were a part of it, but the Silk Road
website had developed an added layer of secrecy. The website
temporarily held the money in a deal in escrow. Why? It had
developed an internal bank, called a “Bitcoin tumbler,” to make
it difficult to trace any transaction from Wallet A to Wallet B.
Silk Road’s
“Bitcoin Tumbler”
Wallet A Wallet B
It would send all payments through a series of dummy trans-

actions, bouncing a bitcoin around several times, before head-
ing to its true destination. For providing buyers and sellers that
security—as well as a one-stop shop for everything illegal—the
website charged a rate between 8 percent and 15 percent.
The marketplace attracted all types of outlaws from every
corner of the world. Most of the site was made up of simple
drug dealers peddling cocaine, heroin, LSD, marijuana, psy-
chedelic mushrooms, and high-end pharmaceuticals. But there
was so much more. A “forgeries” section offered fake passports,
driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, credit card statements,
car insurance records, and utility bills. Hackers listed their ser-
vices and offered to break into Facebook, Twitter, and email
accounts. They sold computer viruses, password-stealing soft-
ware, and other types of destructive malware. There were tuto-
rials on hacking ATM machines. Some even sold contact lists
of professional hitmen.
The website’s vocal and eccentric founder was a mysterious

figure who called himself Dread Pirate Roberts, a reference to
the William Goldman novel/film The Princess Bride. He coordi-
nated with vendors, resolved disputes, and assured everyone that
the website’s design and use of bitcoins would keep their identi-
ties secret. That’s why in 2013, when a vendor named Friendly-
Chemist tried to extort him out of $500,000 and threatened to
publish the names of several vendors and customers, Dread Pirate
Roberts did what anyone in charge of a black market would do.
He tracked down what he thought was FriendlyChemist’s true
identity—a married father of three living just outside Vancouver,
Canada—and coordinated with another Silk Road vendor to have
him killed. Dread Pirate Roberts paid 1,670 bitcoins to have the job
done and demanded a photograph of the man’s body. He got what
he wanted. These secret conversations—along with all of the web-
site’s internal records—were revealed when the FBI tracked down
a computer server that kept the site running. That’s what led them
to website administrators and eventually to Ulbricht himself.
In the months since his arrest, Ulbricht has not commented
publicly about his detention. He faces charges that he con-
spired to launder money, traffic drugs, hack computers, and
played the role of a criminal enterprise kingpin. In February
2014, he pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court. His lawyer
in New York, Joshua L. Dratel, has since asked for the case to
be dismissed, arguing that Ulbricht was nothing more than a
“digital landlord” whose website simply became a haven for
criminals.6 Federal prosecutors are fighting that portrayal.
However, the fall of Silk Road did not bring an end to Bitcoin
black markets. Just a month after Silk Road was shut down, a
nearly identical website calling itself “Silk Road 2.0” appeared
on the Tor network, led by another mysterioso also calling
himself the Dread Pirate Roberts—just as the Princess Bride
character was a series of different people all claiming to be the

same pirate. Buyers and sellers flocked to this revived version,
and continued doing business as usual. The website served as
a middleman between buyers and sellers, temporarily holding
on to funds in its own accounts during a deal. Buyers would put
their bitcoins into Silk Road 2.0’s accounts, and sellers would
withdraw them. This iteration didn’t last long, though. Within
a few months, the website claimed it was hacked and lost 4,440
bitcoins it held in escrow for its users. The explanation didn’t
add up, so clients cried foul and accused the site’s administers of
faking the hack and stealing the money themselves. Because the
entire thing was illegal, there wasn’t any legal recourse for any-
one. The episode served as yet another example of how Bitcoin—
by design—doesn’t work well with shady middlemen. All trans-
actions are irreversible, and anyone with access to your digital
wallet can empty it forever. But the numbers don’t reflect a grand
awakening. By April 2014, Silk Road 2.0 had grown even larger
than its predecessor, offering 13,648 listings for drugs, weapons,
hacking tools, and a myriad of illegal services.7
Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer system doesn’t limit it to big, Ama-
zon-style illegal marketplaces, however. Individual stores have
popped up all over the place, and perusing through their wares
shows how Bitcoin has truly become the currency of the under-
world. Slow, costly and potentially identifiable wire transfers
are a poor second choice to speedy Bitcoin transactions.
There are countless computer hackers willing to work on a
freelance basis, as long as they’re paid in bitcoins. Here are the
going rates at one solo operation called “Rent-a-Hacker”: Want
to hack someone’s email or Facebook accounts? It’ll cost you
0.64 bitcoins. Need a website taken down or have someone’s
computer spied on? That’ll be 1.6 bitcoins. And the description
of the services (complete with spelling and grammatical errors):
Ill do anything for money, im not a pussy :) if you want me to

destroy some bussiness or a persons life, ill do it! Ruining your
opponents, bussiness or private persons you dont like, i can ruin
them financially and or get them arrested, whatever you like. If
you want someone to get known as a child porn user, no problem.
At a website called “Arms International,” pistols and AK-47

prices are listed in U.S. dollars, but the seller only accepts bit-
coins. A payment worth $725 gets you a Glock 17 pistol and
100 rounds of 9mm ammunition. An AK-47 made in Romania
fetches $560, and that includes a complimentary gift: enough
bullets for just over three magazines. Another is BMG, short for
Black Market Guns, which carries a wide selection of semiau-
tomatic rifles, fully automatic submachine guns, and more. All
its prices are listed in bitcoins, and it claims to ship overnight
FedEx within the United States.
A website known as the “ccPal Store” sells access to stolen

financial data in bulk. A package of 100 PayPal or eBay accounts
goes for 0.23 bitcoins. The same number of credit cards will
cost you 0.34 bitcoins. Another seller who runs “PrePaidBliss”
hawks debit cards loaded with $700 to $1,000. A group that
calls itself “Tor ATM Skimmers” markets hardware that can be
installed at an ATM machine and spies on unsuspecting bank

customers. The tiny camera will be $2,000 and the vendor only
accepts bitcoins. “Onion Identity Services” claims it can get
you a fake British passport—that will somehow match up with
the government’s own databases—for just over 12 BTC. For the
same price, you can get fake driver’s licenses in Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Norway. All products ship free from Ger-
many. Those who produce child pornography pay 0.02 bitcoins
a month to use a service called “The Matrix image uploader,”
which stores their pictures and allows them to share them on
secret forums and members-only websites.
And to top it all off, a service that calls itself “The Coin
Cleanser” claims it can launder your dirty bitcoins, because it
partners with legitimate brick-and-mortar businesses and can
make it seem as if the money was spent legally. Sure, it could be
a total scam meant to steal your bitcoins. But it’s worth noting
this isn’t the only service of its kind.
This is the type of elusive criminal behavior that law enforce-
ment currently faces. It helps explain why the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security told the Senate committee that oversees
its activities that the agency is taking “an aggressive posture”
toward illegal use of virtual currencies. Here’s what DHS offi-
cial Brian de Vallance wrote to senators on November 13, 2013:
The most critical capability for transnational organized crime

is to quickly and quietly move large quantities of money across
borders. The anonymity of cyberspace affords a unique oppor-
tunity for criminal organizations to launder huge sums of
money undetected.
To fight this sort of thing, the FBI in early 2012 partnered

with other federal agencies to create a group solely dedicated
to Virtual Currency Emerging Threats, or VCET. And it’s why

the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury
Department bureau that monitors money laundering and
terrorist financing, has clamped down on Bitcoin exchanges.
Trading platforms like Mt.Gox are required to register as
licensed “money services businesses,” just like their competi-
tors in the money transferring industry, such as MoneyGram.
This requires exchanges to file documents proving that they
know who their customers are. It’s an attempt to chip away at
the namelessness of Bitcoin wallets.
Those rules are already being used to chase after laundering
with Bitcoin money. An alleged connection to Silk Road is what
took down one of the top Bitcoin exchanges in New York City,
BitInstant, at the start of 2014. The black market website Silk
Road only dealt in bitcoins, which provided a lucrative opportu-
nity to anyone selling bitcoins there. According to federal inves-
tigators, a 52-year-old Florida man by the name of Robert Faiella
made a business of providing bitcoins to Silk Road customers.
Under the alias BTCKing, Faiella sold them more than $1 million
worth of bitcoins. Faiella, in turn, was getting all of his bitcoins
from BitInstant—with the permission of its CEO, Charlie Shrem.
Investigators said Shrem knew that Faiella was involved in the
black market but never tipped off the feds—even as Faiella was
exchanging more than $20,000 a week for his Silk Road clients.
Shrem was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport
and charged with operating his startup as an unlicensed money
transmitting business. His company instantly went belly-up.
Two of his largest investors, twin brothers Cameron and Tyler
Winklevoss, distanced themselves from him, as did the Bitcoin
Foundation where Shrem was vice chairman. Shrem denied
the charges and has publicly called it an attempt by the banking
industry to flex its muscle on the Bitcoin community.
But there’s a simpler explanation. As Ernie Allen, president

of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Chil-
dren, said when he testified before the U.S. Senate in 2013: “The
attractiveness of Tor and Bitcoin…is based upon a perception
of anonymity…thus, if the perception of anonymity diminishes,
we believe the criminal use will diminish with it.”
Not all governments are approaching Bitcoin with reason-
able intentions to shut down criminal networks, though. Most
have no idea what it is.
CHAPTER 10
How Governments
Are Responding
the legal world of Bitcoin has often been described as

a new frontier. And it’s not just Bitcoin, but all other virtual
currencies that run independent of established and regulated
banks. Entrepreneurs with grand ideas about new ways to trade
them—whether it’s on investment exchanges or neat wallets
that run on your smartphone—all venture into a barren land-
scape where it’s rarely clear if you’re operating legally or not.
For every story of a successful Bitcoin startup on the verge
of striking it rich, there’s another that went down amid ques-
tionable circumstances or is under criminal investigation.
Just as digital payments company Circle Internet Financial
announced it had received $17 million from venture capitalists,
Charlie Shrem sat at home contemplating his recent arrest and
the disappearance of his virtual wallet startup BitInstant.
For the most part, governments have refrained from giving
their blessings to money that competes with their own—quite
the opposite. They paint them as dangerous and unreliable,
with some going so far as to characterize them as predatory
moneymaking schemes.
But most countries have not actually outlawed them. As of

early 2014, only Iceland and Vietnam had gone that far. The
most forward-thinking countries have held back from shutting
enterprises down, because they see the potential to become
hubs of innovation. Others have refrained from taking a milita-
ristic approach for fear of sending their entire digital currency
economy into the shadows. But in every country, the story is the
same. This new technology has skipped ahead of the laws on
the books, and politicians are trying to catch up.
In most cases, lawmakers are struggling to understand it.
Who can blame them? The idea of computerized coins that you
can’t see or touch redefines many aspects of what we’re accus-
tomed to calling money. Add to that the fact that the creation
of new bitcoins is totally out of a government’s control, and you
can see how politicians are inclined to reject it.
Spain makes a great example. Legislators there are grap-
pling with the fact that Bitcoin operates as a network, a
currency, and a commodity all at once. The government is
interpreting it as a piece of property, because its Civil Code
uses that term to describe valuable objects that change hands.
But this particular law doesn’t quite fit this new-fangled dig-
itized dollar. After all, it was written at a time when Spain’s
spectacular technological achievement was an overweight
steamboat cruiser called the Reina Regente that soon sank and
cost the lives of 420 sailors.
“It’s curious, but it’s true: In Spain, Bitcoin is regulated by
a law made in 1889,” Pablo Fernández Burgueño told me. He’s
a tech-savvy attorney in Madrid who’s made it his personal
mission to educate lawmakers on how best to treat Bitcoin and
other virtual currencies.
“Bitcoin is legal in Europe. The problem we find is that
the laws we have to use are very old. Our goal now is to come
How Governments Are Responding 191
together and agree on how we should interpret these laws,”

Fernández Burgueño said.
What results is a slow awakening, in which the smartest
governments tiptoe forward with narrow legal guidance, occa-
sionally offering tax rules here and money regulations there.
The last thing they want is to create black markets or skew peo-
ple’s incentives the wrong way.
For all the criticism the United States government gets on
this, the feds haven’t yet taken the hostile approach so many Bit-
coin enthusiasts have been clamoring about for years. During
the first few months of 2013, the news headlines were domi-
nated with apocalyptic quips claiming Bitcoin was doomed for
this or that reason. Many journalists were in an unannounced
race to write Bitcoin’s obituary, citing an angry congressman or
drastic IRS rules. But the clampdown everyone feared? It hasn’t
happened yet.
That is, at least as of this writing. The United States is suffer-
ing from the same problem facing every other government: The
laws don’t quite match up with this new technology. They’re
not starting from scratch, though. Some general rules apply.
First and foremost, bitcoins have value. It’s evident because
people can get richer or poorer with them. That means they
can be taxed.
Second, certain goods are restricted or illegal, no matter how
you acquire them. It’s unlawful to buy a brick of high-grade
cocaine that just made its way across the Caribbean Ocean in a
go-fast boat. Despite people’s ignorance about gun laws, only a
handful of licensed folks can actually acquire a machine gun.
Money laundering is wrong. Digital currencies don’t let you
scurry around these prohibitions.
Third, we’ve granted government the role of consumer pro-
tector, so it hunts down instances of fraud. While people are
free to gamble on speculative investments—like the complex

and dangerous financial instruments known as credit default
swaps—they can’t be lied to about those assets. People can’t be
duped into a Ponzi scheme that promises business profits but
actually pays out investors with the money it gets from new,
incoming investors.
This gives most nations a starting point for devising new
rules. As we’ll see, some have already started down that path.
In the United States, the most elucidating guidance came from

the taxman in March.1 The IRS issued a formal notice saying
that Bitcoin transactions are taxable. It also clarified that it
would treat all digital money as property, not currency.
That has major implications, and understanding them is
a bit complicated. But we’ll piece this apart and use frequent
examples. For reference, I consulted with several tax lawyers,
as well as some former and current IRS folks.
eXample boX 1:
Let’s assume you’re a mechanic and your friend makes
custom guitars. Her car needs serious work that would
put her back $1,000 in labor, but she’s short on cash.
Both of you are willing to make an even trade. You fix
her car, and she makes you a rebuilt Fender Stratocaster
that wails like a banshee. In real life, you would have to
calculate the value of that guitar and pay taxes on it.
It’s an aspect of taxes that most people don’t know—or
willfully ignore.
The first thing to note is how this applies to everyday peo-

ple who get paid in bitcoins. The simplest aspect is that pay-
ments made in Bitcoin worth $600 or more are treated like
transactions made with property. Those kinds of deals already
exist today.
This rule applies to any kind of Bitcoin payment worth
$600-plus. If you’re a business owner who pays workers with
bitcoins, those payments need to go on the federal W-2 tax
forms you hand them every year. They now have to pay federal
income tax on it. After all, it is income in a literal sense. It’s the
same if you pay independent contractors in bitcoins. You must
include the payments on their 1099 forms, so they can declare
it as income.
For the same reason, this is also applicable to miners who
use their computers to generate bitcoins, because they get
rewarded for their work. The federal government thinks of
them as self-employed entrepreneurs.
Now the question on everyone’s mind is: What’s the value
of a bitcoin anyway? The IRS says it’s the “fair market value.”
In other words, whatever the going rate of a bitcoin was the
day it was earned. It seems like taxpayers may rely on any bit-
coin exchange for that price. The IRS didn’t name a specific
exchange and with good reason. Exchanges are private, and
there’s no assurance any exchange is operating legally—or will
stay open forever.
Making matters more difficult, the value of a bitcoin fluc-
tuates every few seconds. It can swing $10 in any direction on
an average day. This is where it’s suddenly important that the
IRS says bitcoin isn’t a currency. It’s not just semantics. The IRS
has a special exemption for what it officially recognizes as “cur-
rencies,” so you don’t have to deal with this when you travel
abroad and enjoy a slightly stronger euro. Not so for Bitcoin.

Every fluctuation matters.
eXample boX 2:
Imagine buying a bitcoin for $500. The trading price
goes up, and it doubles in value. Now you spend it all on
a brand new keyboard that retails at 1 BTC ($1,000).
You technically experienced a $500 gain. You have to
report that on your next tax return.
The law, as prescribed, forces people to keep track of the

value of a bitcoin when they got it and when they spend it.
To do this, a Bitcoin user must keep a strict record of every
purchase made all year long. Each payment requires this
calculation:
Gain = current bitcoin value – base bitcoin value
It’s easy to see why this can quickly get annoying. Every time
you buy a cup of coffee, you have to jot down all the details.
As if this doesn’t complicate things enough, there’s some-
thing else. Remember that you have to track the gains on your
bitcoins. If you buy them separately, you have to track the gains
on each bitcoin. This is a predicament for any Bitcoin user,
because it creates bitcoin discrimination. One bitcoin is better
to spend than another. This is a concept that Georgetown Law
professor Adam Levitin explained on the academic blog Credit
Slips. For a currency to work, all units of that currency must
be completely fungible. That is, they’re each identical. In U.S.
dollars, one $10 bill is as good as any other $10. It doesn’t mat-
ter when you put Alexander Hamilton’s face into your wallet or
when you pulled him out. If bitcoins aren’t fungible, they don’t
work as a currency.2
eXample boX 3:
You buy bitcoin A for $500. The trading price skyrock-
ets and reaches $1,000. You buy another, bitcoin B, at
$1,000. You decide to buy a guitar amplifier that retails
1 BTC ($1,000). But wait, it matters which bitcoin you
use. If you spend bitcoin B, you experienced no gain.
There’s no reason to report to the IRS. But if you spend
bitcoin A, you experienced a $500 gain in value. You
owe taxes.
For some of the reasons mentioned already, the Tax Foun-

dation think tank in Washington, DC, said the IRS made a bad
call.3 “They completely miss the primary use of Bitcoin, as a
currency for both transactions and wages. The tax treatment
and compliance requirements as part of this notice are inap-
propriate for that usage of virtual currencies,” the Foundation
said in an announcement.
Is it really that bad? In theory, yes. Even the IRS knows that.
As someone at the agency (who spoke on condition of anonym-
ity) told me, “I wouldn’t want that headache. Someone could
say we set the bar too high.”
But that’s exactly why the casual user buying Bellinis with
bitcoins won’t see the IRS on their tail. The U.S. tax authori-
ties gave Bitcoin users a task that’s nearly impossible to comply
with, and they’ll have limited ability to enforce their own laws.
Digital wallets are difficult to trace to actual individuals.
Besides, as former IRS commissioner Mark Everson reminds
me, the agency is strapped for resources.
Everson, who’s now an executive at the tax consulting firm
alliantgroup, said the IRS will probably have a hard time fol-
lowing up on those rules. There are two things the IRS does—
interpret the law and administer it—and it isn’t easy to go
through with step number two, he said. But the agency doesn’t
have a choice. When I asked if the IRS rules are merely a rev-
enue grab or an attempt to hobble Bitcoin, he said it’s neither.
It’s the agency’s job to clarify what the tax standards are. “What
they couldn’t afford to do is allow bitcoins to become a vehicle
to escape taxation,” Everson said.
He’s right about that. No currency can be allowed to become
a safe haven for tax cheats and miscreants; not in a country
with a functioning economy, anyway. What the IRS rules really
do is provide the U.S. government with more ammunition to
go after the black market and big currency traders who dodge
taxes. Much the same way that it was tax evasion—not Prohi-
bition violations or violence—that put Al Capone behind bars
for seven years, the federal authorities can now crack down on
people spending bitcoins on drugs, assassins, and computer
viruses by focusing on the tax cheating aspect of it instead of
the actual misdeed.
“The IRS doesn’t have the tools to find the little guys. But
now the IRS has huge tools to leverage against criminals,” said
Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow with the Tax Policy Center.
The last thing that’s worth noting about taxes in the United
States is that the IRS, by classifying bitcoins as property, has
paved the way for states or local governments to impose taxes
on them too. Sales taxes might apply whenever someone
acquires a bitcoin. That means any business that sells bitcoins

would have to charge a markup for them.
Marc Nickel, a Silicon Valley attorney who closely studies
Bitcoin, said this isn’t a far-off possibility. Most big states have
caught up with technology and now tax digital goods. A soft-
ware distributor who sells a $100 program from a district where
there’s a 5 percent sales tax owes her local government $5.
The same would apply to anyone selling bitcoins, or even a
fraction of one.
eXample boX 4:
Here’s why a business that accepts bitcoins should
trade them in for dollars right away. Let’s say Eddie’s
Banjo Boutique sells one of its twangy instruments
for 1 BTC (valued at $500). Then the price of a bitcoin
drops to $400. Eddie suffered a loss. But he’s about to
get kicked while he’s down. He still owes sales tax on
$500, not $400. He can’t pass the buck on to his local
government.
It all sounds disastrous until you realize bitcoins are difficult

to track to actual people. And, as the IRS reminds me, this isn’t
too different from cash in that we have a voluntary tax compli-
ance system. It relies on honesty. Do you really think the owner
of that tiny, cash-only convenience store is reporting all of its
income? During my two years reporting on U.S. small businesses,
the answer I got from entrepreneurs was a resounding no.
What would it take for the IRS to track everyone? Tying peo-
ple to specific digital wallets the second they buy bitcoins from
online exchanges. Alex Daley, a technology investment analyst

with Casey Research, suggests that the IRS could simply apply
to exchanges the same rules that already exist at brokerages.
Those financial institutions have a legal obligation to keep
track of investors and submit information about their clients to
the federal government. These know-your-customer laws allow
the IRS to keep track of people’s investment gains—and what
they owe on taxes.
“If they make that requirement and hold bitcoin exchanges
to the same standard as brokerages, you can no longer be anon-
ymous with Bitcoin,” Daley said.
As it turns out, more strict regulation on Bitcoin exchanges
is on the horizon.
There exists a Bitcoin Bogeyman. He’s in the nightmares of

Bitcoin’s most devoted followers, a specter whose coming has
been foretold ever since the first batch of bitcoins was mined.
He’s a bumbling old man who doesn’t understand comput-
ers and never cared to learn. He wears an ill-fitting pinstripe
suit to his mundane public sector job. He’s quick to judge and
doesn’t listen. He’s beholden to the powerful banks that put
him in power. He’s a man with a government-issued hammer,
and every disruptive financial innovation looks like a nail. He’s
the one who’s going to kill digital currencies the first chance he
gets. He’s a regulator.
On the first pleasant day of spring in April, I decided to
visit the government official best positioned to fill that role.
I hopped on a subway from CNN’s offices at the corner of Cen-
tral Park and rode it to the last stop on the southern edge of
Manhattan. There, surrounded by offices belonging to hedge
funds and trading floors, was the base of operations for New
York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS). Somewhere
inside 1 State Street was Benjamin Lawsky, the state’s first
superintendent of financial services.
Lawsky and his brigade have an outsized role for what
turns out to be a modest outfit. DFS is made up of 1,000 or so
employees working on nine floors, and their task is gargan-
tuan when you consider this is a state agency charged with
keeping an eye on the financial capital of the world. Consider
that there are 27 sectors under their watch. There are some
675,000 folks working in the financial sector.4 Goldman Sachs
alone has a staff of nearly 33,000.5 New York Governor Andrew
Cuomo created the agency in 2011 to consolidate the state’s
Insurance and Banking Departments, some of the oldest such
regulators in the nation. In the aftermath of the financial crisis,
it became clear that a single entity should oversee the increas-
ingly complex (and risky) assortment of financial products,
especially as the lines get blurry between commercial banks,
investment banks, and insurers. Lawsky’s job is to make sure
he catches the fuse next time it’s lit—before the whole system
blows up again.
I waited for the superintendent inside the 19th floor’s empty
boardroom overlooking the harbor, watching the same heli-
copter buzz around the Statue of Liberty every few minutes.
The door popped open behind me, and in walked the state’s
top financial regulator flanked by his press secretary. He was
energetic, athletic, and cheerful. And in a well-tailored suit no
less. We sat down, and he wasted no time deflecting the skepti-
cism about his intentions.
“Bitcoins…provide a potentially very powerful new tech-
nology that, as it develops into the future, could serve as an
important alternative payment system that people can use,”

he said. “But we have to study something we really didn’t have
a lot of background in. What is this? Money transmission? Is
it here to stay? To decide how to regulate it appropriately, we
have to come to grips with what it is we’re regulating. And in a
way that puts the protections you need into place—consumer
protection, safety and soundness of financial institutions, anti–
money laundering—without squelching it and killing it.
“You don’t want to make the use of this technology so bur-
densome or unwieldy that the technology can’t develop.”
He’s adamant that he’s not here to bring progress to a
screeching halt. The IRS rules seemed, to him, heavy-handed.
“What I hope to happen is we will have a set of common-
sense regulations that’ll allow digital currencies to develop.
And five or 10 years from now they will become better and more
useful and popular with people. It’s never going to replace fiat
currency—I think that will be unreasonable to expect—but it
will be an alternative payment system people use in certain
circumstances to make their online financial lives more conve-
nient, more effective, more efficient.”
Bogeyman be damned. But let’s backtrack a bit to something
more fundamental. I posed the question that had been dogging
me for months.
“So, is bitcoin money?” I asked.
Lawsky took a deep breath, leaned back in his chair, and ran
his hand down the length of his tie. “Is Bitcoin money? I think
Bitcoin—I’m not going to answer the question,” he chuckled.
“It’s obviously being used as something of value. I’d have to
think about how one defines money. I try not to get too deep
into the semantic fight.”
He’d rather leave that to politicians and the IRS, he said. But
we got into a discussion about modern money anyway. How
much money do you currently have in your bank account that

you’ve actually held? It’s just a number on a computer screen.
My bank doesn’t actually transport stacks of paper bills in a
truck whenever I transfer money into a friend’s bank account.
“Absolutely not, it’s just pressing a key,” Lawsky said, tap-
ping the desk. “So is it really that different?”
To this regulator, digital currencies also provide a great
opportunity. While some politicians have only warned about
the dark side of intangible computerized tokens, Lawsky has
been thinking about how law enforcement can benefit from
the block chain’s permanent record of every Bitcoin transac-
tion. He can’t help it. He’s a former federal prosecutor who’s
constantly on the tail of money-laundering suspects and
shady bankers, and chasing them in the current world of
money isn’t easy.
“Look, I deal with a lot of these cases of international money
laundering with wire stripping. It’s a herculean burden to try
and do what we call lookbacks and figure out what took place
over a five-year period: The number of transactions, the infor-
mation’s been stripped out. And it takes years and years to put
these cases together and figure out what actually happened.”
Currently, investigators sift through hundreds of thousands
of paper or electronic documents that could have been doc-
tored. It’s a messy process that inevitably erupts with one side
claiming proof of covered-up wrongdoing, and the other side
screaming false charges. Those circumstances put Lawsky in
a difficult spot a few years ago, when he brought a case against
the London-based banking behemoth Standard Chartered.6
His investigators were sure the bank had violated U.S. sanc-
tions against Iran by allowing money from there to funnel
through offices in New York. They accused the bank of going
rogue, instituting a policy to conceal the identities of Iranian
clients by “stripping” documents of key information whenever

their money moved from offshore accounts into Manhattan
then back out again.
An estimated $250 billion made that illegal U-turn over a
decade, Lawsky’s investigators alleged. But consider this: The
bank’s New York branch cleared an average of $190 billion in
U.S. dollar transactions per day. Bank regulators said they spot-
ted 60,000 unlawful transactions, but think of how compli-
cated it was to separate those from the millions of others.
The bank eventually agreed to pay $340 million in civil pen-
alties to settle the money-laundering charges. But not before
rejecting the accusations and attempting to tarnish Lawsky’s
name. He came under fire for going it alone, with some calling
it a career-defining, politically motivated maneuver or just pure
American hubris of telling a British bank what to do.7
How much easier would it have been if investigators could
point to an immutable public ledger of transactions, a perma-
nent map to trace every monetary move ever made? There’s
potential there, Lawsky told me. It won’t come as a surprise that
Lawsky is interested in the immutability of digital record keep-
ing—that is, if it can’t be hacked. But Lawsky is equally enthusi-
astic about a digital currency’s ability to hide a buyer’s identity in
the private sector. He recognizes the value in hiding who you are
from the growing army of information-gobbling retailers, social
media providers, and communication companies that sell our
most personal details to credit bureaus and data brokers.
How do you enjoy both sides of that coin, traceability and
anonymity? That’s where Lawsky’s regulatory framework kicks
in. At the time of our sit-down interview, his team was still
devising rules. But his thinking was: License the exchanges
where people first create a wallet and buy a bitcoin. Then let
users roam free from there.
“What’s really potentially exciting about digital currencies

is…you can envision a world in which when you enter the bit-
coin ecosystem, you’ve got to identify yourself,” he said. “But
once the ledger has that, you could be able to move around the
ecosystem largely anonymously. It’s almost the best of both
worlds. Law enforcement knows that it can go and track that
down if something nefarious happens. But people who want
privacy online as they engage in transactions potentially get it.”
With all this cryptotalk, I wondered aloud if he understood
the underlying mathematical algorithms and computer code
that enable the system to work. His answer was point-blank:
no. But he felt comfortable relying on a dozen regulators and
lawyers who have talked to computer scientists, Bitcoin miners,
investors—heck, even the Winklevoss brothers—to get it right.
Plus, he leverages the youngest staff in the office, people in
their late twenties who give him a more tech-savvy perspective
on things. They even convinced him to stage an Ask-Me-Any-
thing session on the public bulletin board website Reddit, in
which he thoughtfully answered questions about his inten-
tions and asked a few questions back. The outreach earned him
some credibility, and a stranger in the crowd even tipped him a
tiny fraction of a bitcoin, worth about five bucks. A month later
he still hadn’t retrieved it, because he didn’t know what to do
with it—or whether it was even legal to take it, he told me. But
he is considering buying a portion of a bitcoin on his own and
ordering something off Overstock.com.
He’s not in a rush, though. Lawsky doesn’t think the con-
cept of a virtual currency is going to disappear anytime soon,
especially when the banking world’s high transfer fees make
it an industry ripe for disruption. The cost of sending money
abroad is exorbitant, he said. It’s about time that changes. But
he wants to play a careful umpire and not side too heavily with
the bankers he currently keeps in line—or the techie revolu-

tionaries at the gate.
“There’s this tightly regulated, slow world of banking col-
liding with what has been this unregulated, very fast mov-
ing, innovating, changing world of technology,” Lawsky said,
punching his fists together. “And what do you do with that
collision?”
If you slam newcomers with the same rules as the estab-
lished powers, you’ll probably kill the innovation, Lawsky
surmised. “But if you just let the tech side run wild and inno-
vate, you won’t have sufficient protections and end up with a
Mt.Gox.”
And that, he admitted, is his biggest fear. What keeps him
up at night are the dangers lurking in the blind spots, the tick-
ing time bomb he needs to catch before it explodes. When he
started his tenure in 2011, European markets were on the verge
of imploding. There was talk of default in Greece, Ireland, Por-
tugal, and Spain, threats that bond holders everywhere would
have to take a haircut, receiving a fraction of the money they lent
these governments. Even though Manhattan is 5,000 miles west
of Athens, it would still experience the fallout as if it were an epi-
center of its own. Lawsky oversees 100 foreign bank branches,
and most had exposure of some sort. Every week or so, Lawsky
met with his capital markets division, and the team would go
over an “emerging risks report.” They kept a close eye on inter-
est rates, bond sales, government statements—always praying
they wouldn’t miss a thing. The oncoming wave of digital cur-
rencies is much smaller in scale, but the thinking is the same.
Assume, he told me, that there are a few major virtual cur-
rency exchanges in New York City. “If we become overconfi-
dent or complacent that we know everything in this constantly
changing, evolving, innovative world of technology, we could
miss something significant. What I would never want to see

is…that there was something we missed and an exchange col-
lapsed. We’re going to work very hard on our blind spots so we
put protections in place—that may seem overly conservative to
some—to make sure we don’t have a collapse.
“The key is to never think you know everything, and never
think it’s under control; and always be worried, which is not a
fun way to live your life. But that’s what you do as a regulator.”
The United States deserves some credit for being proactive.

Right now, only a few other countries are issuing clear guid-
ance on taxes. Finland’s taxing authority is trying a tactic simi-
lar to its U.S. counterparts, collecting on capital gains whenever
a virtual currency appreciates in value. Ireland is considering
the same. Others are still trying to figure out how to define dig-
ital money so that it’s taxable but doesn’t give the impression
they’re vouching for its authenticity.
The following section gives a brief overview of how gov-
ernments are responding. Be advised, because virtual curren-
cies are so new, the laws of different countries are currently in
flux, so it’s difficult to keep track of all 196 or so. But it’s worth
talking about the measures some of them have taken so far. I
give kudos to the Law Library of Congress for scouring through
government statements and news reports and the tiny team of
volunteers at BitLegal.net that keeps track of recent changes.
You’ll notice one entire continent that is conspicuously
absent: Africa. That’s because, by most accounts, Bitcoin is still
relatively unknown there. The M-PESA system already in place
dominates the landscape, and at the present time, competing
systems of currency are a hard sell for a region that’s practically
bankless for the majority of people there.
Europe
We start with Europe, a relatively rich continent where 61 per-
cent of its 816 million inhabitants have Internet access.8 That
makes it fertile ground for virtual currencies. Electronic money
operates in a legal gray area, because the European Union in
2009 declared that e-money can’t be legal tender—but that
doesn’t make it illegal.
Only Germany has made the leap forward to recognize Bit-
coin, giving it tacit approval. The country’s financial regulator,
BaFin (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht), issued a
statement in late 2013 saying bitcoins are units of account, and
therefore legally binding financial instruments. It didn’t go as
far as calling them legal tender, but BaFin acknowledged that
they have value. It went easy on regulation, though, adding that
people who create the currency don’t have to get bank licenses.
Finland, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom have been
mulling over ways to tax it. The tax authority in Finland,
Vero Skatt, has taken an approach that’s similar to the United
States. It applies capital gains taxes whenever a virtual cur-
rency is swapped for another currency. Users are also taxed
on the appreciated value of an electronic token. They can’t
deduct their losses, though. Slovenia’s position is that bitcoin
isn’t a financial instrument, but it still has the ability to tax it—
although how isn’t clear. The British government has clearly
stated that bitcoin is unregulated. But its taxing arm, Her Maj-
esty’s Revenue and Customs, has classified bitcoins as “single
purpose vouchers,” allowing them to be taxed between 10 per-
cent and 20 percent. That’s a major markup, and many worry
this could choke off bitcoin use in the UK.
On the other end of the spectrum is Iceland, where the
government has found a novel way to freeze digital currencies
before they blossom. Its people are prohibited from sending
Icelandic krónur abroad to acquire bitcoins, so unless they

mine them at home, they can’t get their hands on them.9 That
restricts the inflow of digital currency, making it unpractical to
use. The world of cypherpunks produced a predictable, knee-
jerk response: A mysterious programmer appeared from the
ether under the name Baldur Friggjar Odinsson, becoming
Iceland’s own Satoshi Nakamoto.10 He used Iceland’s public
national database to tally each of the country’s 320,000 peo-
ple, and in March allowed each one to claim 31.8 Auroracoins.
It was a dud.
Russia has also taken an aggressive stance against electronic
money, but it hasn’t gone as far as a clampdown. In early 2014,
Russia’s top prosecutor affirmed that the ruble is the only offi-
cial currency. It said anonymous payment systems are money
substitutes and therefore illegal. It singled out Bitcoin and
said people and businesses can’t use them.11 Shortly thereafter,
however, the country’s central bank chimed in and called the
clampdown premature. An immediate ban isn’t necessary, it
said. The main goal is to protect citizens from fraud and pre-
vent money laundering and tax evasion, it said. The country’s
frenetic response might sound unwarranted, but the Russian
government is looking out for its national coinage, which is in
trouble. In the years since the global financial crisis, Russians
have been experiencing stagflation—a bitter brew of inflation
and an economic slump. To get a better grip on lowering that
inflation, the Bank of Russia has plans to weaken its currency
controls and allow the ruble to float freely in 2015.12 There’s a
major downside to having the ruble fluctuate naturally and
value itself at whatever it trades for on the foreign exchange
market. The rubles sitting in Russian banks’ vaults will drop
in value, and so will the market capitalization of those banks.
In short, Russian authorities are reluctant to let alternative
electronic money become safe havens for people fleeing the

ruble.
Every other government in Europe has taken a hands-off
approach, for better or worse. The Belgian finance minister
doesn’t think government intervention is necessary. Denmark’s
financial supervisor said it won’t regulate Bitcoin, and it won’t
tax personal transactions either.13 The Bank de France has
warned about the dangers of mingling with virtual currencies,
and the government might soon take a closer look at requir-
ing licenses of exchanges. Ireland’s revenue commissioners are
devising ways to tax bitcoins, but the Irish Parliament has said
it doesn’t regulate them. In the Netherlands, the president has
likened bitcoin to “tulip mania,” and the finance minister has
said bitcoins can’t be seen as electronic money. Poland’s finance
minister refuses to recognize bitcoins as legal currency but
said they’re not illegal. Italy has followed the European Union,
which is to say it hasn’t done much at all. Most other govern-
ments have stayed mum.
Mattia Gottardi blames what he calls a European political
class that’s totally out of the loop on the latest tech. He’s an
Italian attorney who lives in a small mountain town that bor-
ders the Alps, where he keeps a close eye on laws about vir-
tual money. He reckoned that if he were to ask 100 members
of the Italian Parliament how to classify Bitcoin, 99 would be
clueless. It’s a dangerous ignorance, because the lack of clear
laws allows for players to unfairly warp the value of virtual cur-
rencies, avoid paying taxes, and launder money. “The industry
is still totally devoid of rules, thereby favoring distortions and
poor security,” he said.
One final government in Europe is worth a mention, if only
for its oddball scheme. Alderney, the northernmost of the
Channel Islands between France and Great Britain, is a tiny

place. You’d probably miss it if you were looking at the average
map. But it has grand Bitcoin plans. The government is playing
with the thought of minting and issuing physical tokens, and
filling vaults with them.14 It’s hard to take this seriously, con-
sidering that one of Bitcoin’s strengths is the ease with which
someone can pay using some awful fraction like 0.00531 BTC
without batting an eye. Then again, this comes from a place
that often describes itself as “two thousand alcoholics clinging
to a rock.”
The Americas
When it comes to alternative payment systems, the Americas
are unique. The region has been experimenting with elec-
tronic money for more than a decade, so there’s something
of an appetite for it. But its laws are no more developed than
elsewhere.
Canada has not imposed rules treating Bitcoin differently
than any other currency and is handling the matter with a light
touch. The government’s accounting investigators charged
with tracking terrorist financing decided in 2013 that Bitcoin
exchanges aren’t subject to the same sort of tight scrutiny as
banks. The Canadian Revenue Agency expects people to pay
barter taxes when they spend their bitcoins on goods and
investment taxes when they sell them as a commodity.15 More
striking, however, is the government’s willingness to protect
consumers when something happens to their virtual money.
Unlike the many law enforcement agencies that stood idly by
after the Mt.Gox collapse, Canadian police launched an inves-
tigation after Flexcoin, a Bitcoin bank in Alberta, was suppos-
edly hacked and robbed of $600,000.16
Meanwhile, Mexico instituted anti-Bitcoin measures that

serve as a roundabout way to quash its use.17 Its central bank
prevents licensed financial institutions from using it or process-
ing transactions, creating a major obstruction for exchanges,
which need to process incoming funds from traders.
The region’s socialist bloc—Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uru-
guay, and Venezuela—has said little about Bitcoin, but that’s due
to the fact that it’s already well underway with its own electronic
currency, the sucre. The system is largely an experiment for the
time being, but the bloc is hoping that it will reduce their region’s
use of the U.S. dollar in business transactions—and push the
United States’ imperialist influence out of South America.
Most other governments have said nothing, or merely issued
boilerplate warnings about volatility. Colombia reminded its
citizens that nothing but the Colombian peso is legal tender.18
Brazil’s banking authority said it doesn’t yet present any risk to
the nation’s financial system.19
Andrés Chomczyk, an attorney in the Argentinean capital of
Buenos Aires, told me that Bitcoin’s tiny presence in the region
hasn’t yet merited the attention of nearby governments. “Until
it gains more international traction, I think South America will
remain silent on Bitcoin,” he said.
Then there’s Chile, where a small group of Libertarians with
an anarchist bent has taken that silence as a license to explore
an oddball escapist project: the creation of a free market para-
dise that runs entirely on Bitcoin.20 The isolated village is called
Galt’s Gulch, named after the main character in Ayn Rand’s
Atlas Shrugged, the lengthy book about rational selfishness.
It’s the brainchild of Ken Johnson, a California real estate agent
who bought 15 acres nestled in a breathtaking valley between
Chile’s capital and the west coast. He’s marketing 430 lots as an
independent haven for the free-thinking, hardworking types
Rand spoke about in her book, the ones who disappeared

when the world’s socialist leeches asked too much of them. For
you video-game enthusiasts out there, don’t be surprised if this
immediately reminds you of the best critique against Rand
to date: the underwater enclave of Rapture presented in the
video game BioShock. For those who don’t know it, it’s worth
reading up on.
Asia
Asia is another hotbed of activity, because it’s extremely pop-
ulous, coming of age economically, and its connectivity to the
Internet is pervasive. And unlike in Europe, countries there are
constantly swapping all kinds of currencies. Hong Kong, Sin-
gapore, and Taiwan each have their own dollar. There’s the Jap-
anese yen, Thai baht, Malaysian ringgit, Philippine peso, and
South Korean won. And let’s not forget the two major players:
China with its renminbi (better known by its basic unit, the
yuan) and the rupees of India.
The nastiest response so far has come from Vietnam, where
the communist government has barred citizens from trading
bitcoins and declared electronic currencies illegal.21 Its cen-
tral bank cited virtual currency connections to money laun-
dering and other crimes. There were various reports of online
exchanges starting there anyway, despite government warnings
that operating there wouldn’t be permitted.
Singapore, on the other hand, took the business-friendly
road we’ve all come to expect of the emerging entrepreneur-
ial hub. It laid out a plan for regulating business entities, like
currency exchanges, requiring them to know their customers.
The move was narrow, confined to a single purpose: prevent
money laundering and terrorist financing. It also set a tax pol-
icy that goes easy on investors. Anyone who gets paid for work
in bitcoins must dish out income taxes. But capital gains aren’t
taxed at all.22
One would have expected robust regulation in Japan after
the Mt.Gox debacle, but the country has been slow to move.
Japan’s hands-off strategy is essentially being non-communica-
tive. Its government has said Bitcoin isn’t a currency, but in the
years that it was home to the largest exchange in the world, it
never moved forward on enlightening guidance. Banking laws
there say lenders can’t set up digital wallets for customers or
manage transactions. At the same time, laws don’t prevent oth-
ers from managing bitcoins.23
China is the government with the most aggressive anti-
Bitcoin stance in the region that hasn’t formally illegalized it.
Like Mexico, it’s found a roundabout way to clamp down on the
currency. Banks and payment companies can’t mingle with the
currency, and that includes clearing transactions and making
trades. That cuts off the role banks play as backend processors,
the way they work with credit cards. It also prevents exchanges
from having any bank accounts to store the incoming cash. In
fact, the value of bitcoins took a nosedive when the People’s
Bank of China specifically ordered banks to close the accounts
of nearly a dozen exchanges in a matter of weeks. Why the stiff
shoulder? Some have commented that China is in a similar
position to Russia in that it maintains a strict control of its cur-
rency, the yuan. Here’s how tight that grip is: As of 2013, it didn’t
even allow traders to buy yuan at more than 1 percent above or
below its central bank rate. Its government isn’t too keen on a
competitor—even a tiny one—that could shake things up. So,
in response, it handles Bitcoin like deadly, radioactive waste.
It isn’t the first time the country has taken a hardline stance
with a virtual currency, though. When QQ Messenger, the
country’s most popular messaging app (with 800 million users)
embedded its own virtual money in 2009, China’s central bank

issued a guidance saying that trading QQ Coin was illegal.24
India is only slightly less hostile. Federal officers raided
a prominent exchange, BuySellBitCo.in, and the company
promptly shut down.25 The problem, it seemed, was merely
that virtual currency was being used. Officials told reporters
they were looking into 1,000 transactions by 400 customers.
Shortly thereafter, another trading platform, INBRTC, closed
its doors, citing a fear that it would run afoul of India’s vague
currency laws as well. Since then, startups have been cautious
to move ahead on anything related to alternative electronic
money, because of what’s perceived as a crackdown. It’s worth
noting that while researching India’s take on virtual currencies,
I kept running into the same pop-up ad below. It only strength-
ened the case that the country needs a faster payment system.
Most other countries have been quietly watching virtual cur-

rencies. Australia’s tax office has asked citizens to keep detailed
records, but it’s otherwise hands-off. Hong Kong, Indonesia,
New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan haven’t made any sig-
nificant announcements or rulings. In Malaysia, Bitcoin ATMs
are being passed off as voucher-spitting vending machines, so

the government doesn’t mind. And while the Bank of Thai-
land initially ruled Bitcoin illegal in the summer of 2013, it
later became apparent it only did so because the concept didn’t
fit neatly within its existing laws. Exchanges remained open
anyway.
CHAPTER 11
Do Androids Dream
of Electric Money?
we ’ve spent this entire book taking a look at what Bitcoin is

like today. But what about the future? What’s in store for credit
cards and paper cash? The concept of a truly digital currency
with a complex, cryptographic ledger is so revolutionary and
has so many implications for finance, art, and everyday life that
it’s worth exploring what might happen in the days ahead. I’ve
molded together all of the perspectives I received interviewing
Bitcoin enthusiasts, cryptographers, hackers, economists, and
bankers into one possible vision of the future. Don’t think of
it as my own fantasy or expectations. Rather, consider this a
journey down a single road, one of an infinite number of possi-
bilities. It’s an imaginative exercise that forces us to ask: Do we
want this to happen, and if not, how can we avert it? Prepare to
get jolted a bit. The path that lies ahead is always a rocky one.
The year is—never mind. I’d rather not say. Sometime in the
not-too-distant future. It’s been 10 years since we last heard of
Bitcoin. It had a good run. There was a brief period when every-
one thought it was the hottest investment around, and an esti-
mated 50 million people owned at least a portion of a bitcoin,
mostly through 401k retirement funds and investment trusts.

But then the worst happened. A militaristic group of highly
sophisticated hackers developed a nasty piece of malware and
wormed their way into the computers of Bitcoin’s core develop-
ers. It wasn’t their fault. These talented coders were the helpless
victims of a cyber assault. They had been doing this volunteer
work of maintaining the Bitcoin system for years, but like most
open-source projects, the whole enterprise was severely under-
funded. And so it came that still-unidentified hackers stole the
administrator credentials of several Bitcoin developers, secretly
logged into their computers, sabotaged Bitcoin’s code and sent
out the update to every computer on the network. The block
chain was corrupted, and therefore, rendered useless. Some
people claimed they still had the “real” block chain on their
computers, but too many different version of the block chain
existed, so no one could be sure which version was the right
one. The world mourned the passing of a financial phenome-
non, and millions of people lost money. Retirees were furious
at their financial consultants, and anyone who mentioned the
word “Bitcoin” was generally considered a jerk. It wasn’t partic-
ularly devastating for any one nation, but it hurt.
In its wake, however, Bitcoin transformed the way we
pay one another. The days when restaurants and shops had
only a handful of payment networks to choose from—Visa,
MasterCard—are long gone. Now there are a half dozen other
networks that do the same thing, and all of them work on vast,
interconnected peer-to-peer systems. Each one has its own
version of a block chain, logging transactions and checking
to make sure they add up. In the back room of every shop or
restaurant, there’s the loud hum of a computer fan. The desktop
computer runs full-time, hooked up to a network and verifying
the transactions going on all over that network. It costs each
Do Androids Dream of Electric Money? 217
business about $200 a month in electricity, but that’s nothing

compared to the savings it’s getting.
The increased competition and low cost of processing trans-
actions has put pressure on payment networks to lower their
fees, so now major credit card companies only charge business
owners 1 percent on every purchase. A business that makes
$1 million in revenue was previously paying those processers
$30,000 a year in merchant fees, but now that’s down to $10,000.
Restaurants have passed those savings along to patrons, and
now that it’s slightly cheaper to eat out, people do it more often.
Waiters and waitresses get the feeling they’ve been making
more money lately, but they’re not quite sure. They haven’t seen
cash—or touched a paper note—in ages. All their tips and their
daily paycheck go straight to their digital wallets.
Daily paychecks? That’s right. Because transaction fees
everywhere have fallen, restaurants don’t mind paying their
employees on a daily basis. At first it didn’t seem like it would
matter to get paid $150 a day instead of $1,500 every two weeks.
But as it turns out, this makes everyday living a lot easier.
Grandparents tell horror stories about how, back in their day,
they would pray that a major bill wouldn’t be due on a Thurs-
day because they got paid their lump sum on a Friday.
As for spending your money, it’s a breeze. Everyone has a
digital wallet, and it keeps all money in U.S. dollars or whatever
your national currency is. Moving yourself to a different elec-
tronic currency just turns out to be a complicated extra step no
average person cares to do. Leave that to business owners and
their payment networks. But there’s added security, because
the whole system still uses private keys to access money and
public keys to receive it. By now, though, private keys get acti-
vated by using a thumbprint or iris scan, so there’s no worry
about losing access to your money.
That’s the most fundamental way that our concept of money

has changed. There’s no longer this crude notion of carrying
around heavy metal coins or stacks of paper. In fact, that seems
ridiculous now, when you think about it. Money is not what you
have in your possession. It’s all about the record of transactions
that lives on a community’s network. So when a family’s house
burns down and they lose everything they own—including
the mobile devices that “stored” their electronic U.S. dollars—
they don’t have to worry. They didn’t lose their money after all.
Somewhere on the shared payment network, there’s a record
that shows they still have their savings. All they have to do is
access another device and use their thumbprint to reactivate
their private keys and get back their money, because it never
truly lived on their devices. It was always on the backbone of
the system. It’s just like those days on the island of Yap. It didn’t
matter that a family lost its stone. Everyone respected the fact
that they had a certain amount of wealth. We’ve transcended
our obsession with physicality.
It has also become the age of micropayments. Everyone
seems to be paying everyone else a little bit of money all the
time. The expenses never seem outrageous, so not very many
people complain about it. For instance, most news online
doesn’t come free any more. Sure, you can read anything you
want free of charge from your local tabloid blog, but then you
have to deal with all those annoying pop-up commercials that
play for 90 seconds straight before you can read a single story.
On the other hand, you can’t read a single article on a major
news site like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Wash-
ington Post without paying first. But you don’t mind, because
your Web browser does it automatically for you. At the end of
the day, you see the $1.20 bill, and you shrug it off as the cost of
a single newspaper subscription.
Musicians, graphic artists, and fiction writers don’t take

the same approach with strict website paywalls. They all let
you enjoy their work for free, but they always ask for microtip
donations. You happen to be a kind person, so you’ve set your
browser to donate 10¢ for every song you listen to. This kind of
overwhelming community support has forever altered what it
means to be an artist. Independent musicians feel less pressure
to write entire albums with songs that all sound the same. Every
song can stand on its own and draw its own financial support,
so every piece of music is its own exploration into a thought or
a feeling. The lines between genres like rock, jazz, and hip-hop
are blurred. Your favorite musical artist is a relatively unknown
classical violinist in Toronto who occasionally lends her talents
to a metal band in Seattle. They split the microtips on their lat-
est song. It’s not a lot, but it’s better than having your song cop-
ied repeatedly and pirated by everyone.
The situation is the same for self-funded illustrators. A
small team of part-time artists in New Mexico has sketched out
an emotionally complex, beautifully drawn comic book and
distributed it for free. But enough donations came in from fans
during the first few weeks that they all quit their day jobs and
have started doing this full-time. It’s all thanks to people like
you. Each time you see a funny online comic strip or entertain-
ing video, you click on the MicroPay button and it automati-
cally deducts another 10¢ from your account. You’d think this
sort of constant tipping is expensive. To a certain extent, it is.
But you’ve already decided to cut your television cable bill, and
now you only pay for the shows and movies you want to watch.
And besides, you’ve got a small stream of income coming in
from Big Data companies.
Does that sound strange? Well, ever since the U.S. Congress
approved the Direct Attribution and True Atonement Act,
companies that collect your personal information and use it to

extract value have to be transparent about how they used that
data—and they have to compensate you for some of that. For
example, if you’re a hospital nurse and your professional activ-
ities were carefully analyzed to create a robotic hospital assis-
tant, the DATA Act requires that the robotics company pay you
for contributing to that expertise. After all, there’s always the
chance those new robots might replace you as a worker, so the
return seems fair.
But enough with micropayments. The Bitcoin legacy lives
on in other ways—some good, some creepy. Governments are
now closer than ever to an Orwellian surveillance state, in that
they keep track of everyone’s movements. The federal govern-
ment will claim that it does not physically track any innocent
Americans without a warrant. It does, however, keep an ongo-
ing database—a block chain, if you will—that tracks every
person’s entry and exit from a jurisdiction. Whenever some-
one enters or leaves a city, state, or nation, the movement gets
logged in a digital file that gets encoded. The next wave of col-
lected movement data gets built on top of the last one. That
means if the government ever wants to look back in time, it can
access a permanent record of everyone’s whereabouts. The act
of stacking the data in a chain of blocks makes it impossible to
fake a past data entry without ruining all the data that came in
later. The downside is obvious: The government is in a perpet-
ual state of spying on everyone. But there’s an upside too: If you
ever get wrongfully accused of a crime, you now have a perfect
alibi. Plus, no one can steal your identity and use it as a pass-
port or driver’s license. You can’t be in two places at once, so the
impostor should get caught immediately.
The taxpayers also benefit, because they now have 100 per-
cent certainty that all foreign aid is being used exactly the way
it was intended. The money is programmable, and rules are

written into its code so that it is only spent on a specific good.
No matter how much that right-wing South American presi-
dent hates the socialist movement that’s gaining steam in the
rural villages, he can’t take the $50 million U.S. aid package he
just received for flood victims and use it instead to arm para-
military goons. The money just won’t work that way. Frustrated,
he spends the electronic aid money on medicine and doctors,
which pleases the leftist villagers who then reward him with
political support. It’s a peaceful outcome, and the U.S. govern-
ment avoids financially supporting another bloodbath.
Back in the United States, taxpayers also celebrate that fact
that, with digital money, they can now track every politician’s
campaign donations and spending on a public ledger that’s
viewable online. If your congressman just received a $100,000
donation from an oil drilling company, everyone knows about
it. And if he just received 100 donations each worth $1,000,
it’s easy to find out if they all came from executives at the oil
drilling company. The information is publicly available, and
it doesn’t take a lot of legal wrangling to get those records. If
the congressman is ever stupid enough to spend $200 of that
money on hookers, everyone knows about it the next day.
To revel in this new era, finance and economics nerds cele-
brate two holidays on Halloween. It’s also Satoshi Day, and fans
around the world wear masks that depict the face of that poor
old man who was once fingered as the true Satoshi Nakamoto.
It’s now a tradition to point at anyone who wears the mask and
shout, “You’re Satoshi!” Fun times.
CHAPTER 12
Final Thoughts
the w orld has rarely reacted kindly to revolutionary

ideas and technology—especially when it deals with money. In
Ancient Greece, Sparta was a militaristic state that had no use
for money and the individual empowerment it signified. When
the Spartans conquered Mantinea during the Peloponnesian
War, they rid the city of its coins and abolished all forms of
currency. More than a millennium later, medieval merchants
found practicing fractional-reserve banking (having less cash
on hand than the total of deposits) were threatened with
beheadings. When the French scholar Nicolas Oresme sug-
gested to the king in 1360 that money is not his royal property
but that of the people who use it, he was ignored.
Bitcoin faces an uphill battle. Its very design threatens to
wrestle away control from governments and banks, two of our
most entrenched institutions. It has to overcome our resistance
to a concept of money that isn’t physical. And like any new con-
traption, it’s unproven and therefore doesn’t yet deserve our
trust. It’s too early to say if Bitcoin is the currency of the future.
But that doesn’t mean we should just shrug this off as some
trite hobby for tech-savvy Libertarians. Bitcoin takes a stab at
solving problems most of us ignore: lack of access to money,
Final Thoughts 223
high transaction costs, and forced reliance on trusted middle

men. These aren’t societal glitches we can afford to disregard.
They’re holding us back from progressing together. The gap
between the rich and poor continues to widen. Leaving behind
the unbanked and saddling them with fees for moving their
own money has the dangerous potential to destabilize our
social framework. Left unattended, these will be a stain on
human history.
Then there’s the matter that our handling of money has
not caught up with the digital age. We interact with money in
a digital format—checking bank accounts online, shopping
via websites, and paying in person with our smartphones. But
behind that digital format is still an archaic system that’s dread-
fully slow and wasteful of resources. The most marketed bank-
ing innovation of the last few years is that we can now snap
photos to deposit checks on the go. Shouldn’t we stop to ask
why we’re still using paper checks? The waste is everywhere.
The United States government spent 9.6¢ to produce each dol-
lar bill in 2011.1 That doesn’t sound like much until you con-
sider the social cost. In a single year, the government spent
$614 million just to print money—funds that could have gone
to schools, inner-city programs, and scientific research. And it
redirected tons of raw cotton away from more useful products
like clothing, increasing the demand and raising the price for
the rest of us.
And for what? Our obsession for a physical bill we can point
to and call money? For nearly 2,500 years, every king and pres-
ident has dealt with the problems of coinage, assessing the
cost of forging little metal tokens and increasing or decreasing
their purity to satisfy a desire based on an arbitrary measure
of value. That innocuous craving launched crusades with the
Arab world and brutal colonial pillaging throughout Asia,
Africa, and the Americas. Yet it was all based on a ruse. Our
fixation with paper and gold and silver is a vast game of misdi-
rection. Money is not about the tokens we have in our posses-
sion. It’s the system of debt and credit, the IOUs that make up
for our lack of trust in one another to trade with a legitimate
object of value. Bartering doesn’t cut it, so we decide to trust
tokens instead. And we don’t even do this consciously. It’s not
malevolent. We’re simply filling a gap with an object. But we’re
better than that.
The Pacific islanders of Yap had it right all along. There’s
no way to tell if they designed their own system of currency in
such a ridiculous way—with those massive, sometimes immov-
able stones—to prove a point. But even if it was unintentional,
the wisdom was there. The moment of truth came when the
powerful family lost its stone but still had its wealth recognized
by the other villagers. Wealth is what the community says it
is, because money is whatever the community says it is. It’s a
matter of faith.
However, the concept of government-mandated fiat money
shows that it’s also a matter of assertion. If a powerful enough
force says it’s money, then it’s money. And in a democratic soci-
ety, if enough people agree that it’s money, then it’s money. It
can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bitcoin’s toughest challenge is
overcoming our doubts and gaining a large enough user base
to sustain it. For that, Bitcoin must prove itself worthy of our
confidence.
Bitcoin’s dual personality disorder doesn’t help. Speculative
investors who treat it as a commodity make it too volatile to be
a stable unit of value, and therefore a good currency. You can’t
have it both ways. Also, the software that supports the entire
protocol can be easily replicated. The system has no inherent
competitive advantage over any other digital currency. That
Final Thoughts 225
means any day now, Wells Fargo can launch its own FargoCoin.
Bank of America can create BOApay. Nothing stops JPMorgan
Chase from marketing MorganMoney. The typical defense
from Bitcoin enthusiasts is that Bitcoiners aren’t just going to
ditch their beloved currency for big bank inventions. But in
reality, the Bitcoin community is tiny. If any one of these banks
draws 5 percent of the United States, it will immediately over-
shadow the entire Bitcoin community.
I brought this point up to Barry Silbert, the entrepreneur
who launched the Bitcoin Investment Trust, and he noted that
it’s not a fair comparison. This scenario doesn’t just require
people who own bitcoins migrating away from the digital cur-
rency. Silbert argued that there are already hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars invested on top of the Bitcoin network—apps,
machinery, services—and banks will have a tough time recre-
ating that. Maybe that’s true.
Then there’s what I keep hearing from Silicon Valley folks
who think themselves soothsayers. They compare Bitcoin’s
incredible technology to innovative breakthroughs like email,
smartphones, and the automobile. But no one owns this tech-
nology. Email was great. Where’s the first ever popular email cli-
ent now? What about instant messaging service? Smartphone
maker? Let’s look further back. First car? I wouldn’t advise
anyone to invest their savings in Bitcoin for the same reason I
oppose inflationary policies by central banks run amuck. Hard-
earned money deserves to retain its value.
However, Bitcoin the currency deserves a chance. Satoshi
Nakamoto, whoever that is, created something that is sheer
genius. And in turn, those who continue to build on that idea
are doing a great service to society. Whether or not this expedi-
tion fails, it’s worth a shot. That’s why I’ll suggest this: If you’re
brave, go buy a bitcoin—or a fraction of one. Experiment. See
how it works. Get a taste for the cutting edge. An invention of

this sort has been long overdue in the digital age. We’ve been
talking about this sort of thing for more than a decade.
On July 25, 1995, a few members of Congress walked into
Room 2128 at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washing-
ton, DC, to discuss the future of money. They listened to tes-
timony from Visa, MasterCard International, Intuit, and two
virtual money companies that later flopped. They discussed
the lack of banking access for the poor, the high cost of send-
ing money, the trouble of maintaining physical money, and
the potential for electronic payments to better regulate wel-
fare payments. Visa expressed apprehension about electronic
money that’s “nothing more than zeros and ones.” Little has
changed since.
It’s worth noting that one witness, DigiCash CEO David
Chaum, said something that might resonate in the post-Bitcoin
world: “What would be a real mistake would be to move to an
electronic payment system that is fully traceable, where you
would be stepping backwards. You would be moving away from
the kinds of privacy that people have an expectation of today
into a totally transparent world…it would create really the kind
of world which many of us have fought to prevent.”
If something like Bitcoin succeeds, the question for us then
will be whether the benefit of a digital currency outweighs the
risk.
APPPENDIX
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online

payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through
a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the
main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent dou-
ble-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using
a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing
them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record
that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain
not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it
came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power
is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they’ll
generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires
minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes
can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work
chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial
institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments.
While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from
the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible
transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid
mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limit-
ing the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for
small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to
make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services. With the possibility
of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their cus-
tomers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and
payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency,
but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel
without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic
proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with
each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are
computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and
routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.
In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a
228 Appendix
peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of

the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest
nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of
attacker nodes.
2. Transactions
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner trans-
fers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction
and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin.
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
The problem of course is the payee can’t verify that one of the owners did
not double-spend the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted cen-
tral authority, or mint, that checks every transaction for double spending.
After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to issue a new
coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be dou-
ble-spent. The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money
system depends on the company running the mint, with every transaction
having to go through them, just like a bank.
We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign
any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one
that counts, so we don’t care about later attempts to double-spend. The only
way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions.
In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided
which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions
must be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to
agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee
needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed
it was the first received.
Appendix 229
3. Timestamp Server
The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server
works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely pub-
lishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp
proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into
the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming
a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it.
4. Proof-of-Work
To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we
will need to use a proof-of-work system similar to Adam Back’s Hashcash [6],
rather than newspaper or Usenet posts. The proof-of-work involves scanning
for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a
number of zero bits. The average work required is exponential in the number
of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash.
For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incre-
menting a nonce in the block until a value is found that gives the block’s hash
the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it
satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the
work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would
include redoing all the blocks after it.
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation

in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-
one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-
work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by
the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If
a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will
grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block,
an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks
after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. We
230 Appendix
will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up diminishes
exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.
To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in run-
ning nodes over time, the proof-of-work difficulty is determined by a moving
average targeting an average number of blocks per hour. If they’re generated
too fast, the difficulty increases.
5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not
already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the
next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the pre-
vious hash.
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep
working on extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next
block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that
case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in
case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-of-work is
found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the
other branch will then switch to the longer one.
New transaction broadcasts do not necessarily need to reach all nodes.
As long as they reach many nodes, they will get into a block before long.
Block broadcasts are also tolerant of dropped messages. If a node does not
receive a block, it will request it when it receives the next block and realizes
it missed one.
6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that
starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for
nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins
into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady
addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners
expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and
electricity that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value
of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee
that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction.
Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incen-
tive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.
Appendix 231
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is
able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have
to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments,
or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by
the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else
combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
7. Reclaiming Disk Space

Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent
transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this
without breaking the block’s hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree
[7][2][5], with only the root included in the block’s hash. Old blocks can then
be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not
need to be stored.
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose

blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year.
With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and
Moore’s Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not
be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.
8. Simplified Payment Verification

It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user
only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work
chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he’s convinced he
has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to
the block it’s timestamped in. He can’t check the transaction for himself, but by
linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted
it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.
232 Appendix
As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the net-
work, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker.
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified
method can be fooled by an attacker’s fabricated transactions for as long as
the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect
against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect
an invalid block, prompting the user’s software to download the full block
and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive
frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more
independent security and quicker verification.
9. Combining and Splitting Value

Although it would be possible to handle coins individually, it would be unwieldy
to make a separate transaction for every cent in a transfer. To allow value to be
split and combined, transactions contain multiple inputs and outputs. Nor-
mally there will be either a single input from a larger previous transaction or
multiple inputs combining smaller amounts, and at most two outputs: one for
the payment, and one returning the change, if any, back to the sender.
It should be noted that fan-out, where a transaction depends on several

transactions, and those transactions depend on many more, is not a problem
here. There is never the need to extract a complete standalone copy of a trans-
action’s history.
Appendix 233
10. Privacy
The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to
information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity
to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can
still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by
keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is send-
ing an amount to someone else, but without information linking the trans-
action to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock
exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the “tape”, is made
public, but without telling who the parties were.
As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to
keep them from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoid-
able with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs
were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed,
linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner.
11. Calculations
We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain
faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw
the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air
or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are not going to
accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept
a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own
transactions to take back money he recently spent.
The race between the honest chain and an attacker chain can be character-
ized as a Binomial Random Walk. The success event is the honest chain being
extended by one block, increasing its lead by +1, and the failure event is the
attacker’s chain being extended by one block, reducing the gap by -1.
The probability of an attacker catching up from a given deficit is analogous
to a Gambler’s Ruin problem. Suppose a gambler with unlimited credit starts
at a deficit and plays potentially an infinite number of trials to try to reach
breakeven. We can calculate the probability he ever reaches breakeven, or that
an attacker ever catches up with the honest chain, as follows [8]:
234 Appendix
p = probability an honest node finds the next block

q = probability the attacker finds the next block
qz = probability the attacker will ever catch up from z blocks behind
{ 1 if p ≤ q
qz = ( q / p ) z if p > q }
Given our assumption that p > q, the probability drops exponentially as the
number of blocks the attacker has to catch up with increases. With the odds
against him, if he doesn’t make a lucky lunge forward early on, his chances
become vanishingly small as he falls further behind.
We now consider how long the recipient of a new transaction needs to wait
before being sufficiently certain the sender can’t change the transaction. We
assume the sender is an attacker who wants to make the recipient believe he
paid him for a while, then switch it to pay back to himself after some time has
passed. The receiver will be alerted when that happens, but the sender hopes
it will be too late.
The receiver generates a new key pair and gives the public key to the sender
shortly before signing. This prevents the sender from preparing a chain of
blocks ahead of time by working on it continuously until he is lucky enough
to get far enough ahead, then executing the transaction at that moment. Once
the transaction is sent, the dishonest sender starts working in secret on a par-
allel chain containing an alternate version of his transaction.
The recipient waits until the transaction has been added to a block and z
blocks have been linked after it. He doesn’t know the exact amount of prog-
ress the attacker has made, but assuming the honest blocks took the average
expected time per block, the attacker’s potential progress will be a Poisson dis-
tribution with expected value:
q
𝝀 =z
p
To get the probability the attacker could still catch up now, we multiply the
Poisson density for each amount of progress he could have made by the prob-
ability he could catch up from that point:
Rearranging to avoid summing the infinite tail of the distribution...

Appendix 235
Converting to C code…
Running some results, we can see the probability drop off exponentially with z.
q=0.1 q=0.3
z=0 P=1.0000000 z=0 P=1.0000000
z=1 P=0.2045873 z=5 P=0.1773523
z=2 P=0.0509779 z=10 P=0.0416605
z=3 P=0.0131722 z=15 P=0.0101008
z=4 P=0.0034552 z=20 P=0.0024804
z=5 P=0.0009137 z=25 P=0.0006132
z=6 P=0.0002428 z=30 P=0.0001522
z=7 P=0.0000647 z=35 P=0.0000379
z=8 P=0.0000173 z=40 P=0.0000095
z=9 P=0.0000046 z=45 P=0.0000024
z=10 P=0.0000012 z=50 P=0.0000006
Solving for P less than 0.1%...

P < 0.001
q=0.10 z=5
q=0.15 z=8
q=0.20 z=11
q=0.25 z=15
q=0.30 z=24
q=0.35 z=41
q=0.40 z=89
q=0.45 z=340
12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on
trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signa-
tures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without
a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer
network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that
quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if
honest nodes control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its
unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They
236 Appendix
do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular
place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and
rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing
their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting
invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives
can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
References
[1] W. Dai, “b-money,” http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998.
[2] H. Massias, X.S. Avila, and J.-J. Quisquater, “Design of a secure timestamp-
ing service with minimal trust requirements,” In 20th Symposium on Infor-
mation Theory in the Benelux, May 1999.
[3] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, “How to time-stamp a digital document,” In Jour-
nal of Cryptology, vol 3, no 2, pages 99-111, 1991.
[4] D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, “Improving the efficiency and reliability
of digital time-stamping,” In Sequences II: Methods in Communication, Secu-
rity and Computer Science, pages 329-334, 1993.
[5] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, “Secure names for bit-strings,” In Proceedings of
the 4th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages
28-35, April 1997.
[6] A. Back, “Hashcash—a denial of service counter-measure,” http://www.
hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002.
[7] R.C. Merkle, “Protocols for public key cryptosystems,” In Proc. 1980 Sympo-
sium on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society, pages 122-133, April
1980.
[8] W. Feller, “An introduction to probability theory and its applications,” 1957.
Notes
Chapter 1: Baby Steps

1 D. Graeber, “NakedCapitalism.com,” 13 September 2011. [Online].
Available: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-
the-invention-of-money-%E2%80%93-notes-on-sex-adventure-
monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html.
2 C. Menger, On the Origins of Money, 1892.
3 C. University, “The Song Dynasty in China,” 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/song/econ/money.htm.
Chapter 2: The Birth of Bitcoin

1 S.L.F.R. Bank, “The Financial Crisis—A Timeline of Event and Pol-
icy Actions,” [Online]. Available: http://timeline.stlouisfed.org/index.
cfm?p=timeline.
2 “Bailout Recipients,” 11 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://proj-
ects.propublica.org/bailout/list.
3 Y. Kuznetsov, “Fiat Money as an Administrative Good,” Mises Daily, 28
April 2010.
4 Michael McLeay, Amar Radia, and Ryland Thomas. “Money Creation
in the Modern Economy,” Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q1 (14
March). Available: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2416234.
5 D. Murdock, “Milton and Rose Friedman Offer Radical Ideas for the
21st Century,” Cato Institute, 8 December 1999.
6 “SourceForge,” [Online]. Available: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/
news/2009/01/bitcoin-v01-released---p2p-e-cash/.
7 A. Peterson, “Hal Finney received the first Bitcoin transaction. Here’s
how he describes it.,” Washington Post, 3 January 2014.
8 M.J. Casey, “Bitcoin Foundation’s Andresen on Working with Satoshi
Nakamoto,” Wall Street Journal, 6 March 2014.
9 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “CVE-2010-5139,”
National Vulnerability Database, 2012.
10 M. Sawyer, “Monetarism,” 26 February 2013. [Online]. Available: http://
www.monetarism.co.uk/the-beginners-guide-to-bitcoin-everything-
you-need-to-know/.
238 Notes
11 J. Davis, “The Crypto-Currency,” New Yorker, 10 October 2011.

12 “History of Bitcoin,” [Online]. Available: http://historyofbitcoin.org/.
13 FATF, “Money Laundering Using New Payment Methods,” October 2010.
[Online]. Available: http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/
reports/ML%20using%20New%20Payment%20Methods.pdf.
14 J. Brito, “Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Governments, Banks,”
Time, 16 April 2011.
15 A. Jeffries, “MyBitcoin Spokesman Finally Comes Forward,” 8 August 2011.
[Online]. Available: http://betabeat.com/2011/08/mybitcoin-spokesman-
finally-comes-forward-what-did-you-think-we-did-after-the-hack-we-
got-shitfaced/.
16 J. Davis, “The Crypto-Currency.”
17 A. Penenberg, “The Bitcoin Crypto-currency mystery reopened,” 11 Octo-
ber 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.fastcompany.com/1785445/
bitcoin-crypto-currency-mystery-reopened. [Accessed 2011].
18 Christopher Mims and Leo Mirani, “Bitcoin’s creator is Japanese math-
ematician Shinichi Mochizuki, says hypertext inventor,” 19 May 2013.
[Online]. Available: http://qz.com/86255/the-mysterious-creator-of-
bitcoin-could-be-japanese-mathematician-shinichi-mochizuki-says-
the-inventor-of-hypertext/.
19 A. Liu, “Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Creator of Bitcoin?,” 22 May
2013. [Online]. Available: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/who-is-
satoshi-nakamoto-the-creator-of-bitcoin.
20 L.M. Goodman, “The Face Behind Bitcoin,” 6 March 2014. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.
html.
Chapter 3: Bitcoin Explained

1 S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” 2008.
2 Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, “All about Bitcoin,”
Goldman Sachs, New York, 2014.
3 S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.”
4 Ibid.
5 CoinDesk, “How Bitcoin Mining Works,” 6 March 2014. [Online].
Available: http://www.coindesk.com/information/how-bitcoin-mining-
works/.
6 Unknown, “Protocol rules,” [Online]. Available: https://en.bitcoin.it/
wiki/Protocol_rules#cite_ref-5. [Accessed 2 May 2014].
7 S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.”
Notes 239
8 Bitcoin Foundation, “Block 0,” [Online]. Available: http://block

explorer.com/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46
a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f. [Accessed 3 May 2014].
9 A.Y.C. Heng, “Global Bitcoin Nodes Distribution,” [Online]. Available:
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/. [Accessed 3 May 2014].
Chapter 4: Using It in Real Life

1 S. Gibbs, “Man buys $27 of bicoin, forgets about them, finds they’re now
worth $886k,” 29 October 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.the
guardian.com/technology/2013/oct/29/bitcoin-forgotten-currency-
norway-oslo-home.
2 R. Orange, “Student buys Osla flat with $27 bitcoin stash,” 29
October 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.thelocal.no/20131029/
student-buys-oslo-apartment-with-27-bitcoin-stash.
3 E. Morphy, “Here Is What Bitcoin Users Are Buying On Overstock.
com,” 22 January 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.forbes.com/
sites/erikamorphy/2014/01/22/here-is-what-bitcoin-users-are-buying-
on-overstock-com/.
4 R. Sidel, “Overstock CEO Sees Bitcoin Sales Rising More Than
Expected,” 4 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://online.wsj.com/
news/articles/SB10001424052702304815004579418962232488216.
5 M. Andreessen, “Why Bitcoin Matters,” 21 January 2014. [Online].
Available: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/.
6 Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust, Securities and Exchange Commission, 2014.
Chapter 5: But Is It Money?

1 G. Mankiw, Macroeconomics, New York: Worth Publishers, 2007.
2 R.A. Ferdman, “Venezuela’s black market rate for US dollars just
jumped by almost 40%,” 26 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://
qz.com/192395/venezuelas-black-market-rate-for-us-dollars-just-
jumped-by-almost-40/.
3 William Henry Furnace III, The Island of Stone Money: Uap of the Caro-
lines, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1910.
4 F. Martin, Money: The Unauthorized Biography, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2014.
5 N. Ferguson, The Ascent of Money, New York: Penguin Books, 2008.
6 F. Martin, Money: The Unauthorized Biography.
7 P.L.P. Simpson, The Politics of Aristotle, University of North Carolina
Press, 1997.
240 Notes

9 P.L.P. Simpson, The Politics of Aristotle.
10 “Matthew 22:15-22,” in the Holy Bible.
11 J. Peden, “Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire,” 7 September
2009. [Online]. Available: https://mises.org/daily/3663.
12 N. Ferguson, The Ascent of Money.
13 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 A.G. Kenwood and A.L. Lougheed, The Growth of the International
Economy 1820–2000, New York: Routledge, 1999.
17 Ibid.
18 Jim O’Donoghue, Louise Goulding, and Grahame Allen, “Consumer
Price Inflation Since 1750,” Office for National Statistics. Economic
Trends, 2004.
19 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Consumer Price Index, 1913–,”
[Online]. Available: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_
education/teacher/calc/hist1913.cfm. [Accessed 27 April 2014].
20 N. Ferguson, The Ascent of Money.
21 A.G. Kenwood and A.L. Lougheed, The Growth of the International
Economy 1820–2000.
22 L.E. Lehrman, The True Gold Standard, Lehrman Institute, 2012.
23 G. Mankiw, Macroeconomics, New York: Worth Publishers, 2007.
24 U.S. Federal Reserve, “Is U.S. currency still backed by gold?,” [Online].
Available: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12770.htm.
[Accessed 26 April 2014].
25 S. Dinan, “U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion—tops $17 tril-
lion for first time,” 18 October 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.
washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/us-debt-jumps-400-billion-
tops-17-trillion-first-t/.
26 Central Bank of Malta, “Coinage of the Knights of Malta,” [Online].
Available: http://www.centralbankmalta.org/site/currency1b.html.
Chapter 6: The Case for Bitcoin

1 U.S. Census Bureau, “2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates,” 2012.
2 DCF, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—An Overview of
Program Requirements,” 2006.
Notes 241
3 C. Megerian, “Banks profit from fees paid by California welfare

recipients,” March 25 2014. [Online]. Available: http://articles.latimes.
com/2014/mar/25/local/la-me-welfare-fees-20140326.
4 FDIC, “National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked House-
holds,” 2011.
5 L. Mandel, “The Financial Literacy of Young American Adults,”
Jump$tart, Washington, DC, 2006.
6 C. Bell, “Check cashing still not a good deal,” 18 November 2011.
[Online]. Available: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/banking/
check-cashing-still-not-a-good-deal/.
7 S. Hargreaves, “15% of Americans living in poverty,” 17 September 2013.
[Online]. Available: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/
poverty-income/.
8 J. Ross, “Banks Extract Fees On Unemployment Benefits,” 1 November
2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/
bank-fees-unemployment-benefits_n_1033700.html.
9 Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Stephanie Clifford, “Paid via Card, Work-
ers Feel Sting of Fees,” 30 June 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.
nytimes.com/2013/07/01/business/as-pay-cards-replace-paychecks-
bank-fees-hurt-workers.html.
10 Pew Research Internet Project, “Mobile Technology Fact Sheet,” Janu-
ary 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/
mobile-technology-fact-sheet/.
11 M. Duggan, “Pew Internet Resource Project,” 19 September 2013. [Online].
Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/19/cell-phone-activities-
2013/.
12 D. Henry, “JPMorgan Chase plans to exit prepaid card business,”
9 January 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/
2014/01/09/us-jpmorgan-cards-prepaid-idUSBREA080XM20140109.
13 Leora Klapper and Krita Hoff, “Half of Adults Worldwide Report Hav-
ing a Formal Bank Account,” Gallup, 2012.
14 Al Jazeera, “UN: 460,000 displaced in Darfur this year,” 14 Novem-
ber 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/
2013/11/un-displaced-violence-darfur-20131114132610566629.html.
15 K. DeYoung, “U.S. sends Osprey aircraft, more Special Operations
forces to hunt Ugandan warlord,” 23 March 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2014/03/23/
aa468ca6-b2d0-11e3-8020-b2d790b3c9e1_story.html.
242 Notes
16 Jenny Aker and Isaac Mbiti, “Mobile Phones and Economic Develop-
ment in Africa,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2010.
17 K. Yeoman, “M-PESA helps world’s poorest go to the bank using mobile
phones,” 6 January 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.csmonitor.
com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2014/0106/M-PESA-
helps-world-s-poorest-go-to-the-bank-using-mobile-phones.
18 GSMA, “Safaricom—Kenya—Feasibility Study,” 2012.
19 William Jack and Tavneet Suri, “The Economics of M-PESA,” Working
paper, http://www.mit.edu/~tavneet/M-PESA-Final.pdf. August 2010.
20 I. Mas and O. Morawczynski, “Designing Mobile Money Services—
Lessons from M-PESA,” MIT Press Journals, 2009.
21 Megan G. Plyler, Sherri Haas, and Geetha Nagarajan, “Community-
Level Economic Effects of M-PESA in Kenya: Initial Findings,” Iris
Center, University of Maryland, 2010.
22 GSMA, “Mobile Economy Latin America,” 2013.
23 Leora Klapper and Krita Hoff, “Half of Adults Worldwide Report Hav-
ing a Formal Bank Account,” Gallup, 2012.
24 B. Williams, “Using mobile to reach the Latin American unbanked,” 1
August 2012. [Online]. Available: http://bankinganalyticsblog.fico.com/
2012/08/using-mobile-to-reach-the-latin-american-unbanked-.html.
25 IDB, “Remittances in Latin America by the Numbers,” 2011. [Online].
Available: http://www.iadb.org/en/topics/remittances/by-the-numbers,
2584.html.
26 JPMorgan Chase Bank, “United States Patent Application
20130317984,” 5 August 2013. [Online]. Available: http://appft.uspto.
gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=
%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1
=AND&d=PG01&s1=20130317984&OS=20130317984&RS=20130317984.
27 R. Edmonds, “ASNE census finds 2,600 newsroom jobs were lost
in 2012,” 25 June 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.poynter.org/
latest-news/business-news/the-biz-blog/216617/asne-census-finds-
2600-newsroom-jobs-were-lost-in-2012/.
28 “PayPal Merchant Fees,” [Online]. Available: https://www.paypal.com/
webapps/mpp/merchant-fees#id1_header. [Accessed 18 April 2014].
29 R. Edmonds, “ASNE census finds 2,600 newsroom jobs were lost in
2012.”
30 Chicago Sun-Times, “Chicago Sun-Times Now Accepting Bitcoin
Payments,” 3 April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.prweb.com/
releases/2014/04/prweb11733314.htm.
Notes 243
31 B. Cunningham, “Bitcoin Talk forum,” 15 May 2012. [Online]. Avail-

able: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81858.0.
32 “BTC Tip,” [Online]. Available: https://secure.btctip.com:9000/.
33 E. Garland, “The ‘In Rainbows’ Experiment: Did It Work?,” 16 Novem-
ber 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monitor-
mix/2009/11/the_in_rainbows_experiment_did.html.
34 S. Michaels, “In Rainbows outsells last two Radiohead albums,” 16
October 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/
music/2008/oct/16/radiohead-album-sales.
35 Amanda Palmer, The Art of Asking. TED talk, February 2013.
[Performance]. Available: http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_
the_art_of_asking/transcript.
36 K.A. Davidson, “Jamaican Bobsledders Ride Dogecoin Into
Olympics,” 4 February 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.bloomberg
view.com/articles/2014-02-04/jamaican-bobsledders-ride-dogecoin-
into-olympics.
37 N. Kwan, “OfficeMax Sends Letter to “Daughter Killed in Car Crash”,”
19 January 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/
local/OfficeMax-Sends-Letter-to-Daughter-Killed-in-Car-Crash-
240941291.html.
38 B. Krebs, “U.S. States Investigating Breach at Experian,” 3 April 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/04/u-s-states-
investigating-breach-at-experian/.
39 M. Martin, “Experian and Court Ventures data breach,” 7 April
2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.usinfosearch.com/Experian-
Court-Ventures-Data-Breach.html.
40 A. Greenberg, “Follow the Bitcoins: How We Got Busted Buying Drugs on
Silk Road’s Black Market,” 5 September 2013. [Online]. Available: http://
www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/09/05/follow-the-bitcoins-
how-we-got-busted-buying-drugs-on-silk-roads-black-market/.
[Accessed 2013].
41 S. Meiklejohn, “A Fistful of Bitcoins: Characterizing Payments
Among,” Association for Computing Machinery, 2013.
42 Matthew Rosenberg and Azam Ahmed, “U.S. Aid to Afghans Flows
on Despite Warnings of Misuse,” 30 January 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/world/asia/report-says-afghani-
stan-cant-be-trusted-to-prevent-misuse-of-us-aid.html.
244 Notes
43 A. Ibrahim, “U.S. Aid to Pakistan—U.S. Taxpayers Have Funded Paki-

stani Corruption,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
Harvard Kennedy School of Government, 2009.
44 Huffington Post UK, “British Aid Money To Sierra Leone Investigated
After Claims Of Misuse,” 15 April 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/15/sierra-leone-aid-money_n_3083057.
html.
45 G. Selgin, “Milton Friedman and the Case against Currency Monop-
oly,” Cato Journal, 2008.
46 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, “Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe,” 2011.
47 Economic Times, “Zimbabwe inflation now over 1 million percent,”
13 June 2008. [Online]. Available: http://articles.economictimes.
indiatimes.com/2008-06-13/news/27696937_1_zimbabwe-inflation-
zimbabwe-dollars-harare.
48 Economist, “A century of decline,” 15 February 2014. [Online].Available:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21596582-one-hundred-
years-ago-argentina-was-future-what-went-wrong-century-decline.
49 J. Parker, “Case of the Day: Money and Inflation in Argentina,”
[Online]. Available: http://academic.reed.edu/economics/parker/f10/
201/cases/argentina.html. [Accessed 21 April 2014].
Chapter 7: The Case against Bitcoin

1 D. Gage, “The Venture Capital Secret: 3 Out of 4 Start-Ups Fail,” 20
September 2012. [Online]. Available: http://online.wsj.com/news/
articles/SB10000872396390443720204578004980476429190.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Time Use Survey,” 2012.
3 Harris Interactive, “Most Americans Still Don’t Trust Bitcoin Despite
Widespread Awareness, New Survey Shows,” 25 March 2014. [Online].
Available: http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=186455#.
U1a0L_ldWuk.
4 Caltech, “Independent discovery by George Zweig,” [Online]. Avail-
able: http://hep.caltech.edu/gm/gm.php?p=zweig.php. [Accessed 22
April 2014].
5 G. Richmond, “Special 301: FOSS users. Now we’re all Communists
and Criminals,” 5 March 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.free
softwaremagazine.com/articles/special_301_foss_users_now_were_
all_communists_and_criminals.
6 F.R. Velde, “Bitcoin: A primer,” The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
Chicago, 2013.
Notes 245
7 L. Orsini, “What Happens to Lost Bitcoins?,” 13 January 2014.

[Online]. Available: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/13/what-happens-to-
lost-bitcoins#awesm=~oCeplYWFrRAvo6.
8 “Buffett blasts bitcoin as ‘mirage’: ‘Stay away!’,” 14 March 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101494937.
Chapter 8: The Rise and Fall of Mt.Gox

1 Ripple, “Interview with Jed McCaleb, inventor of the Ripple protocol
and co-founder of OpenCoin,” 17 April 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://ripple.com/blog/interview-with-jed-mccaleb-inventor-of-the-
ripple-protocol-and-co-founder-of-opencoin/.
2 R. McMillan, “Bitcoin Maverick Returns for New Crack at Digital
Currency,” 30 September 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.wired.
com/2013/09/jed_mccaleb/.
3 “Internet Archive,” [Online]. Available: https://web.archive.org/
web/20070525044536/http://mtgox.com/gwt/mtgox.php. [Accessed 25
May 2007].
4 “Internet Archive,” [Online]. Available: https://web.archive.org/web/
20090812073342/http://www.mtgox.com/. [Accessed 12 August 2009].
5 J. McCaleb, “Bitcoin Talk,” 18 July 2010. [Online]. Available: https://
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=444.0;all.
6 M. Karpelès, “blog.magicaltux.net,” 9 June 2009. [Online]. Available:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090609223038/http://blog.magicaltux.
net/.
7 M. Karpelès, “Bitcoin Talk,” 8 November 2010. [Online]. Available:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2134;sa=show
Posts;start=0.
8 “Bitcoin Charts,” [Online]. Available: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/
mtgoxUSD#tgSzm1g10zm2g25zvzcv. [Accessed 9 April 2014].
9 “Banque de France,” 8 June 2013. [Online]. Available: http://vosdroits.
service-public.fr/particuliers/F2417.xhtml#N10131.
10 “Mt.Gox AMA,” 12 April 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.reddit.
com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1c7ahh/we_are_mt_gox_ama.
11 13-1085SAG. U.S. District Court of Maryland, 19 June 2013.
12 13-1162SKG. U.S. District Court of Maryland, 14 August 2013.
13 Coinlab v. Mt.Gox, Tibanne, 2013.
14 R. Dillet, “Feds Seize Another $2.1 Million From Mt. Gox, Add-
ing Up To $5 Million,” 23 August 2013. [Online]. Available: http://
246 Notes
techcrunch.com/2013/08/23/feds-seize-another-2-1-million-from-mt-
gox-adding-up-to-5-million/.
15 R. McMillan, “The Inside Story of Mt. Gox, Bitcoin’s $460 Mil-
lion Disaster,” 3 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.wired.
com/2014/03/bitcoin-exchange/.
16 Coinbase, “Joint Statement Regarding Mt.Gox,” 24 February 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://blog.coinbase.com/post/77766809700/
joint-statement-regarding-mtgox.
17 Unknown, “Crisis Strategy Draft,” 2014.
18 “Domain Report—GoX.com,” Domain Tools, 2014.
Chapter 9: The Dark Side of Bitcoin

1 J. Finkle, “Marketplace of vice, ‘Silk Road’ meets its end,” 2 October
2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/02/
us-crime-silkroad-marketplace-idUSBRE9911CP20131002.
2 A. Hern, “FBI struggles to seize 600,000 Bitcoins from alleged Silk Road
founder,” 7 October 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.
com/technology/2013/oct/07/fbi-bitcoin-silk-road-ross-ulbricht.
3 United States of America v. Ross William Ulbricht, 2013.
4 B. Krebs, “U.S.: Online payment network abetted fraud, child por-
nography,” 1 May 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.washington
post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050101291.html.
5 J. Langlois, “Liberty Reserve digital money service shut down, founder
arrested,” 27 May 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.globalpost.
com/dispatch/news/business/technology/130527/liberty-reserve-
digital-money-service-shut-down-founder-arrested.
6 F. Berkman, “Alleged Silk Road drug ‘kingpin’ is actually just a
‘digital landlord,’ says lawyer,” 1 April 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dailydot.com/news/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-digital-
landlord-bitcoin/.
7 Digital Citizens Alliance, “Busted, but not broken—The state of Silk
Road and the Darknet marketplaces,” Digital Citizens Alliance, 2014.
Chapter 10: How Governments Are Responding

1 Internal Revenue Service, “Notice 2014-21,” 2014.
2 A. Levitin, “Bitcoin Tax Ruling,” 26 March 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2014/03/bitcoin-tax-ruling.html.
3 Johannes Schmidt, Alexander Derrick, and Joseph Henchman, “IRS
Says Bitcoin to Be Taxed as Gains; New Rule Is Retroactive,” [Online].
Notes 247
Available: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/irs-says-bitcoin-be-taxed-
gains-new-rule-retroactive.
4 New York Labor Department, “Number of Nonfarm Jobs by Place of
Work,” 2014.
5 Goldman Sachs, 2014.
6 B. Rooney, “U.S. Treasury continues to probe Standard Chartered,”
8 August 2012. [Online]. Available: http://buzz.money.cnn.com/
2012/08/08/treasury-probe-standard-chartered/.
7 K. Mahbubani, “A Lawsky unto himself, or why New York erred on
StanChart,” 12 August 2012. [Online]. Available: http://webcache.
googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u6MaLjOEGBsJ:www.ft.
com/cms/s/0/f4c6b142-e2d5-11e1-bf02-00144feab49a.html+&cd=1&hl
=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#axzz2xz0q0Ry2.
8 European Commission, “Life Online,” 2012.
9 Morgunblaðið, “Höftin stöðva viðskipti með Bitcoin,” 19 December
2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.mbl.is/vidskipti/frettir/2013/12/19/
hoftin_stodva_vidskipti_med_bitcoin/.
10 L. Tung, “Auroracoin begins cryptocurrency ‘airdrop’ to whole of
Iceland,” 25 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.zdnet.com/
auroracoin-begins-cryptocurrency-airdrop-to-whole-of-iceland-
7000027676/.
11 General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, “General Prosecutor’s
Office of the Russian Federation held a meeting on the legitimacy of
the use of anonymous payment systems and kriptovalyut,” 6 Febru-
ary 2014. [Online]. Available: http://genproc.gov.ru/smi/news/genproc/
news-86432/.
12 A. Ostroukh, “Russia Ready to Float Ruble Next Year Regardless of
Rate,” The Wall Street Journal, 17 January 2014.
13 A. Hannestad, “Bitcoin-gevinster kan stikkes direkte i lommen,” 25 March
2014. [Online]. Available: http://politiken.dk/oekonomi/dkoekonomi/
ECE2244816/bitcoin-gevinster-kan-stikkes-direkte-i-lommen/.
14 J. Wild, “Alderney looks to cash in on virtual Bitcoins with Royal Mint
reality,” The Financial Times, 29 November 2013.
15 CBC, “Bitcoins aren’t tax exempt, Revenue Canada says,” 26 March
2014. [Online]. Available: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoins-
arent-tax-exempt-revenue-canada-says-134047396--finance.html.
16 Julie Gordon and Leah Schnurr, “Canadian police investigating
after bitcoin bank Flexcoin folds,” 5 March 2014. [Online]. Available:
248 Notes
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-bitcoin-flexcoin-
idUSBREA2503F20140306.
17 Forbes, “Banxico advierte sobre el uso del Bitcoin,” 10 March 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://www.forbes.com.mx/sites/banxico-advierte-
sobre-el-uso-del-bitcoin/.
18 El Espectador, “Alerta por Bitcoin en Colombia,” 25 March 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/economia/
alerta-bitcoin-colombia-articulo-483080.
19 Banco Central do Brasil, “PRESS RELEASE NO. 25,306,” 19 February
2014. [Online]. Available: https://www3.bcb.gov.br/normativo/detal-
harNormativo.do?method=detalharNormativo&N=114009277.
20 Economist, “Bitcoin paradise,” 25 December 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/libertarian-
enclaves.
21 AP, “Vietnam says Bitcoin transactions are illegal,” 28 February
2014. [Online]. Available: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/vietnam-says-
bitcoin-transactions-are-illegal.
22 C. Fuller, “Singapore Taxes Bitcoin: How New Taxation May Be
Exactly What Bitcoin Needs,” 13 January 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ibtimes.com/singapore-taxes-bitcoin-how-new-taxation-
may-be-exactly-what-bitcoin-needs-1538142.
23 Monami Yui and Takahiko Hyuga, “Japan Says Bitcoin Not Currency
Amid Calls for Regulation,” 7 March 2014. [Online]. Available: http://
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-07/japan-says-bitcoin-is-not-a-
currency-amid-calls-for-regulation.html.
24 Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, “All about Bitcoin,”
Goldman Sachs, New York, 2014.
25 P. Mishra, “First time in India bitcoin traders raided in Ahmedabad,”
27 December 2013. [Online]. Available: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/business/india-business/First-time-in-India-bitcoin-traders-
raided-in-Ahmedabad/articleshow/28008526.cms.
Chapter 12: Final Thoughts

1 Parija Kavilanz, “Guess What? Dollar Bills Are Made of Cotton.”
8 March 2011. [Online]. Available: http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/08/
news/economy/dollar_cotton_prices.

Bitcoin and The Future of Money

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bitcoin and The Future of Money

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bitcoin and The Future of Money

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bitcoin

AND THE FUTURE OF MONEY

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

This book is available in quantity at special discounts for your

Triumph Books LLC

i am grateful to those within the Bitcoin community who were

it was an otherwise quiet news day in February when word

limited supply is slowly extracted from the earth at great

of capitalism, and Austrian economist Carl Menger. Before

in the United States becoming the first and only entity to

The Birth of Bitcoin

it all started on an obscure online discussion forum dedi-

I’ve been working on a new electronic cash system that’s fully

The nine-page, academic-style document described the fun-

The key to the entire system was something called a block

could convince myself that I could solve every problem, then I

It was typical cypherpunk talk, derived from a school of

stands for Pretty Good Privacy and is used by journalists and

Then, over the summer, two credit rating agencies placed

Entity Total Disbursed

Aside from two car manufacturers that naturally suffered

financial institutions. The entire thing would live in a network

However, banks and credit card payment companies

cryptography mailing list. Here’s part of the message he posted

Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash

Evidence would later show Nakamoto had been running

computer’s Internet Protocol (IP) address, the unique number

On February 11, 2009, someone under the name Satoshi Naka-

person claimed to be a 36-year-old Japanese male. He hid his

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout

be profitable. It also turns banks that would normally be tiny,

Andresen’s standards, according to interviews he gave in later

It was amateur hour. Users frequently complained about

was among the first popular transaction processors, because its

for a cryptologist like Nakamoto, as well as those at the U.S.

so how does it actually work? It helps to understand Bitcoin

Be patient. You won’t need to remember everything. You can get

0.01 BTC a bitcent

0.001 BTC an mbit (pronounced em-bit)

0.000 001 BTC a ubit (pronounced yu-bit)

a satoshi (named after

Just like a physical token, bitcoins can be in someone’s pos-

address (similar to an email address). It can only be moved

But even that definition doesn’t go far enough. At a more

What Is the Block Chain?

one example I randomly pulled from the popular website

As you can see, there’s a certain degree of anonymity. Neither

How Are Bitcoins Created?

to form stronger “mining pools” that split the winnings. Sound

May 2013 – May 2014

As of 2013, a miner who solves a block gets rewarded with 25

Total Bitcoins Over Time

As shown above, an estimated 98 percent of them should be

How Are Bitcoins Stored and Moved?

A wallet is an encrypted computer file, and it communicates

person’s digital wallet, you’re essentially saying this: “Whoever

Bitcoins Never Move?

But I’ve Seen Photos of Bitcoins!

Bitcoins Don’t Exist?!