• About
  • Contact
  • Staff
  • Home
  • Essays
  • Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Classics

August 10, 2015|Bitcoin, Currency, Gold, Nathaniel Popper, Satoshi Nakomoto, Transaction Costs, Trust

Bitcoin: A Technology of Law, A Technology of Liberty?

by John O. McGinnis|

A currency has three important functions. It provides a medium for exchange, a measure for the cost of goods, and a store of value. It is one of the most important technologies ever invented and like all technologies might be improved. It is also a matter of intense public concern, because the power over money brings with it immense political power.

The computational revolution is bidding to transform our relation to money by replacing fiat money with a digital currency. Fiat money consists of token issued by the government, like the dollar. Its success depends on trust in the government to maintain the currency as a stable store of value. But governments face political temptations to debase the currency for political ends. Just ask people in Argentina how well the peso has operated as a store of value. Even the dollar has dramatically fallen in value, as in the inflation of the 1970s. Moreover, fiat currencies of today often impose substantial transactions costs in the process of exchange. Banks make substantial profits from these transactions.

Thus, a stable currency outside of the control of the state without substantial transaction costs might well both make the economy more efficient and limit the power of government. It could be a wonder of the modern world. That is the potential promise of a digital currency—a form of money that is created and exchanged in cyberspace. The most famous such currency is Bitcoin and Nathaniel Popper has written a superb book, Digital Gold, chronicling its birth and wild rise. In the next post, I will review the book, which has a cast of characters to rival the most improbable of picaresque novels.

But first a short and necessarily simplified summary of the complex mechanics of Bitcoin: Bitcoin is the brainchild of Satoshi Nakomoto, a figure himself still shrouded in mystery. Nakomoto figured out how to solve the greatest problem with a digital currency—how to determine who possessed it without relying on any central authority, because any single authority would be difficult to trust. His brilliant idea was to link the creation of the currency to verifying transactions in the currency. To simplify: When someone wants to transfer Bitcoin to another person he sends the Bitcoin from his digital wallet (a kind of encrypted computer file) to the other person’s digital wallet. The digital wallets are identified by public keys, but the sender can release the Bitcoin by a private key known only to him. The transaction is then broadcast publicly so it can be verified in way that everyone can know that the sender has the private key but cannot see the actual key. The verification process requires the solving of complex computer equations that are linked to the particular transaction. Through solving the equations with computers individuals called “miners” can then verify that the transaction. For those who want more detail than possible in a brief post, please consult this excellent primer on Bitcoin.

The miner who most likely verifies the transaction by adding it to the “block chain” (a public ledger) of all Bitcoin transactions, and gets paid in Bitcoins for his work.  Other miners agree by essentially majority vote as measured by computation power which miner has triumphed. Thus, the creation of new currency is linked to the process of verifying it. In other words, the process itself gives incentives to deploy the substantial computer processing that keeps the system going and is so large that it cannot be taken over by any single person.

The computer program that creates the currency  determines the amount of payments and indeed reduces the amount of payment overtime.  The program assures that the total number of Bitcoin available will asymptotically approach 21 million as the payment for verifying transactions is reduced.

Thus, Bitcoin is fascinating concept. It is a technology of pure law, where the law is the algorithm devised by its founder. Unlike the Federal Reserve or other central banks, there is no human discretion to vary the money supply for political or other reasons. The supply is even more fixed than gold, because gold is a commodity subject to the vagaries of physical mining. In a subsequent post, we will consider the prospects of a technology of pure law also becoming one of  liberty.

John O. McGinnis

John O. McGinnis is the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University. His book Accelerating Democracy was published by Princeton University Press in 2012. McGinnis is also the coauthor with Mike Rappaport of Originalism and the Good Constitution published by Harvard University Press in 2013 . He is a graduate of Harvard College, Balliol College, Oxford, and Harvard Law School. He has published in leading law reviews, including the Harvard, Chicago, and Stanford Law Reviews and the Yale Law Journal, and in journals of opinion, including National Affairs and National Review.

About the Author

The New Originalism: The Emergence of the General Common Law
The Lonely Executive

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Crisis of the Calhoun United March 20, 2013
  • The Just Restraint of the Vicious April 10, 2020
  • Obama’s Less Orwellian Terrorism Speech December 7, 2015
  • The Successes and Failure of John Quincy Adams September 18, 2014
  • The Filibuster: A (Reluctant) Madisonian Case July 13, 2013
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Book Reviews

A Mirror of the 20th-Century Congress

by Joseph Postell

Wright undermined the very basis of his local popularity—the decentralized nature of the House—by supporting reforms that gave power to the party leaders.

Read More

The Graces of Flannery O'Connor

by Henry T. Edmondson III

O’Connor’s correspondence is a goldmine of piercing insight and startling reflections on everything from literature to philosophy to raising peacocks.

Read More

Liberty Classics

Rereading Politica in the Post-Liberal Moment

by Glenn A. Moots

Althusius offers a rich constitutionalism that empowers persons to thrive alongside one another in deliberate communities.

Read More

James Fenimore Cooper and the American Experiment

by Melissa Matthes

In The American Democrat, James Fenimore Cooper defended democracy against both mob rule and majority tyranny.

Read More

Podcasts

Stuck With Decadence

A discussion with Ross Douthat

Ross Douthat discusses with Richard Reinsch his new book The Decadent Society.

Read More

Can the Postmodern Natural Law Remedy Our Failing Humanism?

A discussion with Graham McAleer

Graham McAleer discusses how postmodern natural law can help us think more coherently about human beings and our actions.

Read More

Did the Civil Rights Constitution Distort American Politics?

A discussion with Christopher Caldwell

Christopher Caldwell discusses his new book, The Age of Entitlement.

Read More

America, Land of Deformed Institutions

A discussion with Yuval Levin

Yuval Levin pinpoints that American alienation and anger emerges from our weak political, social, and religious institutions.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • The Just Restraint of the Vicious

    For some contemporary criminal justice reformers, devotion to ideology leads to illogical conclusions about human nature and character change.
    by Gerard T. Mundy

  • Too Immature to be Punished?

    When I look back on my own life, I think I knew by the age of ten that one should not strangle old ladies in their beds.
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • A Badge of Discrimination

    The British National Health Service has spoken: Wear the badge or declare yourself to be a bigot.
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • A Judicial Takeover of Asylum Policy?

    Thuraissigiam threatens to make both the law and the facts in every petition for asylum—and there are thousands of them—a matter for the courts.
    by Thomas Ascik

  • The Environmental Uncertainty Principle

    By engaging in such flagrant projection, the Times has highlighted once again the problem with groupthink in the climate discussion.
    by Paul Schwennesen

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law & Liberty’s focus is on the classical liberal tradition of law and political thought and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law & Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

The opinions expressed on Law & Liberty are solely those of the contributors to the site and do not reflect the opinions of Liberty Fund.
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

© 2021 Liberty Fund, Inc.

This site uses local and third-party cookies to analyze traffic. If you want to know more, click here.
By closing this banner or clicking any link in this page, you agree with this practice.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary Always Enabled

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Close