Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here.  (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
COMMENT: In our ongoing critique of Bitcoin, we’ve noted that it appears to be an “op,” executed by Siemens spinoff Lantiq, which was capitalized by Golden Gate Capital (staffed by alumni of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s firm.)
Newer readers/listeners should note that Siemens functions as something of a quartermaster for BND–German’s foreign intelligence service, evolved from the Gehlen “Org.”
In a reprise of a previous and apparent ongoing vulnerability of Bitcoin, the possibility of an “Armageddon” in the Bitcoin world produced by concentration of ownership looms.
Once again, the GHash.io mining pool is at the center of the plot. Because it had garnered control of 51% of the Bitcoin market, it could “double-sell” coins and compromise the integrity of the entire network.
It is particularly interesting to note that just exactly who owns GHash.io is a mystery, as is the true identity of “Satoshi Nakamoto,”–the inventor of Bitcoin. Again, we feel we nailed it in FTR# 760 .
” . . . . Making matters worse, no one knows who is behind GHash  or CEX. The owners of the Netherlands-based company (which lists a London mailing address) are notoriously secretive, meaning that the bitcoin community – which at this point represents several billion dollars in wealth and untold future value – are left trusting a shadowy entity not to behave badly with its newfound power. . . .”
Hmmmmm! A “notoriously secretive,” “Netherlands-based company”–doesn’t sound good. We wonder if this is another property of the Bormann capital network ? Certainly, the general profile fits their front organizations .
Front and center in the Bitcoin cheering section are supporters of the Austrian School of economics–Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek et al.
Adamantly opposed to “guvment in’ference” in markets, they advocate unregulated finance. Bitcoin illustrates in brutally dramatic fashion why regulation is very much needed.
Here we go again. For the umteenth time in recent memory, the sanctity of the bitcoin network is facing an existential threat from a large and overly secretive organization. It’s not an exchange or wallet service this time around that has the attention of crypto-currency watchers, but rather a large mining pool, specifically GHash.io , the self-described world’s “#1 Crypto & Bitcoin Mining Pool.”
So why is the bitcoin world up in arms over GHash? On several occasions last week, one lasting a full 12 hours, the group, which is owned by cloud-mining service CEX.io, controlled more than 50 percent of the global computational power directed at mining bitcoin.
With such control, GHash (or any group that finds itself in a similar position) could manipulate the integrity of the bitcoin network by potentially double-spending coins, blocking or reversing transactions by competing miners, extorting increased transaction processing fees from the network, or waging a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against the entire bitcoin network – collectively, a so-called “51 percent attack.” In other words, it’s a major threat to bitcoin’s foundational distributed, and therefore trustless, nature.
Cornell researchers Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer were the first to recognize the 51 percent event, calling it “armageddon ” in a Friday blog post, and describing GHash as a “de facto monopoly.”The pair, who have long been thought leaders on the concepts of 51 percent attacks and “selfish mining, ” write:
GHash is in a position to exercise complete control over which transactions appear on the blockchain and which miners reap mining rewards. They could keep 100% of the mining profits to themselves if they so chose. Bitcoin is currently an expensive distributed database under the control of a single entity, albeit one that requires constantly burning energy to maintain — worst of all worlds.
It’s a historical first for any entity to cross the 50 percent threshold, although GHash has been close before, approaching 45 percent in January of this year. At the time, GHash issued a press release , publicly committing to never reaching the feared 51 percent threshold (really, anything greater than 50 percent). So much for that promise.
To be clear, GHash doesn’t own 50 percent of the global mining power, it simply “controls” it. This distinction is important, but does not necessarily eliminate the threat the group poses. GHash has in the past claimed to own only half the hardware providing the hashing power that it controls, with the rest contributed by third-party miners that allocate mining power to its pool. Nonetheless, the bitcoin network has reason to be fearful of this concentration of power.
Making matters worse, no one knows who is behind GHash  or CEX. The owners of the Netherlands-based company (which lists a London mailing address) are notoriously secretive, meaning that the bitcoin community – which at this point represents several billion dollars in wealth and untold future value – are left trusting a shadowy entity not to behave badly with its newfound power.
To be clear, GHash has not abused its power yet. But if history’s taught us anything it’s that power corrupts. Making matters worse, the company was previously accused of using its enormous size advantage to bully a gambling site  via double-spending attacks.
Eyal and Sirer write:
No one knows the ultimate aims of GHash. The people who join the GHash pool do so because GHash has zero fees — these people are essentially optimizing for short term profits over the long term well-being of the currency. All of these are precisely the points we cautioned about. So this is when we get to say “We told you so.”
The pair go on to advocate a “hard fork” in the codebase underlying bitcoin, with the goal of accomplishing three core fixes: disincentivizing mining pools, combatting selfish mining, and making mining activity more transparent. They conclude, sarcastically:
Or we can carry on as if nothing of importance happened. GHash will be on their best behavior for the next few weeks, and Bitcoin will limp along. What will bring the actual demise of Bitcoin is the subject of a future blog post, but this is by no means the end. People can still use Bitcoin to buy drugs, trinkets from Overstock.com, and maybe even grilled cheese from a food truck. There is an afterworld. And for everything else, there is dirty fiat and Mastercard.
As Eyal and Sirer point out, the potential of 51 percent attacks has been known for some time. As a whole, the bitcoin community leaders have been quick to write off the risks of such a scenario, offering two common justifications. First, we’re told that the investment required to create a mining pool would disincentivize a pool’s participants from ever conducting such an attack. But, as the Cornel report explains:
…[this] assumes a static world. Instead, the mining rigs have a fairly short useful lifetime. If a miner knows that they will be overtaken by the next generation of hardware about to be unleashed by a competing mining pool, it will have a definite time horizon for extracting every last bit of value, and that plan may not have room in it for a voyage to the moon.
Secondly, naysayers are quick to argue that the mining community and bitcoin’s core developers will easily recognize such an attack and will therefore prevent the bad actors from harming the broader bitcoin network. At best, this seems like an idealistic view of likely events. Even if such an attack were recognized and ultimately interrupted, the trust-eroding effects – both within the community, but more so within mainstream consumers and media – would be staggering. Assuming that no harm will come of even a brief 51 percent attack couldn’t be further from the truth.
A GHash spokesperson told CryptoCoinNews:
…we would never do anything to harm the Bitcoin economy; we believe in it. We have invested all our effort, time and money into the development of the Bitcoin economy. We agree that mining should be decentralized, but you cannot blame GHash.IO for being the #1 mining pool.
Bitcoin was created specifically to avoid the need to trust any centralized authority, be it a federal government, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, or otherwise. The fact that the crypto-currency community is now confronting this scenario is a legitimate threat to the entire experiment.
The broader market seems to agree with this concern, pushing the price of bitcoin down more than 16 percent in a few days, from a near-term high of $655 on Tuesday, June 10 to a low of $553 on Sunday the 15th – currently, the Coindesk Price Index sits at $589. This drop follows a recent upswing in price following a prolonged bear market that coincided with the collapse of Mt. Gox. As of this moment, GHash controls roughly 35 percent of global hashing power  while the next largest known group, Discus Fish, controls 16 percent.
GHash doesn’t need to conduct a 51 percent attack for their hashing power concentration to be a major issue. The simple fact that the bitcoin network must look over its shoulder to wonder if (or when) such an attack will arrive is enough to destabilize the system.