Well, my 2014 prediction was wrong - blog.gardeviance.org/2013/11/a-spoi… - I expected "through a combination of the great firewall, official UUIDs, sanctions and official exchanges it will become difficult to use bitcoins internally to trade through non official routes" ...
There are several ways of thinking about this - enablement for the digital Yuan and/or more concerningly that China took a view that the horror of bitcoin - blog.gardeviance.org/2013/05/the-pu… - was not manageable even with the great firewall, sanctions, official UUIDs etc.
An alternative to this is that the news reporting is wrong and China has extended control / restricted use of bitcoin internally but still enables the use externally (outside of China). Need to go digging.
China continues to make it more difficult to use bitcoins and other forms of unofficial money internally. No surprises but it's the push against mining for external use that seems a bit odd. I would have thought that enabling crypto growth in other nations was in its interest.
So .... " virtual currency exchange, buying and selling virtual currencies, providing information intermediary and pricing services, token issuance financing, virtual currency derivatives transactions" ... yada yada, internal focus is clearly illegal ...
... "provision of services by overseas virtual currency exchanges to Chinese residents" ... is illegal. No major surprises there. But "There are legal risks involved in virtual currency investment" gives wriggle for outbound investment ...
... and I'm not reading about a crackdown on providing mining facilities to those outside of China - pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu… ... more monitoring, more control, more risk - yes. This seems more nuanced. I'll need to dig further.
X : Why support any other digital currency other than the digital renminbi?
Me : Internally, that would be the right play. But supporting external use (in other nations) of bitcoin would be in their self interest.
X : More concerningly?
Me : Oh ... if it was the case that China couldn't manage bitcoin with the tools it has at hand and had to resort to an outright ban then that means there is little chance for any other nation managing it. This is not a good thing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Any thoughts on COP26?
Me : Nope
X : I thought you were going?
Me : Nope
X : Just nope then?
Me : What do you want to know?
X : Could mapping be used to help to look at climate change.
Me : Of course. It's based upon competition, the act of "seeking together".
X : Eh?
Me : Competition is the act of seeking together i.e. one or more seeking something. You can do this through conflict (fighting together), co-operation (working together), collaboration (labouring together), cocreation (creating together) etc etc.
X : Connection to maps?
Me : The form of maps I use are based upon competition i.e. conflict, collaboration, co-operaton, co-creation etc. So, anything which fits in that space can be mapped.
X : Like climate change?
Me : Yep.
X : I tried mapping a space but it was too complicated.
Me : If you can't map it, try managing it. The space doesn't become less complicated just because we avoid looking at it.
X : So how do we ...
Me : ... manage a space that we avoid looking at? Gut feel is normal. Fiddling with bits and seeing what happens. Both valid strategies in the right context but not an excuse for not looking.
X : But I find mapping hard.
Me : Learning to drive is hard. That's not an excuse for jumping in a car, fiddling with some bits and learning by gut feel. Yes it can be hard but if mapping was easy then we'd have been teaching this stuff a century ago.
In the UK, there has been little to no understanding of our supply chains. In such an environment, when you discover critical national infrastructure in the hands of a few that has been switched off for commercial reasons ... you nationalise it. This is the wrong move ->
X : Why nationalise?
Me : You've just identified a hostage to fortune and signalled your willingness to pay. You might as well just give the company a blank cheque signed UK Gov.
Now, every single company out there will be trying to work out whether it's part of undiscovered critical national infrastructure and therefore inline for a bumper payout. This action is so wrong on so many levels.
I normally take the piss out of Gartner with their "dressed up as science" MQ, HypeCycle and Bimodal nonsense ... but this, is not bad. Much better, a definite improvement. I might even say that I like it ->
It's a fairly decent way of presenting aggregated perceived deplyment risk, perceived future value and anticipated adoption timeframe. Of course, it's highly subjective but it doesn't hide that. I like that. Well done @Gartner_inc
X : Do you know they use AI and text analysis to ...
Me : ... I thought it was clear that this was aggregated opinion and perception on the future. I do hope they're not going to start claiming it has some basis in science. That would be disappointing.
X : Do you think China will ever invade Taiwan?
Me : Doesn't need to.
X : Eh?
Me : China has been tackling poverty, it is moving onto tackling inequality. As China becomes seen as a growing economic, technological, environmental and social success (a more equal society) then ...
Me : ... it doesn't need to do anything. Others will eventually want to adopt its models. The art of war is not kinetic warfare but to convert everyone to your behaviours and beliefs.
X : But what about ...
Me : ... think about the direction of travel.
X : Will Aukus pact play a role?
Me : I would imagine China is bemused by the internal strife in Europe over business deals and frustrated by cotinuing provocation. Theresa May has this squarely nailed - theguardian.com/politics/2021/… ... it's a pity that Theresa isn't still PM.
X : Thoughts on the Conservative 10 point plan for the Environment.
Me : It's a lie.
X : Have you read them?
Me : I don't need to. It's a lie. How many trees are they promising this time?
X : 30,000 hectares of trees every year.
Me : Pull the other, it has bells on.
X : Do you not believe what the Gov says?
Me : This Government? Nope. I have close to zero trust in their statements unless there is an obvious back hander or get rich quick scheme for donors at the expense of the taxpayer. I don't believe there is any integrity.
X : Isn't that because you vote Labour?
Me : Nope. I've worked with Conservatives before (2010-2014) under Cameron. I might have disagreed with their policy but there was integrity and honesty in intentions. I do not see that today.