There’s a lot of heated discussion about Bitcoin HODLing vs Spending, the circular economy, and what actions build on Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. Ragnar Lifthrasir of Guns N Bitcoin joins me for a discussion on this topic. 

Ragnar links:

• Twitter: @ragnarly
• Site: Gunsnbitcoin.com

Sponsor links:

• Swan Bitcoin
• Unchained Capital
• CypherSafe (Code: LIVERA for discount)

Stephan Livera links: 

• Show notes and website 
• Follow me on twitter @stephanlivera
• Subscribe to the podcast 
• Patreon @stephanlivera

Podcast Transcript:

Stephan Livera:

Just going to bring in my guest now, Ragnar is the founder of Guns n Bitcoin. He is a longtime Bitcoiner and he’s obviously got some views to share around the censorship resistance and you know, spending versus holding of Bitcoin. So welcome Ragnar.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Thanks Stephan. Thanks for having me here.

Stephan Livera:

Of course. So look, I guess let’s just start a little bit with, you’re vocal about this concept of HODL Monomania right. So for you, what is HODL Monomania and in your view, how prevalent is that in the Bitcoin community?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Sure. So I created the phrase HODL Monomania to distinguish it from just HODLing and HODLing is a very rational strategy to investing. Whereas the Monomania part comes in when that gets out of balance, where you forget the other aspects of Bitcoin, not just spending and earning, but just the general goals. So where HODL Monomania becomes banker-ism.

Stephan Livera:

I see. Yeah. And I guess for, I guess the other part of that question is how prevalent do you believe that is? Do you believe that there’s really a big portion of the Bitcoin community who actually believe in that? Or I guess one challenge I might offer you there is that maybe that’s really not that many people who are literally only HODL and, you know, it’s kind of, in the minds of people on Bitcoin Twitter, it can, be exaggerated, right? It’s like a small, it’s like a loud minority.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Yeah. Obviously Twitter Bitcoin isn’t Bitcoin. But what I see is that is by far the dominant narrative and the dominant thinking process and that’s, what’s, I think kind of dangerous is it’s it’s okay for people to think that, but I think the dangerous part is where you get attacked for questioning that and attacked for thinking differently. I mean, just when I say, you know, when I say spending people think, why, why do you hate HODLing? It’s like, well, we can talk about HODLing, but we’re talking about spending right now. So there’s just this knee jerk reaction. And for me, especially now in the last call it month, it’s become a hundred times more important that we get back to the Cypherpunk roots of Bitcoin, which is using it as a way to get around the state and get around threats. Which to me the last month has been, I think, a watershed for me. And I think we’re now facing the most dangerous time in the West since world war one for Europe and in the United States, I would say the most dangerous time since the civil war.

Stephan Livera:

I see. So yeah. Tell us a little bit about this idea of what you view as the, if you will, the cypherpunk background of Bitcoin and have, has Bitcoin’s community lost its way?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Yeah. So cypherpunk, you know, their goal was untraceable, excuse me, their goal wasn’t traceable, digital cash. And the whole point of that of course, is so that the state can’t stop you from doing certain things and don’t even know you’re doing them. And why is that important? It’s because commerce moves the world. Money moves the world, circulating money, moves the world. And this is best shown by the silk road. I think if you ask anyone, what was the one event in Bitcoin that really put it on the map, or that really was a strike against the state. And I think nine times out of 10, they’ll say silk road, silk road changed everything. And I think Silk Road is the biggest example of just how powerful it is considering how long it took them to shut it down, especially all the mistakes that the admins of silk road made.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

It still took them that long. So that’s what that ethos is. And I think now with this Marxism revolution that we’re just at the beginning of it’s going to become much more important because, you know, with silk road, it was about the state and the cypherpunks only thought about the state, but now we’ve got something much worse, which is all aspects of society. You know, we have education, we have corporations, we have tech, we have even churches. We have every side of it. The media now is becoming the state or are ganging up with the state. So in terms of the censorship resistance and privacy, it’s much bigger than the state and it’s much, worse and more dangerous.

Stephan Livera:

Right. And so look, I can agree with many parts of what you’re saying. I think there are parts where I might disagree, right? So I think obviously we should focus on teaching people, you know, get encouraging people to learn how to use Bitcoin privately. We can encourage them to use it in these censor resistant ways. But, I think the part where I might disagree and perhaps I’m in the Vijay Boyapati camp on this issue is that the coming back to the definition of cash and what the cypherpunks were talking about, it could also be that they meant it closer to bearer asset than let’s say day to day, transactional commerce. And so I think this is where some of the, not to rehash the whole 2017 BCasher debates and so on. But the, I think that’s where some of the tension comes up between the supposedly HODLing camp. And the suppose that, you know, you should also spend camp because I think it comes to, is it realistic? For two reasons, one is around how much transaction on chain can ever undo. Right. It won’t be how feasible will that be? And then the other part is just economically is it about, really about people building up enough of a savings pool that there’s enough other people who also want Bitcoin? What would you say to that?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Yeah. I mean, those are some interesting points and with semantics like cash, right? I mean, you could give five different definitions of cash and they’re all correct. So is it, is it a bearer instrument? Is it a savings is it gold, is it transactions? But I think we get in the swamp of semantics with that, and same with savings versus investing to me. I think of what is wartime, Bitcoin, you know, I think we’ve been in peace time, Bitcoin since its inception, but now we’re in wartime Bitcoin. And by that, I mean, cancel culture, I mean, we were having people’s lives ruined because people can cancel people’s PayPal and their Kickstarter and get them off of credit cards. Like Andrew Torba. He can’t even have a visa for the rest of his life, him and his wife, him personally, he hasn’t even committed any crimes.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

So to me, there is warfare now and they’re using money as the machine of destruction. So instead of thinking about, you know, philosophy and what were the words and the meaning, it’s like, well, what’s our situation, what’s our threat and whatever we need to do to counter that threat, I’m all for. Whatever we want to call it, bearer instruments, investment hodling. To me, that’s approach to take is say, okay, what is the issue? And how do we practically defend ourselves from that? And that’s more my focus where I get semantics, which I can get caught up in quite easily, I guess.

Stephan Livera:

Yeah. An interesting point, actually in the chat NVK chatting, he’s saying none of that is new. So what would you say to that? So this idea that, well, there’s been constant encroachment by the state. I mean they shut down Liberty reserve. It was e-gold Paypal famously became more, arguably became more captured by government regulation, I guess. What would you say to that? That’s nothing new.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Well, it’s nothing new in the sense that the state has always been an issue, but that again was peacetime. Bitcoin were in war time Bitcoin, which means now we have cancel culture again, going back to this it’s Marxism, we’re on the beginning of a Marxist revolution in the West. And this is, this has been people’s lives are ending with the financial weapons. And so it’s actually new in the sense that the private sector has never had the power of the state previously. It was just the state, but now it’s the private sector and the state working together. And we’re just at the very beginning of this. Whereas before, as long as you kind of kept out of the state’s hair, you know, you kind of obeyed the laws and paid your taxes. They generally left you alone. But now if you say all lives matter, you get fired from your job.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

You can’t find another one. And even when you get fired, you think, okay, I’ll just work for myself. And people will say, well, Bitcoin fixes this right? So you’ll see someone not be able to use PayPal and the immediate response is, well, Bitcoin fixes this, but it’s not true. Mostly because people aren’t using Bitcoin. And I know this from personal experience because I’m involved in the 3D gun printing community. And those guys often try to do, you know, raise some money, crowdfunding to you know, finance themselves and immediately, well, they have to use Bitcoin. So we already know that that’s an example of needing it, but the problem is, even though Bitcoin can do that, it doesn’t quite do it because no one is using Bitcoin. People don’t even know what Bitcoin is. You’d be surprised that these guys who try to raise money.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

People will say, well, how do we even get Bitcoin when they do? It’s like, well, I’m hodling it. And so this censorship resistance requires this, you know, actual Bitcoin in circulation. And when I see everyone say Bitcoin fixes this well on crowdfunding platforms, in theory, it does. But if no, one’s using Bitcoin to pay, if these guys can run their business, these guys who’ve been cancelled. You know, whether it’s their YouTube channel being demonetized, whether it’s being kicked off Twitter, whether it’s Patrion, yes. Bitcoin would fix that except no, one’s no one’s spending their money and no one’s using it. And so is it nothing new? Well, you always need it, but now it’s a 100x and it’s only going to get, I think, much worse.

Stephan Livera:

I see. So look, I think you make a good point that it’s difficult to get a, to run a Bitcoin donation campaign. And I think there’s a few things there. So I think first of all, I think it’s this question of is merely holding, using Bitcoin or in your view, is it that you actually have to spend. Right. And so I think that also comes to perhaps that also comes to what’s your view of Bitcoin and what is it, the right tool? Is it the right tool for the job? Because in some people’s minds, it may well be that they use it as their savings technology. They’re not necessarily looking to spend it and that’s perhaps that would be why they don’t donate. But I think historically it would also be fair to say when there’s been bull runs, then people have been a bit more willing and a bit more free with the cash. Right. So I guess my question to you would be, do you believe that you must spend to be using Bitcoin or can HODLing be you know, is only HODLing a use of Bitcoin?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Yeah. HODLing is absolutely a use of Bitcoin and it is one of the best, I mean, HODLing is powerful in the sense that it can give you financial sovereignty and it can give you FU money, right? I mean, if you have enough, it doesn’t matter what the mom says. It would take a lot for them to be able to de-platform you and counsel you because they can’t, you have enough money. So in one sense, HODLing is a tool of Cypherpunks because you can’t be canceled if it’s FU money. So HODLing is absolutely a use of Bitcoin. And is there a right way to use Bitcoin? I don’t think we can say that. I mean, Bitcoin is just software and it’s a tool, but at the same time, I don’t think we can be nihilistic about it where we can’t say nothing matters, right? Like there’s no effects of how we use Bitcoin and what we advocate for.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

So people often confuse me for advocating a certain use of Bitcoin or emphasizing it as saying, this is the only valid use case for Bitcoin and, it’s not. The reason why I have to do this, I feel like we’ve gone so far to the HODLing side to a Monomania that it’s just gone too far. And so, so the fact that I even have to kind of talk about the other side, I think demonstrates itself. And then I think you are talking about HODLing. Like can it really help either defund the state or how effective is HODLing for these things.

Stephan Livera:

Right. And so I think that’s a good question as well, because I’ve seen, you discuss this online as well around things like capital gains tax. And, you know, obviously we know the, there are risks around KYC. Absolutely. There are some risks there. Do you believe that, I guess I see a potential tension there that some people believe that merely holding in some way helps defund the state longer term. I would, I believe that view, but I think you might disagree with that view. Is that right? Or what’s your position there? What’s your thinking?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Well, I think I would ask the question how much HODLing would do that, like a dollar amount and if so, for how long and exactly how does that defund the state? And I’ve never received an answer for that. I think when you make a claim, you’ve got to give numbers or, you know, something to give a credulence. And if we look at the market cap of Bitcoin, let’s just say today, let’s say everyone HODLs, no one spends. And let’s even say that no one even pays their taxes on it. Well, the market cap of Bitcoin is about the net worth of Jeff Bezos. So that’s not even a drop in the bucket for like a US federal budget, which is in the trillions of dollars. So even if we all HODLed, like every person who owns a Bitcoin, not just like the hardcore HODLers, just every single person, everyone who has even a dollar of Bitcoin, that’s just not even the dollars aren’t even there. They’re not a drop in the bucket of a federal budget and that’s the best case scenario more realistic is you might have 10% of people HODLing and not paying taxes.

Stephan Livera:

I see. Yeah. So I guess the way I’m thinking of that is it’s kind of like there comes a tipping point, right? And we can’t say when that tipping point would be right. And so the way I see it is more like as more people hold Bitcoin and save outside of the state, then it eventually gets to that point where governments can’t so easily fund themselves by using cheap debt funding. And so part of that is around like thinking back to, you know, historical examples when the government wanted to print money and at the start, they could probably get away with it. Right. They could print a bit of money and it didn’t really matter because it comes to inflation expectations, right. It becomes to what is the community thinking on what the government is doing with the money and at the start, it’s fine.

Stephan Livera:

But then eventually right at the, towards the end, it becomes like monetary hot potatoes. And we see this in say, Brazil, Argentina, Zimbabwe, et cetera. We see it in these countries where they eventually people don’t want to hold the government fiat anymore. And I think that is kind of the tipping point of when it would become in that direction of defunding the state. And that’s why I can’t give you like a number. I can’t say, Oh, the Bitcoin price needs to be a million dollars. Right. I can’t give a price. I think it’s a mental thing in people’s minds. It’s their inflation expectations. So what do you believe on that?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Well, I think it’s an extraordinary claim to say HODLing Bitcoin is going to defund the state. And because it’s so extraordinary, I would want a stronger argument. Like, is it 1% of people holding Bitcoin? What price of Bitcoin? Like, does it have to be a million or is a hundred thousand close enough? Like just some ballpark, but let’s just say that that is true. That HODLing Bitcoin could defund the state, you know, for whatever reason, just kind of granting that. I think if that were to ever get close, the government would effectively shut down or clamp down on Bitcoin enough to where it could never happen. Like, let’s say we start to approach the United States, the US would immediately close all of the exchange, exchanges. They require you to turn over all your Bitcoin, just like they did with gold. That’s exactly what they would do. So if Bitcoin ever got that close, it would be closed down effectively before that could ever even happen. It would be like a push of the button.

Stephan Livera:

Right. And I think, so this comes back into the typical arguments that Bitcoiners have with other people about the likelihood of the government being able to shut down Bitcoin and also the incentive. Right. Because again, it comes to individual people inside the government may in some sense, get captured by Bitcoin. Right. And, you know, I mean, you mentioned the silk road case, even that as a Carl Mark the force or something, that guy. Yeah. One of the guys actually when, once he got in and became an investigator in the case and went and got Bitcoin for himself. Right. So I think that’s a similar case where we’re going to see that happen across all spheres of society, whether that’s in the government or in the private sector or wherever. I think a lot of people will see the bull case for Bitcoin and want some for themselves.

Stephan Livera:

And, you know, I think that also it also brings up this idea as well of competition jurisdictionally, right? Like going elsewhere. I think not everyone can do it, but I think it’s, that is a viable option. Another option is just this kind of maybe it’s not a perfect example, but the Uber strategy, right. When Uber came out, technically they were illegal in many cities that they were operating in, but they kind of, they got enough customers on board. They had enough Uber drivers on board who wanted the work and it just, it just became politically infeasible to stop Uber in many countries around the world. Would you believe a similar strategy could be employed with Bitcoin?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

I don’t think so because it’s money, you know, Uber, I know, you know, it’s, it’s obviously not the best example, so, but I get your point, like you said, it’s not the best, but I think the difference is because it’s money, it’s so much more dangerous and at least in the US we see in the US I mean, we go to war in the U S just defend the dollar. That’s why we’re in the middle East. That’s probably why Gaddafi got killed because he was talking about, you know, gold and having an African dollar. So it’s, you know, as you know, the dollar is the biggest export of the U S and if it’s our largest export we’re to defend it and as well, any other country, they’re going to defend their monetary system. So that’s the first thing. And then going back to your original point about jurisdictions and arbitraging based on taxes and stuff, I mean, I think that could be an effective strategy for individuals, of course, but going back to the scale question how much money is that, that the government isn’t getting out of them for those taxes, number one, and how much is it pulling out?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

And I think if you just do back of the napkin, even if, again, if you did all of Bitcoin, the entire market cap of Bitcoin, it doesn’t even come close. And so for me, right now, I’m more focused on what’s happening right now with cancel culture, with this beginning of Marxism that we’re starting to see. And I think it’s, it really is. I mean, this is our world war two, our world war, one of our generation, and those guys went off to war. You know what they did, the communists and the Nazis, they, their weapons were obviously rifles and tanks, but the weapons of this cultural revolution is money. It’s all about money. Like, if you look at the the black lives matter, it’s kind of extortion, you know, they go to these corporations and they say, what are you doing? Just support the cause.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

And now you have across the board, every corporation expressing support, donating money to a certain cause. And even if you don’t say anything, then you’re also in trouble. So it’s all about money. This Marxist revolution is really about money. And so money is going to be their weapon. And like, Bitcoin is the best bet for that, not for defunding it because you can’t defund corporations, right. Maybe the state and taxes people will say, but you can’t defund the corporations. And so you have to focus on the privacy of the transactions that nature.

Stephan Livera:

Yeah, I think so again, it’s a similar thing where I agree with some of what you’re saying, and I disagree with some of it. Like, I broadly agree with you, right. I think we’re coming from a similar perspective, right? We’re both libertarians. We want to encourage people to use some of these privacy techniques where they can, we want to encourage people to take their sovereignty into their own hands. I think the difference, I guess for me is more just like I guess we sort of see it, like the way Bitcoin evolves might be a little bit different. Right. I might see it more,

Stephan Livera:

A little bit more like I’m not a hundred percent HODL. Alright. I think, yeah. Occasionally you want to, you know, I think, I think also you can sort of have one foot in both camps, right? Like if you were to have a KYC stash that you’re HODLing, and then you’ve got like a non KYC stash that you kind of, you want to partake in the gray economy. And so on that, I think you can do that. But I think the broader question is more just about building up enough of a savings pool, right? Enough people in the Bitcoin world that it makes sense for you to have all these different trading partners. Because right now it’s just difficult to do that. And I’m not saying it’s impossible, right? Obviously in small scale you can trade back and forth with people. But I think the broader point I would make is more just that we need to build an overall network of Bitcoin holders. And that’s helping this transition over into a Bitcoin world. What’s your view there?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Well, if by that you mean a network of people who can trade Bitcoin with each other, rather than through a third party, that’s a hundred percent accurate. I mean, if we can do that, that does go a long way because obviously these third parties is the Achille’s heel of Bitcoin, the third party services and exchanges. That’s where the state puts its thumb. That’s where they can seize the Bitcoin. That’s how they influence Bitcoin, you know, taxation and KYC, AML. So that is a good thing. And I think a lot of that also comes down to supporting Bitcoiners and how you build those relationships is at a small level. Like you said, we can kind of do it a small level now, but we built from it. Like I know some guys some just for a short time, some for a very long time that if I want to buy some Bitcoins sometimes or sell occasionally I can go to them.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

So that’s a good way to build a network. And I think I’m going to your point about kind of this network. We can also build it, not by HODLing also, but also by, you know, earning it, spending it and this isn’t, I think this is another misunderstanding that people have when we talk about the economy, the Bitcoin economy, where they think we’re talking about at the level of a nation state, right? The US dollar, or even like a small one, like Switzerland or Barbados is going to switch over to Bitcoin. No, that’s not what it means. What it means is a very tiny scale. You know, it can be like a hundred people, a hundred people that, you know, I’m buying your tee shirts and you’re paying me for your web development. And then when we go to a Bitcoin meetup, I’m paying for the meals and stuff. I think that’s the scale. We need to build that as let’s just start from there, let’s just start at $50 worth of Bitcoin. Let’s start at spending $50 worth of Bitcoin with Bitcoiners, and then that’s really the community cause really it just takes us actual small number. I think you kind of alluded to that before. It just takes a small number to kind of turn the tide. And if we can get that, then we can build both through like pools, I think you said, and just through commerce.

Stephan Livera:

Right? Yeah.I think it makes sense in like certain scenarios. Absolutely. Like it’s a Bitcoin conference or in a small town. Like you probably, I don’t know if you’ve seen a Marty Bent recently interviewed this guy. I forgot his name. I think his name is Mike. He’s doing this thing called Bitcoin beach down in El Salvador. Right. And it’s like a whole town where they’re all paying lightning with each other. And so, I mean, that’s, that’s cool. I like that. I like the idea of having these little informal family and friends network, if you will. And people being able to do their own, they, small level kind of just trading back and forward and earning online. Obviously I’m all about that. I love that idea. I just, see it like we have to also, you know, and I think you recognize this also is the importance of holding because in my view that reservation demand all those people holding are what enable the people trading to actually do what they’re doing, because they’re, in some sense, they’re acting, if you will, a price floor or like a, they’re kind of backing up that they’re keeping the price up because they’re HODLing, they’re not spending.

Stephan Livera:

Right. And so and it’s not kind of going out into the fiat world. Right. And so the more we can kind of encourage people to kind of send value out of the US dollar and into the Bitcoin, so to speak, then it helps that process of changing the world’s money over would you say?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

I don’t think I would completely agree with that. I think people will just hold money naturally if they don’t have anything to spend it on or don’t want to spend anything on. And so I think we don’t need to actively advocate for that other than saying is, you know, realistically it’s a speculative asset. So if you can handle the volatility over medium to more like short term, you should do it just as an economic, you know, goal. And to give yourself some sovereignty and going back to, Hey, if you have enough Bitcoin, you’re hard to cancel, which is its own power. But you know, taking it back to make it really acute. Like let’s say that you on Twitter said something four years ago that someone found offensive and then they get the mob after you and then your sponsors, you know, they’re, they’re out to make money and they say, you know, Stephan, you’re a great podcaster, we just can’t be your sponsor anymore.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

They’re going to come after us. And then you keep going with your podcast and you say, okay, now I have this you know, sort of Patreon where I can, you know, crowdfund my podcast and people can give donations, but then you have all these HODLers saying, you know, sorry, Stephan but I’m HODLing and I can’t help you. And then it becomes difficult for you to do what you do. And so it could happen to you. It can happen to me. It probably will eventually, and to anyone. So again, it goes back to like wartime, Bitcoin, what is wartime Bitcoin? It’s looking at individuals with real names, it’s real businesses and saying, Hey, how does Bitcoin help them? How is it not helping them? And why isn’t it helping them rather than trying to get too sort of philosophical or abstract or hypothetical and I’m a very like practical person. And so that’s kind of, the approach that I think about it.

Stephan Livera:

Yup. Okay. I think you made some good points there right now. One point I would make though, is let’s consider, it could be that people just don’t want to give up their Bitcoin for whatever that product is that you’re selling. Like so far in that example, let’s say, okay, let’s say I get cancelled and my sponsors don’t want it, you know, whatever. And let’s say I don’t get enough donations from the Bitcoin world to keep the podcast going well then maybe I would just say, look, that’s, maybe that just means people don’t value the podcast enough that they would donate for it. And so, you know, I think that that should also be seriously considered, right? It’s not necessarily that people don’t want to spend at all. It just means they don’t perceive enough value for them to spend. What would you say to that?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Well, you put it well and I would call more of a banker-ist mentality in the sense that you come at Bitcoin purely from an economic perspective and economic perspective. Isn’t bad. I come at it from that perspective as well. I want my Bitcoin to go up. I absolutely do, but I think it goes back to a big picture of, you know, what is the purpose of your life? How are you trying to change the world? What are your core beliefs? And a lot of the guys that I interact with 3d gun printing guys, they are out to arm the world and to provide access to guns for everyone to be able to make themselves. And so their use of Bitcoin is very different and their whole attitude is different. The words they use is different. It’s a completely different approach. And for them it’s a matter of necessity. It is really a subversive tool. And so they don’t say, well, you know, what’s my ROI on this. So, they want their Bitcoin to go up as well, but it’s comes down to a fundamental life approach.

Stephan Livera:

Yeah. So I think ultimately it comes down to what do you value most? And obviously people value different things. And I think I absolutely want to see, because I think Bitcoin is a very important tool in terms of us, our liberties, right? It’s not the only tool, obviously I think 3d gun printing is, is a great, is a big thing as well. And I think, you know, people should try to support that where they can. And, I guess I’m just making the point more, the more kind of narrow kind of stepped back point of sometimes people just don’t want to spend their Bitcoin because they don’t see the value in it. And I think in that case, it’s not about Bitcoin spending because maybe they wouldn’t spend US dollars either. Alright. So, it’s just about what do they see value in? What are they willing to spend into? And but absolutely, I take the point that we want to encourage some of these other technologies we want, you know, we want things like mesh networking and we want, you know, 3d guns and we want defense, drone, defense, whatever we want these technologies because they enable this asymmetric, defensive technology against you know, people who are trying to take your stuff or take your money. Right?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Yeah. And so I think it’s good to have that balance approach. And I think, you know, my other thing with HODL Monomania, I know it upsets people, but I kind of do it on purpose because I think we know about HODLing. I think there’s enough information and enough financial incentives to HODL. So to me, that’s why I don’t really talk about it anymore. Cause I think we know that. And so it’s kind of like, where do we need to be, you know, in the balance. And so I think, I think it would be good if we have more conversations about this Marxist revolution that we’re facing. I think it’d be better if we talk more about that, how can you earn Bitcoin? And I think that’s starting to happen. You know, what the Samourai Wallet guys, I know you’ve had them on, on the show, you know, those guys are doing great work. And then now with, you know, Chris Belcher got that grant, I think it was from Square. And so I think, you know, we are having that conversation as well. So I think what I want is just more of a well rounded conversation for people to really face, I think some dark times ahead and put themselves in that position, they might think they won’t get canceled but they might and if not them, their spouse or their family.

Stephan Livera:

Yeah. Right. And I think you’re right, that we are seeing more, a lot more cancelling happen now. And we are starting to see when someone gets cancelled. Sometimes their spouse is also getting cancelled or their aunt, or there, their relative is also getting cancelled. So that is absolutely something there. I guess one point I would just make though is perhaps from a historical perspective, right. And I know you’ve been around Bitcoin for a while yourself. I think in the earlier days there was a lot of discussion about, Oh no, hoarding is bad or oh no deflation is bad. And I think that was also part of why a lot of people were trying to study economics and counter some of those ideas and say, well, hold on hoarding itself is not necessarily bad. It’s actually kind of like a pejorative of, and this is why we hold cash and it’s, it’s because of uncertainty.

Stephan Livera:

And so, and these are things that, obviously these are things obviously, you know, I’ve discussed on the show and I think people, people get that. But I can also see you know this role for improving our censorship resistance and looking for ways to try and be more private. So I think another, because again, people have different risk assessments as well. Right. So they might say, you know, for example, if we’re thinking more in terms of like KYC and not KYC, they might have different risk assessment. Right. They might be saying, well, I’m willing to leave the country or I’m willing to try and lobby and try and improve the tax laws where I am. You know, so I think that, that’s also that perspective as well. And I understand obviously again, my, some of my sponsors have KYC, so obviously disclosure, I might have an incentive to push that.

Stephan Livera:

So obviously listeners be aware. Right. But I think, I think there can be a role, obviously I don’t like KYC, but I see it more like it’s, it’s something that, if we have to do KYC to, for people to be able to feel comfortable buying Bitcoin, they don’t want to risk getting, you know taken up in a sting or whatever. If they’re being called the money licensing, unlicensed money transmitter, blah, blah, blah. That’s a risk for them as well. So I think that’s why I feel like, obviously I’m not a fan of KYC, but I think sometimes the internal community like fighting against, you know, KYC can also, maybe that’s counterproductive in some ways. What do you think?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Yeah. I think, you know, I agree with you in the sense that we’re kind of stuck with third parties, the on ramps and off ramps, just because we are such in the fiat world. And so I think of it as like training wheels, right? You, you kind of need it, especially, you know, to get going, but eventually you want to take off the training wheels. And if you always keep the training wheels on, if you always are using KYC, AML, you’re just not going to get, you know, the benefit of what Bitcoin can really do. And you’re hobbling yourself and, you know, KYC, AML is, it’s not something you want to brag about. It’s something that, you know, okay, we’re stuck with it. And I don’t think very, very few people would say, Oh, we can completely do away with it. I don’t think that’s realistic.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

I don’t think anyone’s really saying that, but that, tension is good for people to have the conversation. I think more people understand it. You know, I don’t think people are so polarized Twitter kind of forces people to defend a more extreme position. But you know, what’s interesting about your point with, KYC AML is partly why we have it is because we don’t have an economy where we can earn it and we don’t have this network where we can buy and sell from each other. I think, imagine if we were a hundred percent, you know, let’s say you spend even 10% of your Bitcoin in the Bitcoin community. Well, that’s quote unquote, 10% that doesn’t need to be bought on an exchange. So I think we kind of are creating our own problem by not having an economy, because if we don’t have this economy to earn it and trade it and even donate it, we’re always gonna have third-party exchanges to the extent that we do that.

Stephan Livera:

Right. Yeah. And look, I think another point that adds to what you’re saying, there is this ongoing war on cash, right. And arguably COVID has accelerated some of that war on cash. We’re seeing some stores out there who literally are, no, we don’t take cash now. It’s card. Only right.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

The dirty fiat.

Stephan Livera:

Yeah. Literally. So look, I think that is another, I guess there’s a silver lining to that because as more people obviously it’s bad that, you know, cash is going away. But it may end up incentivizing more of this censorship resistant Bitcoin use, as you’re talking about.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Yeah. Alex Gladstein posted this video, I’m sure you saw it where it’s, I said, it’s like a two minute video on why Bitcoin is, you know, for human rights, something like that is excellent video. And he puts it that way. Like you said, we’re we have this war on cash and we’re going to have a cashless society. If you don’t even have cash that you could use. Wow. They really got us. If they can just put the finger, you know, on the computer and stop us and it will be an incentive and it’s kind of sad that it has to be by necessity. And I think we should kind of try to get ahead of that because we know it’s coming and let’s just try to do like 5%, 10% of your Bitcoin, you know, spend it, try to start a side gig, earning Bitcoin, if you don’t. And there’s more people now doing that, especially BTC pay server has accelerated that.

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

I mean, it’s such an incredible tool. I can’t speak enough about BTC Pay server. So I think if we just say, okay, let’s shift the conversation a little bit. Why don’t we just try to do 5% or 10% of our transactions? Let’s try to earn it, spend it, or let’s try to mix those. Right. Let’s try to mix 10% of our coins. So between the mixing and the earning and the spending, we just do that, I think we’ll really move the needle and taking it back to what you said earlier about, you know, this turning point. I think it just takes some percentage and then that kind of flips and things.

Stephan Livera:

Yeah. Right. And I think I can agree with that. I’m a big fan of BTC Pay Server, and I absolutely want to encourage people to earn Bitcoin where they can. So look, Ragnar, I’ve really enjoyed chatting with you. Where can if you’ve got any last kind of closing thoughts for the listeners and where can people find you?

Ragnar Lifthrasir:

Well, thanks for having me. I really appreciate that. You can talk with a wide variety of people and hear both sides. You stay really rational and calm, and I appreciate that. I’m not the best at that. So for contacting me just guns and Bitcoin, I’m also on Keybase at Ragnarly, keybase is my preferred method of communication.

Stephan Livera:

Fantastic. Well, thank you for joining me, Ragnar and listeners. You can find me online at stephanlivera.com. Make sure you share this show with people. If you enjoyed the discussion. And thanks guys, we’ll see you guys in the citadels. Thanks.