Bitcoin may be let loose now Silk Road has been shut down

Now that Silk Road has closed without any discernible damage to Bitcoin's value, maybe we can accept it's here to stay.

You can't kill Bitcoin. It will not die. The Silk Road shutdown is the second event to challenge its stability and it’s come through with barely a scratch. And, despite the libertarian beliefs of many of its advocates, in part that’s due to Bitcoin going legit in the eyes of the law.

To recap, Silk Road was an online marketplace where users could buy and sell (almost) anything. Mostly that meant drugs, and in the criminal complaint filed by the FBI against its alleged owner/operator Ross Ulbricht it lists 1,229,465 transactions between 6 February and 23 July 2013 - or 7,362 transactions a day - all of which were conducted using Bitcoin.

Indeed, up until this year the story of Bitcoin and the story of Silk Road were essentially the same. The unstable bubble that grew over the first three months of 2013 to burst in April was driven at least partly by media commentary about Bitcoin being a bubble, and it had to be a bubble because there's no reason to use Bitcoin for anything other than gambling or drugs.

Except, Bitcoin recovered relatively quickly - and its price has remained stable right up until the FBI arrested Ulbricht in San Francisco. People no longer bother keeping lists of businesses that accept Bitcoin up to date because there are just too many, and it began to gain something quite crucial to its long-term survival - legitimacy.

Here's a graph that shows what I mean:

That's the trading chart for the past month on Mt Gox, the world’s largest Bitcoin trading exchange. That big spike is the market reacting to the news of Ulbricht’s arrest, and while the price drops for maybe a day, it’s soon back to the level it was before the FBI’s announcement. That’s not panic selling by Bitcoin users, worried that their assets will soon be worthless.

Now look at this:

Perhaps this is more tenuous as evidence, but that’s the Google Trends data for mentions of Bitcoin versus mentions of Silk Road. They both jump as the arrest is reported around the world, but Bitcoin by not as much. It's as if Bitcoin isn't as central to the story of Silk Road as it once was. The irony here, for a currency that sidesteps government authority, is that governments may have helped in this.

The stereotype of the Bitcoin advocate is someone who’s a libertarian, an Ayn Rand fan, a minarchist who feels that a return to the gold standard would solve most of the world’s economic problems. Bitcoin - the ever-deflating, decentralised, uncontrollable currency - is meant to be the 21st century gold standard. However, despite Bitcoin’s clear ability to be used to circumvent the law, many of its functions can be easily absorbed by the rest of the legitimate economy.

Bitcoin’s central blockchain records every transaction, and if a user is public about owning a wallet there’s no way they can send or receive funds without a note being generated. That’s great for tax agencies. “Tumblers” - which split up transactions into tiny amounts and mix them with other payments to make them so hard to trace even the NSA can’t manage it - can be used for laundering cash, but they’re not built into the infrastructure.

Several governments have given their blessings for Bitcoin. There's been a meeting at Number 10 about drawing up a regulatory framework, and the German government has recognised it as "private money". The US government has subpoenaed large exchanges to get an idea of what kind of tax evasion might be happening, and those exchanges haven't really resisted. Some of them have actually started doing what most other industries do, and started sending lobbyists to Washington DC.

Brian Patrick Eha at the New Yorker asked the question "Could the Silk Road closure be good for Bitcoin?" two days after the arrest of Ulbricht, before it became clear that Bitcoin's price had, at least, been unaffected. He quotes Adam Levine, the editor-in-chief of the Let's Talk Bitcoin! podcast:

It seems inevitable that regulation will be a part of mainstream legitimacy for Bitcoin," Levine said. "The thought is, even if it changes it for the worse a little bit, it will gain much more in legitimacy.

That’s going to worry a lot of the people who built Bitcoin up to where it is now, but could be the price it pays for actually fulfilling some of its hyped potential.

A Bitcoin keychain. Photo: BTC Keychain/Flickr

Ian Steadman is a staff science and technology writer at the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @iansteadman.

Green Party
Show Hide image

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley: "The Greens can win over Ukip voters too"

The party co-leaders condemned Labour's "witch hunt" of Green-supporting members. 

“You only have to cast your eyes along those green benches to think this place doesn't really represent modern Britain,” said Caroline Lucas, the UK’s only Green MP, of the House of Commons. “There are lots of things you could do about it, and one is say: ‘Why not have job share MPs?’”

Politics is full of partnerships and rivalries, but not job shares. When Lucas and Jonathan Bartley were elected co-leaders of the Green party in September, they made history. 

“I don't think any week's been typical so far,” said Bartley, when I met the co-leaders in Westminster’s Portcullis House. During the debate on the Hinkley power plant, he said, Lucas was in her constituency: “I was in Westminster, so I could pop over to do the interviews.”

Other times, it’s Bartley who travels: “I’ve been over to Calais already, and I was up in Morecambe and Lancaster. It means we’re not left without a leader.”

The two Green leaders have had varied careers. Lucas has become a familiar face in Parliament since 2010, whereas Bartley has spent most of his career in political backrooms and wonkish circles (he co-founded the think tank Ekklesia). In the six weeks since being elected, though, they seem to have mastered the knack of backing each other up. After Lucas, who represents Brighton Pavilion, made her point about the green benches, Bartley chimed in. “My son is a wheelchair user. He is now 14," he said. "I just spent a month with him, because he had to have a major operation and he was in the recovery period. The job share allows that opportunity.”

It’s hard enough for Labour’s shadow cabinet to stay on message. So how will the Greens do it? “We basically said that although we've got two leaders, we've got one set of policies,” said Lucas. She smiled. “Whereas Labour kind of has the opposite.”

The ranks of the Greens, like Labour, have swelled since the referendum. Many are the usual suspects - Remainers still distressed about Brexit. But Lucas and Bartley believe they can tap into some of the discontent driving the Ukip vote in northern England.

“In Morecambe, I was chatting to someone who was deciding whether to vote Ukip or Green,” said Bartley. “He was really distrustful of the big political parties, and he wanted to send a clear message.”

Bartley points to an Ashcroft poll showing roughly half of Leave voters believed capitalism was a force for ill (a larger proportion nevertheless was deeply suspicious of the green movement). Nevertheless, the idea of voters moving from a party defined by border control to one that is against open borders “for now” seems counterintuitive. 

“This issue in the local election wasn’t about migration,” Bartley said. “This voter was talking about power and control, and he recognised the Greens could give him that.

“He was remarking it was the first time anyone had knocked on his door.”

According to a 2015 study by the LSE researcher James Dennison, Greens and Kippers stand out almost equally for their mistrust in politicians, and their dissatisfaction with British democracy. 

Lucas believes Ukip voters want to give “the system” a “bloody big kick” and “people who vote Green are sometimes doing that too”. 

She said: “We’re standing up against the system in a very different way from Ukip, but to that extent there is a commonality.”

The Greens say what they believe, she added: “We’re not going to limit our ambitions to the social liberal.”

A more reliable source of support may be the young. A May 2015 YouGov poll found 7 per cent of voters aged 18 to 29 intended to vote Green, compared to just 2 per cent of those aged 60+. 

Bartley is cautious about inflaming a generational divide, but Lucas acknowledges that young people feel “massively let down”.

She said: “They are certainly let down by our housing market, they are let down by universities. 

“The Greens are still against tuition fees - we want a small tax for the biggest businesses to fund education because for us education is a public good, not a private commodity.”

Of course, it’s all very well telling young people what they want to hear, but in the meantime the Tory government is moving towards a hard Brexit and scrapping maintenance grants. Lucas and Bartley are some of the biggest cheerleaders for a progressive alliance, and Lucas co-authored a book with rising Labour star Lisa Nandy on the subject. On the book tour, she was “amazed” by how many people turned up “on wet Friday evenings” to hear about “how we choose a less tribal politics”. 

Nevertheless, the idea is still controversial, not least among many in Nandy's own party. The recent leadership contest saw a spate of members ejected for publicly supporting the Greens, among other parties. 

“It was like a witch hunt,” said Lucas. “Some of those tweets were from a year or two ago. They might have retweeted something that happened to be from me saying ‘come join us in opposing fracking’, which is now a Labour policy. To kick someone out for that is deeply shocking.”

By contrast, the Greens have recently launched a friends scheme for supporters, including those who are already a member of another party. “The idea that one party is going to know it all is nonsense,” said Bartley. “That isn’t reality.”

Lucas and Bartley believe the biggest potential for a progressive alliance is at constituency level, where local people feel empowered, not disenfranchised, by brokering deals. They recall the 1997 election, when voters rallied around the independent candidate Martin Bell to trounce the supposedly safe Tory MP Neil Hamilton. Citing a recent letter co-signed by the Greens, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru condemning Tory rhetoric on immigrants, Bartley points out that smaller parties are already finding ways to magnify their voice. The fact the party backed down on listing foreign workers was, he argued, “a significant win”. 

As for true electoral reform, in 2011, a referendum on changing Britain's rigid first past the post system failed miserably. But the dismal polls for the Labour party, could, Lucas thinks, open up a fresh debate.

“More and more people in the Labour party recognise now that no matter who their leader is, their chance of getting an outright majority at the next election is actually vanishingly small,” she said. “It’s in their interests to support electoral reform. That's the game changer.” 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.