Why Does the US Military Think Bitcoin Is a Terrorist Threat?

[Redtea]

It’s fascinating to watch Bitcoin evolve, as more players begin to understand the technology. Law enforcement, financial regulators, investors, big banks, Congress, and now the US military are all struggling to understand how Bitcoin and virtual currencies fit into our financial world of the future.

The only mildly disturbing entry into the Bitcoin world is the military, putting out bids to understand the role of virtual currencies in financing terror networks. Bitcoin Magazine discovered an unclassified memo that lists project funding for understanding cryptocurrencies and lists Bitcoin specifically. There are other government and law enforcement agencies working on understanding terrorist finances, and it’s hard to see the value in so many duplicate efforts. The core mission of the military is to be the best in the world at breaking things and killing people. The farther they stray from that core mission, the less desirable the outcome. Mission creep has rarely resulted in something good happening.

bitcoinYet the biggest threat to Bitcoin and virtual currencies doesn’t come from government or law enforcement; by far the more ominous threat to emerge is Wall Street. Big banks and electronic payment systems are studying the underlying technology of virtual currencies to see if public ledgers, like those used in Bitcoin, could have value in the financial services market. The answer to that question is most definitely “yes,” but that’s not really the question they’re trying to answer. What Wall Street wants to know is how it can implement the underlying technology to lower costs, while still maintaining its grip on the nation’s system of financial exchange.


 
Even Goldman Sachs believes the “blockchain” technology that underlies Bitcoin has commercial potential. The current money transfer system used by banks in the US is called the Automated Clearing House, or ACH network. ACH settles money transfers in business a day, an eternity in Internet time. That’s why it can take as long as three or four days to get money transferred from your PayPal account to your bank account. Bitcoin settles trades in minutes; and a newer variation of the blockchain technology, called Ripple, settles trades in seconds. All of those cryptocurrency transactions are carried out securely over public networks by systems that have no central authority.

There is even talk of banks using Bitcoin as a medium of exchange directly, but it seems more likely banks would develop their own digital currency for exchange, one that couldn’t be used in any other context.

It’s obvious by now that government is not going to be able to stop Bitcoin or other digital currencies. If the Chinese can’t stop digital currencies with a blanket prohibition, no one can. But Wall Street interests, working closely with the government regulators they’ve spent so much money shaping to their own benefit, represent a clear and viable threat to budding digital currency networks. Big money has the potential to corrupt the technology to its own devices, and then squash any would be competitors.

It’s not hard to imagine the outcome if Wall Street manages to reign in digital currency; just imagine what the Internet would look like today without net neutrality. Instead of an open and healthy marketplace, we would have a collection of Balkanized services controlled by a handful of players at the top. That’s why companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have all been so relentlessly attacking net neutrality and, until just recently, have been thwarted in those efforts.

Banks don’t like open markets or competition, and they’re not going to repeat the mistakes of history by letting competing technologies develop without challenge.


Sources:
http://redteanews.com/2014/05/07/why-does-the-us-military-think-bitcoin-is-a-terrorist-threat/#.U20i5PldXfI



-Redtea
Independent News for the Right-Minded American


redteanews.com

[1714840655]

1714840655

[1714840655]

1714840655

[Adrian-x]

To the OP question:

Terrorists are bullies who use violence or the fear of violence to coerce action.
Bullies who may lose fiat funding may feel threatened hence Bitcoin is defined as a terrorist threat from a certain perspective.

The irony is when terrorists buy in they pay a market premium and again when they sell out, terrorists are going to find more efficient ways to move money, or capitalist are going to milk them to death.

[bluemeanie1]

Why Does the US Military Think Afghanistan Is a Terrorist Threat?

-bm

[LostDutchman]

It’s fascinating to watch Bitcoin evolve, as more players begin to understand the technology. Law enforcement, financial regulators, investors, big banks, Congress, and now the US military are all struggling to understand how Bitcoin and virtual currencies fit into our financial world of the future.

The only mildly disturbing entry into the Bitcoin world is the military, putting out bids to understand the role of virtual currencies in financing terror networks. Bitcoin Magazine discovered an unclassified memo that lists project funding for understanding cryptocurrencies and lists Bitcoin specifically. There are other government and law enforcement agencies working on understanding terrorist finances, and it’s hard to see the value in so many duplicate efforts. The core mission of the military is to be the best in the world at breaking things and killing people. The farther they stray from that core mission, the less desirable the outcome. Mission creep has rarely resulted in something good happening.

bitcoinYet the biggest threat to Bitcoin and virtual currencies doesn’t come from government or law enforcement; by far the more ominous threat to emerge is Wall Street. Big banks and electronic payment systems are studying the underlying technology of virtual currencies to see if public ledgers, like those used in Bitcoin, could have value in the financial services market. The answer to that question is most definitely “yes,” but that’s not really the question they’re trying to answer. What Wall Street wants to know is how it can implement the underlying technology to lower costs, while still maintaining its grip on the nation’s system of financial exchange.


 
Even Goldman Sachs believes the “blockchain” technology that underlies Bitcoin has commercial potential. The current money transfer system used by banks in the US is called the Automated Clearing House, or ACH network. ACH settles money transfers in business a day, an eternity in Internet time. That’s why it can take as long as three or four days to get money transferred from your PayPal account to your bank account. Bitcoin settles trades in minutes; and a newer variation of the blockchain technology, called Ripple, settles trades in seconds. All of those cryptocurrency transactions are carried out securely over public networks by systems that have no central authority.

There is even talk of banks using Bitcoin as a medium of exchange directly, but it seems more likely banks would develop their own digital currency for exchange, one that couldn’t be used in any other context.

It’s obvious by now that government is not going to be able to stop Bitcoin or other digital currencies. If the Chinese can’t stop digital currencies with a blanket prohibition, no one can. But Wall Street interests, working closely with the government regulators they’ve spent so much money shaping to their own benefit, represent a clear and viable threat to budding digital currency networks. Big money has the potential to corrupt the technology to its own devices, and then squash any would be competitors.

It’s not hard to imagine the outcome if Wall Street manages to reign in digital currency; just imagine what the Internet would look like today without net neutrality. Instead of an open and healthy marketplace, we would have a collection of Balkanized services controlled by a handful of players at the top. That’s why companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have all been so relentlessly attacking net neutrality and, until just recently, have been thwarted in those efforts.

Banks don’t like open markets or competition, and they’re not going to repeat the mistakes of history by letting competing technologies develop without challenge.


Sources:
http://redteanews.com/2014/05/07/why-does-the-us-military-think-bitcoin-is-a-terrorist-threat/#.U20i5PldXfI



-Redtea
Independent News for the Right-Minded American


redteanews.com

The military mind thinks that mouldy bread is a terrorist threat.

[jc01480]

Why Does the US Military Think Afghanistan Is a Terrorist Threat?

-bm

Because anyone that cannot be controlled economically (i.e. sanctions) is a threat.  There aren't many banks in the suck.

[Beliathon]

Bitcoin isn't a "threat", it's a checkmate.

The game is over. Fiat lost.

[Light]

Because they think that Bitcoin's existence makes it easier for them to get funding and spend that to buy things to support their terrorist campaign. The problem is that they still and have always been using fiat do that...

[LostDutchman]

Bitcoin isn't a "threat", it's a checkmate.

The game is over. Fiat lost.

Nice.

[madmadmax]

Because if one day Bitcoin will actually become a threat they want to have a basis established in order to take it down to keep the party going.

All those Wallstreet jackasses are hooked on the dollar, they will send your kids to die in wars halfway across the world to impose dictators that would only sell the local natural resources in exchange to... you guessed it! USD!

You would be surprised at what draconian measures states are willing to take to keep the party going, there are limits imposed in India on how much gold, businessess, property etc you can own so you will keep all your life savings in the local currency with a 20% yearly inflation, people are buying Zynga Poker chips to store their life savings!

[Malin Keshar]

Everything for the US military is terrorist thread, even hello kitty must have something terrorist behind her, in the military's mind

If bitcoin starts to bother too much, they must have some pretext to constraint it

[leopard2]

No, the US Fed-Government mafia considers it a threat to their "mine USD at zero difficulty and use it to enslave everyone" scheme

Fed officials cannot make phone calls PBOC style so they need to come up with the usual memes

-crime&drug meme
-childporn meme
-terrorist meme

Communist meme does not work this time because Russia is against BTC too.

Meanwhile, they keep firing rockets from drones at weddings in Pakistan, to keep the terrorist meme alive. Duh!

[LostDutchman]

If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[franky1]

until a bomber has a trigger set to detonate on the receipt of a bitcoin transaction (imagine cell phone bombs)... then bitcoin is not a direct threat and cannot harm people.

"bitcoins don't kill people.. people do"

you cant blame terror activities on the money
you cant blame money activities on terror

[vipgelsi]

Because it's under the radar.

[Panpan66L]

until a bomber has a trigger set to detonate on the receipt of a bitcoin transaction (imagine cell phone bombs)... then bitcoin is not a direct threat and cannot harm people.

"bitcoins don't kill people.. people do"

you cant blame terror activities on the money
you cant blame money activities on terror

Indeed, we can't blame the hot food hurt your lips for your impatient.

[jc01480]

As we've been reading this thread they've printed n amount of dollars in paper.  I suspect there is a bigger motive than the US economic condition.  I can't quite articulate why this would be detrimental, or at least beneficial to the sanctions in Eastern Europe,  but my 'feelers' are up. 

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Elwar]

The recent DoD news about looking into Bitcoin did not say that Bitcoin was a threat.

It was a call to action to investigate whether or not Bitcoin is a threat used by terrorists or not.

[LostDutchman]

The recent DoD news about looking into Bitcoin did not say that Bitcoin was a threat.

It was a call to action to investigate whether or not Bitcoin is a threat used by terrorists or not.

True but the implication so made is enough to turn much of the public against Bitcoin.

[justusranvier]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

[makebitcoin]

People in Congress were lobbied by MasterCard against Bitcoin. At least that is what I read on Reddit. Maybe that has something to do with this.