Pavol Luptak: Anti-Government Insurance, Crowdfunded Whistleblowing & Assassination Markets [Part Two]

Reporting from Lake Atitlan, Guatemala…

--“The thing I especially like about cryptocurrencies,” IT security specialist Pavol Luptak said yesterday in Part One of our interview, “is that their future does not depend on the opinions of democratic masses or politicians. The potential for intervention is highly limited.”

Yesterday, you’ll recall, Pavol (who I introduced here) spoke about the rise of cryptocurrencies and their potential to disrupt the wonderfully awful world of politics.

Today, he’ll talk about the consequent rise of, whether they are happily embraced or not, a whole host of worm-filled cans, bursting at their tops. Wild things like assassination markets, crowdfunded whistleblowing and even anti-government insurance.

Most importantly, Luptak will provide us with some actionable steps anyone can take to capitalize on the burgeoning crypto-scape.

Before we get to that, though, here’s a little recap of yesterday’s conversation, in case you missed it.

The mainstreaming of dark marketeering

Although governments will still have control over the physical world, said Luptak, thanks to decentralization and anonymity, they’ll lose what little control they have today over the virtual world.

Most people will switch over to the decentralized anonymous virtual markets not out of principle, but because everything will be far cheaper.

He explained:

“No taxes, no expenses related to government regulations — prices in the cryptoanarchy world may be 30-50% lower than in the case of the government-regulated e-shops.”

We’ll gain liberty in the virtual world, but will likely continue to fight an uphill battle in the physical world.

“Governments,” Luptak said, “will lose their ability to tax businesses in the global virtual world. They’ll need to cover this loss. I think that property taxes will be significantly increased in the future.”

And, of course, there will be victims along the way. People will step over that thin “red line,” get snagged and made an example of. (See: Ross Ulbricht)

Now that you’re all caught up, here’s Part Two of our interview.

Read on.

Part Two: Assassination markets, crowdfunded whistleblowing, anti-government insurance and more…

CC: As a result of this transition, you believe some really interesting things will take place. For example, you’ve made predictions about crowdfunded whistleblowing which will incentivize government leaks, anonymous prediction markets, anti-government insurance and even assassination markets.

Can you talk a little bit about the implications of these innovations?

Also, what are some pros and cons of these things for the average person?

PL: I am not a big fan of assassination markets. But it’s an unstoppable technological evolution (especially anonymity + anonymous cryptocurrencies) that makes this possible…

Politicians and of course all people who have many enemies will start to afraid. The anonymous financial contribution to their death will be just one-click operation.

And of course, there will be frauds — people will be motivated to simulate their own death to gain the bounty. So, there will be updated version of assassination markets where reward will be paid depending how many years the given person is “really” dead or not.

It will be possible to create a strong economic incentive for politicians to change the legislation, approve any new law or modify the existing one, and “win the bet.”

Paid in anonymous digital cash with no traces at all. Practically impossible to prove it.

Crowdfunded whistleblowing will be a significant threat to secret agencies or other government organizations. It could make a huge economic incentive for internal employees of these agencies to leak any sensitive information the crowd wishes. And of course, to receive the completely anonymous digital cash for that. And again with no traces, no accountability.

Anti-government insurance is also a big thing — I wrote an article how this could work here.

I’ll summarize just some interesting points:

1. For the government, it will be almost impossible to prove that anyone is  insured against any law. Neither they can reveal the given people receive their insurance money because no cash or traditional bank transfers are involved.

2. Government officials have limited resources to penalize all entrepreneurs; They will always choose only some “victims,” therefore more paid insurance the anonymous insurance companies will have, lower insurance rates will be.

3. Less stupid and immoral laws mean less feasible business case of anonymous insurance companies.

4. Both anonymization technology and state dictatorship are always improved over time. Therefore the existence of anonymous cryptocurrencies is the only question of time.

5. The war of governments with anonymous insurance companies can be partially won by abolishing all stupid regulations and restrictions most people consider to be unethical.

6. The anonymous insurance against wrong laws can create an incentive for many decent non-technical people to use bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies to protect their property.

7. The government can increase fines to kill all businesses that break any law and strictly enforces it. In the given situation, the best solution will be to move the business to a different country, or stay and pay high insurance fee.

8. The government can hire 4x more employees, does strict checks of EET legislation, issues 3x more penalties to entrepreneurs at the same time, therefore forces anonymous insurance companies to be bankrupt.

This scenario is for sure possible. But it is necessary to realize the anonymous insurance does not need to be applied to the EET legislation only, but to any stupid/unethical law.

The state simply does not have enough sources to check if all people or companies follow each law people/companies may be insured for. The situation for the state is asymmetrical with an apparent advantage for anonymous insurance companies.

CC: OK. Pivoting a bit, what cryptocurrencies or potential applications are you most interested in?

PL: Truly anonymous ones, specifically Monero, ZCash, ZCoin and Shadow Cash.

CC: Where do you see the biggest shifts happening first as a result of crypto? How can our readers position themselves to take advantage of these shifts?

PL: The first human problem the cryptocurrencies will solve in the near future is preserving and protecting their wealth against government money inflation or hyperinflation.

This scenario is already happening in China, India or Venezuela. We should expect increased demand for cryptocurrencies notably Bitcoin.

Some technical restrictions of Bitcoins (e.g. small blocks) can slow down a rapid growth of its massive use. I think there will be some opportunities for altcoins, especially anonymous ones which are suitable candidates for replacing the traditional cash.

I am also a big fan of smart contracts. Although I am a bit skeptical about Ethereum and its forks, I am enthusiastic about the concept of smart contracts and their future use. That will be the next step.

When most people become familiar with cryptocurrencies, then there will be a time for anonymous prediction markets, anti-government insurance, assassination markets or crowdfunded whistleblowing.

I am more than sure our crypto future will be exciting

CC: Indeed.

Until tomorrow,

Chris Campbell
Managing editor, Laissez Faire Today

The post Pavol Luptak: Anti-Government Insurance, Crowdfunded Whistleblowing & Assassination Markets [Part Two] appeared first on Laissez Faire.