Skip to main content

Money Week, Part I

 


Welcome to money week. Today, tomorrow, and Thursday I will look from three different points of view at the whole idea of a universal medium of exchange, i.e. the idea of money.

Today: who is Alexander Vinnik and why might you want to care?

Vinnik is the fellow portrayed above with his arms behind his back. He was formerly the head of a bitcoin exchange, known as BTC-e. This was the Russian counterpart to FTX. 

This is germane to our theme-for-the-week because as you all probably know, Bitcoin in particular and cryptocurrencies more generally are talked up as the new money, the medium of exchange that will in time replace the government fiat media to which we have become accustomed. 

You all also most likely know what has happened of late to FTX and its founder.  Well ... BTC-e ended up at much the same place. 

At any rate, in today's environment between Russia and the United States, the fact that there is a once-prominent Russian in custody in the U.S. is itself an asset of a sort. The question naturally arises: will Vinnik be traded? And, if so, for whom?

US May Consider Alexander Vinnik for Prisoner Exchange With Russia, Lawyer Says – Bitcoin News

Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 1, 2023 at 10:57 AM

    Human Trafficking diplomacy is arte nouveau on the international scene. Once, it was a humanitarian gesture, tinged with espionage and other cloak and dagger undertones. Now, the hues have been reversed, with humanitarian intentions taking the hit. I won't compare this with revisionist history because the intention is only marginally the same. As is often, political advantage and nationalism are goals: everyone is dancing as fast as they can.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more