Cryptoverse - Pt1

Over the past three years, I've been periodically dipping my financial toe into the choppy waters of cryptocurrency, to the point that I actually vaguely know what I'm talking about at this stage (full disclaimer: this blog is for information only - I am not your financial adviser and I am not offering financial advice! Yada yada).

So, in a break from my running escapades, this blog's going to be a breakdown on the cryptocurrency basics. Let's dive in.

What is a cryptocurrency?

Cryptocurrency, usually referred to simply as Crypto, is a digital currency or asset.  

Put simply: it is a given store of value (in the same way that traditional 'paper' money or 'fiat' is), however rather than it being a physical asset such gold, silver, bond, piece of paper denoting value etc, it is non physical, i.e. it is entirely digital, stored on what's known as the blockchain.  More on that in a bit.

To take it back a step, Cryptography comes from the ancient Greek 'kryptos' (hidden/secret) and 'graphene' (to write/study): it is using code, which needs to be deciphered, to store messages and meanings.  

Thus, when we look at the idea of cryptocurrency, we are looking at: 1) the message and meaning here being stored value (currency) in a 2) cryptographic manner, i.e. scrambled through code and needing to be re-deciphered.

I hope that makes some sense so far - it's difficult to explain and the word crypto itself is annoying me at this stage because its a real bugger to spell correctly each time.  Anyway...

The term 'blockchain' refers to the method in which cryptocurrency (such as Bitcoin) is securely transacted.

I am not going to get into specifics here as that really is deep into the rabbit hole and frankly I don't have anywhere near enough know-how to adequately explain it.  Suffice to say so that it refers to the method of how the crypto is stored and exchanged: i.e. a chain of digital blocks is created each time; these cannot be retrospectively altered, so in effect they securely log every single transaction takes place over time. 

What is Bitcoin?  Why are people interested in it?  Isn't it a scam?

Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency ever created. It is a 'coin' (currency) that is entirely digital, so therefore made up of data 'bits': Bitcoin.  It was invented by someone pseudonominously named 'Satoshi Nakamoto' in 2009, as a direct reaction to the financial crisis of 2008.  Satoshi's vision was to create a monetary system that was entirely decoupled from a traditional, centralised financial system (i.e. no banks).  

This is the reason that Bitcoin is referred to as a decentralised asset: the asset itself is not stored in one central place and then distributed (such as, crudely, a bank with it's millions locked away in its vaults, which are then centrally distributed to customers); rather, the asset is stored remotely across the entire network of people owning and trading it - in this way, there is no 'third' party here.

Why is this important?  Well, let's just *suppose* that a bank gets into financial difficulty (think 2008) and eventually collapses (government doesn't bail it out in this example).  What's happened to your money?  It's gone.  It was stored centrally by the bank; the bank no longer exists; 'your' money is no longer yours.  

This cannot happen with a decentralised asset such as Bitcoin, because there is no centralised bank: it is distributed and stored by everyone interacting with it, through the cryptographically-secure blockchain.

So Bitcoin is essentially a two-fingered salute at the banking system?  So what?  Well - partly this is true.  Proponents of Bitcoin see the decentralised aspect as one of it's key draws. However, this isn't it's only benefit.  Most significantly, it is becoming seen as a genuine hedge against 'fiat' (traditional currency) devaluation.

Over time, fiat currencies naturally succumb to devaluation: put simply, as more physical money is printed by successive governments (sometimes euphemistically known as 'quantative easing') the overall purchasing power of that currency naturally decreases over time: the more there is of something, the less it is worth.  

This is why £10 forty years ago would have comfortably bought you several rounds in a London pub with some change to spare, whereas now it'd get you a single pint and a packet of crisps if you were damn lucky.  

When it comes to long-term saving, this is a big problem.  Not only are interest rates historically low at the minute (0.1%), the intrinsic value of the £ is also decreasing over time.  

So, (and this is crudely; I know it is more complicated that this), if you had £10,000 and put it in the bank at base interest rates today, it would make a paltry £100 in one year.  Over a period of ten years, you've turned your £10,000 into just £11,000 (assuming no changes to rates).  

However, remember that you also have ten years' worth of currency devaluation during this time (more money has been printed), so that £11,000 is probably actually worth less now than when you started in real terms (actual purchasing power).

One final aspect of Bitcoin is that not only is it a decentralised asset, and not only is it a hedge against inflationary fiat currency (as explained above), but perhaps most importantly, Bitcoin itself is a deflationary asset.

So, what does this mean?  When Bitcoin was created, only 21 million were made.  There cannot be any more Bitcoin ever beyond the 21 million (the correct term here is to 'mine' - the term used to describe those who release the cryptographic bitcoin from the network to be distributed).  This means, of course, that there is a limited, finite supply, in just the same way as gold; this is the reason why Bitcoin is often referred to as 'digital gold'.  On top of this, the amount that is able to be mined (released) is halved every four years.  This is supply and demand 101: not only is Bitcoin a finite digital asset, the amount that can actually be owned by anyone is itself halved every four years.  To use the crude gold analogy:

Imagine there is a limited supply of Gold (there is).  This gold is not stored in one place (like a bank); rather, it is of course stored across the world (decentralised, like Bitcoin). 

Miners (see where the crypto term comes from now) mine the gold and then sell it to consumers - HOWEVER - the amount of gold, in this example, that can be mined is reduced by half every four years - so it becomes increasingly harder to mine and increasingly scarce to own.  Stock to flow ratio dictates that the given asset (in this case Bitcoin) will go up in value over time.

This is the reason that Bitcoin was worth $0.0008 in 2010 and currently sits at $56,228 as of writing this.

So, is Bitcoin a scam?  Is it a 'ponzi' scheme (think of those pyramid letter schemes)?  

No; hopefully I have illustrated above that it is absolutely neither of these things: rather, it is the evolution of money, from the physical to the digital.  In 50 years' time, the economic system across the world will look very, very different.

To sum up:

• Cryptocurrency is a digital, cryptographic store of value.
• Bitcoin is one such crypto, created in 2008.
• Bitcoin is a decentralised store of value, distributed on the blockchain
• Bitcoin is finite (21 million) and the amount released (mined) is halved every four years
• In this sense, Bitcoin can be seen as a deflationary asset and a hedge against the inflationary fiat currency system
• Due to the above factors, the value of Bitcoin rises exponentially every four years

There is a lot, lot more to cryptos as you might expect - this has scratched the surface really.  

I hope I've at least sparked your interest.  In part 2, we'll dive into understanding Bitcoin's price trajectory in more detail and consider the world of 'alt'-coins. 

Sill running? Definitely, Maybe.

A new discography has been broached my friends... enter the era of Oasis.

Genuinely excited by this one.  Muse was always going to be a bit hit and miss to run to by their very nature (whiny paranoia / angry bastards) whereas Oasis pretty much just solidly rock out.  Or do they?  I mean, my knowledge of them is staked fairly firmly in the mid '90s-early-2000s era (first three albums plus [of course] The Masterplan); after that, things get a little more sonically... hazy. 

I'm vaguely aware of sporadic singles after that... 'The Importance of Being Idle' and 'Songbird' spring to mind (from around 2003/4 I think - I seem to remember a surprisingly earnest Liam crooning his heart out on the TV whilst I was sat, pint in hand, in the Uni's on site bar - the amazingly named 'The Library').  

However, I don't think I've actually listened to an entire album by Oasis since the Be Here Now / The Masterplan era.  I've heard a lot of chatter about diminishing returns but I obviously can't comment yet...  I guess we'll see.

Total albums to run to: 7 officially. 

Total of albums I am going to run to: 8!  The Masterplan is not being missed off this list, even if it isn't officially a studio album.  Hey - my rules.

Album 1: Definitely, Maybe

As I've already outlined, I am unapologetically-biased towards Oasis' early stuff and I was looking forward to running to this well ahead of actually getting on the treadmill.  

What's the Story... is quite clearly a more considered, polished effort, however it's the rawness of Definitely, Maybe that's it's best asset.  Liam swaggers and snarls for 50 minutes solid of good old-fashioned rock, making the run pretty much a breeze.  

I say pretty much, because (confession time) I really don't like Slide Away (just lock me up in Sacrilege Towers, I know); I never have liked it and having to run to it, 45 minutes in and knackered, whilst Liam chews and spits the phrase 'sllllllliiiiiideee awayyyyyyy' repeatedly into my face for what feels like a lifetime is... less fun.  

Luckily I'm a forgiving kind of a guy.

Runner's rating (/5): RRRR

Running time: 52 minutes
Distance: 6.8km
Calories: 537

Favourite track: Columbia. Hands down.

Worst tracks: Shakermaker (boring) Slide Away (irritating).

Fun fact: I was on the cusp of being too young (10 going on 11) to appreciate this when it was first released in August 1994.  However, the album brings back great memories from the summer of 2007.  

Random, I know... the reason being that I had not long moved to Leicester at the time to begin my teacher training in September of that year.  In the interim, I got a job at Joules Clothing (customer service and data input) in Corby, which I appreciate sounds about as much fun as a hot black coffee enema, however it was genuinely a good time; full of opportunities waiting just around the corner.  

I distinctly remember finishing work on a Friday, driving home (ex wife's parents house at the time) in my Renault Clio (my very first car...weep), windows wound down, 'Columbia' blaring out of the speakers (plus, the album was on CASSETTE).  I almost get goose bumps thinking about it now.

Album 2: (What's the Story) Morning Glory

This is a truly great album. Re-listening in 2021, I can see why it really cemented Oasis' reputation as one of Britain's best bands at the time, and for a number of years afterwards.  

If Definitely, Maybe is the Bells whiskey of the collection, Morning Glory is the single-malt Glenlivet; similar base flavour, but a far more refined approach.  Fetch me the ice bucket, Jeeves!  

Every track is either literally a single or good enough to be one.  Even Liam's voice is better on this album.  In short, it's just bloody brilliant and as such my run was a breeze too.  You know it's a good album when you barely focus on the run at all and could actually go a further distance just to keep listening.  Top drawer.

Runner's rating (/5): RRRRR.  Yes - well spotted - that's the first full 5 R rating I've given.

Running time: 51 minutes
Distance: 7.1km
Calories: 550

Favourite track: Morning Glory.  They're pretty much all great though.

Worst track: Untitled 1 and Untiled 2 - they bring nothing to the party.

Fun fact: Released a year after Definitely, Maybe, I was just beginning to get into music at this point. I seem to vaguely remember buying this from Woolworths' CD aisle in St Neots, Cambridge where I lived at the time.  Pretty canny edition to the early Dan Thomas collection.  Before you think too highly of me though, I am duly bound to point out that the first piece of music I ever physically bought (single or album) was...

....wait for it...

'Where's the Love'.  

By Hanson.

I'll just leave this here:

Sorry.

Stimulation Theory

Well, here we are; I've actually completed the Muse discography.  

To be totally honest, I actually completed it exactly one week ago, however work and life in general has been that busy this week that I simply haven't found time to write about it until now.  Either that, or I'm just a lazy, no-good bum.  You be the judge.

Anyway, some quick reviews before I get on to the stats and some final thoughts on my Muse adventure. 

Album 7 - Drones

Holy shit, I did not see this one coming.  After quite a number of generally mixed-bag, overall lackluster efforts (really since Blackholes, to be honest), this was, ironically, quite the Revelation.  Bloody great album!  What makes it great is that it's big, fat and noisy in the best possible way. It's not the early Showbiz barbed-wire dirge, nor the latter Resistance syrup of pretentiousness; it's bold, catchy and frankly - it rocks.  Plus, it's actually consistent. I enjoyed 80% of this album I'd say; easily the most since Absolution. Plus 'Reapers' is just hardcore amazing - my favourite Muse song of their entire collection and one I actually hadn't heard of at all until running to Drones.  Loved running to this album and I've listened to it several times since.

Running time: 53 minutes
Distance: 7.1km
Calories: 557 

R Rating: RRRRr

Fun fact: Released in June 2015, the year I officially became a homeowner.  Whoop!

Album 8 - Simulation Theory

Not as good as Drones, but not bad.  It's still pretty catchy; less rock, more poppy synths layered throughout, but it's decent.  Some decent tunes throughout and not too bad to run to overall.  At 47 minutes, it's actually comfortably the shortest running time of all their albums, which was very well received for a final Muse run-off!

Running time: 47 minutes
Distance: 6km
Calories: 473

R rating: RRRr

Fun fact: Released on 9th November 2018, the actual day of my (35th) birthday and the day I could no longer kid myself I was in my 'early' thirties!

FINAL MUSE STATS AND THOUGHTS:

Top five Muse songs:

1) Knights of Cydonia 

2) Reapers

3) Hysteria

4) Unnatural Selection

5) Pressure

Top album: Absolution 

(Followed by closely by Drones, then Origin and Blackholes and Revelations)

Worst album:  The Resistance.  By far.

Running Stats:

Total running time: 427 minutes (7.1 hours)

Total distance covered: 55.2km / 34.3 miles
Total calories burnt: 4, 344

Here's the kicker though... 

Total pounds lost: 0

Yes, dearest reader, you read that right. ZERO F---------- POUNDS.  How is this even scientifically possible??

To say that I was a little sore about this at the time would be a *slight* understatement (if I'd had a sledgehammer at the time the scales would literally have been obliterated), but hey - I'm over it.  

I always said that undertaking this challenge wasn't about losing weight per se and that I have always been thrown off my focus in the past when this happens.  So I'm not going to let it throw me off this time... onwards I march (run).  Besides which, losing weight and becoming a bit more healthy is a process, not an event.  

In just the same way that you don't simply wake up one day being massively overweight, having a an all-consuming addiction, phobia or anxiety - it slowly builds as imperceptive layers over time - so too for losing weight or becoming fitter, stronger, happier.  

Keep on keeping on, as Curtis Mayfield might say.