Bitcoin's origin, early growth, and evolution

Bitcoin is based on the ideas laid out in a 2008 whitepaper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

The paper detailed methods for "allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." The technologies deployed solved the 'double spend' problem, enabling scarcity in the digital environment for the first time.

The listed author of the paper is Satoshi Nakamoto, a presumed pseudonym for a person or group whose true identity remains a mystery. Nakamoto released the first open-source Bitcoin software client on January 9th, 2009, and anyone who installed the client could begin using Bitcoin.

Initial growth of the Bitcoin network was driven primarily by its utility as a novel method for transacting value in the digital world. Early proponents were, by and large, 'cypherpunks' - individuals who advocated the use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political change. However, speculation as to the future value of Bitcoin soon became a significant driver of adoption.

The price of bitcoin and the number of Bitcoin users rose in waves over the following decade. As regulators in major economies provided clarity on the legality of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, a large number of Bitcoin exchanges established banking connections, making it easy to convert local currency to and from bitcoin. Other businesses established robust custodial services, making it easier for institutional investors to gain exposure to the asset as a growing number of high-profile investors signaled their interest.

At its most basic level, Bitcoin is useful for transacting value outside of the traditional financial system. People use Bitcoin to, for example, make international payments that are settled faster, more securely, and at lower transactional fees than through legacy settlement methods such as the SWIFT or ACH networks.

In the early years, when network adoption was sparse, Bitcoin could be used to settle even small-value transactions, and do so competitively with payment networks like Visa and Mastercard (which, in fact, settle transactions long after point of sale). However, as Bitcoin became more widely used, scaling issues made it less competitive as a medium of exchange for small-value items. In short, it became prohibitively expensive to settle small-value transactions due to limited throughput on the ledger and the lack of availability of second-layer solutions. This supported the narrative that Bitcoin's primary value is less as a payment network and more as an alternative to gold, or 'digital gold.' Here, the argument is that Bitcoin derives value from a combination of the technological breakthroughs it integrates, its capped supply with 'built-into-the-code' monetary policy, and its powerful network effects. In this regard, the investment thesis is that Bitcoin could replace gold and potentially become a form of 'pristine collateral' for the global economy.

Another popular narrative is that Bitcoin supports economic freedom. It is said to do this by providing, on an opt-in basis, an alternative form of money that integrates strong protection against (1) monetary confiscation, (2) censorship, and (3) devaluation through uncapped inflation. Note that this narrative is not mutually exclusive from the 'digital gold' narrative.

Read more: How does governance work in Bitcoin?

Read more: What is Bitcoin mining?

Bitcoin is not a static protocol. It can and has integrated changes throughout its lifetime, and it will continue to evolve. While there are a number of formalized procedures for upgrading Bitcoin (see "How does Bitcoin governance work?"), governance of the protocol is ultimately based on deliberation, persuasion, and volition. In other words, people decide what Bitcoin is.

In several instances, there have been significant disagreements amongst the community as to the direction that Bitcoin should take. When such disagreements cannot be resolved through deliberation and persuasion, a portion of users may - of their own volition - choose to acknowledge a different version of Bitcoin.

The alternative version of Bitcoin with the greatest number of adherents has come to be known as Bitcoin Cash (BCH). It arose out of a proposal aiming to solve scaling problems that had resulted in rising transaction costs and increasing transaction confirmation times. This version of Bitcoin began on August 1st, 2017.

Read more: What is Bitcoin Cash?

Read the original post:
What is Bitcoin? | How Do Bitcoin and Crypto Work? | Get ...

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) addresses a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 6, 2021.

Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

AUSTIN, TEXAS The Texas power grid is struggling with fluctuating energy prices and sporadic service, but the state's growing bitcoin mining community believes it can help fix it.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz agrees. "A lot of the discussion around bitcoin views bitcoin as a consumer of energy," said Cruz at an event in October. "The perspective I'm suggesting is very much the reverse, which is as a way to strengthen our energy infrastructure."

The grid is called ERCOT short for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which is the organization tasked with operating it and it's fussy and temperamental.

ERCOT powers about 90% of the state, but to run smoothly, it requires a perfect balance between supply and demand. Having too much power and not enough buyers is just as bad as everyone wanting to fire up their AC units on the same day in July.

Maintaining that balance has proven to be a real challenge this year, and Texans are feeling it.

The price of power per hour is all over the place, routinely going negative. Rolling blackouts at moments of peak power consumption no longer come as a surprise. A lot of people lost faith in the grid altogether after a winter storm earlier this year resulted in a multi-system meltdown that "was within minutes of a much more serious and potentially complete blackout."

Crypto enthusiasts believe the fix to this problem is actually to add another electricity consumer into the mix a buyer who will take as much power as they're given, whatever the time of day, and are just as willing to power down with a few seconds' notice. These flexible buyers are bitcoin miners.

Mining for cryptocurrencies is the computationally intensive process by which new tokens are created and transactions of existing digital coins are verified.

At the Texas Blockchain Summit in October, Cruz pointed to the ability of bitcoin miners to turn their rigs on or off within seconds a feature that is hugely beneficial during times when energy needs to be shifted back to the grid to meet demand.

"If you have a moment where you have a power shortage or a power crisis, whether it's a freeze or some other natural disaster where power generation capacity goes down, that creates the capacity to instantaneously shift that energy to put it back on the grid," Cruz said of the ability of bitcoin miners to shut down their operations within seconds.

But not all are convinced that bitcoin miners are the solution.

"Miners are a strain on the grid, not a help," said Ben Hertz-Shargel of Wood Mackenzie, a provider of commercial intelligence for the world's natural resources sector. Hertz-Shargel is concerned that bitcoin mining would only raise peak demand, ultimately adding stress to the system.

ERCOT has a heartbeat. That may sound like a romantic metaphor, but it actually gives off a hum like when a guitar isn't properly plugged into an amp.

It's the sound of 60 hertz, a frequency common to all grids in North America. A steady tone means there's as much electricity going onto the grid as there is coming off it. If the power supply surpasses customer demand, the beat speeds up. If customers use more power than what's available on the grid, the heartbeat slows down.

The grid can manage small gyrations to its heartbeat, according to Shaun Connell, the EVP of power at Lancium, a Houston-based energy tech company that specializes in bitcoin mining. But Connell tells CNBC that when ERCOT's grid pulse falls to 59.4 Hertz or below for more than nine minutes, machines start to protect themselves by automatically shutting off and disconnecting from the grid. In some cases, that might mean power plants going dark.

If the heartbeat falls even farther than that, it could trigger a "heart attack" scenario. Think grid-wide blackout and a hard restart of the whole system.

These fluctuations also correspond to the grid's volatile price swings. Connell tells CNBC that in 2020, the price of energy in West Texas was negative between 10% and 20% of the time. The price dips below zero when supply outpaces demand.

So far this year, the price of power per hour has been negatively priced 9% of the time, while 5% of all hours this year have peaked above $100.

Extreme tails like the ones shown in the chart below aren't a good thing.

Keeping a steady heartbeat is tough for ERCOT for a couple of reasons.

For one, the Texas grid functions as its own isolated and deregulated electrical island. Unlike the rest of the continental U.S., which belongs to either the Eastern or Western interconnection (the names of the two American power grids linking states), 90% of Texas runs on ERCOT. This means ERCOT cannot quickly turn to neighbors for help when large generators trip offline or renewables do not deliver as expected. This can prove especially problematic when there's a natural disaster, like the winter storm in early 2021.

ERCOT's market-driven approach to energy planning shows up in another feature and occasional shortcoming of the grid: Its "just-in-time" delivery model. At the best of times, this saves everybody money. No one needs to hoard backup fuel when Texas' elaborate underground maze of wells and pipes can deliver it on demand. But February laid bare the worst-case scenario, when the state's natural gas production (burning natural gas is a major source of electricity for the state) fell by almost half during the cold snap.

Third, Texas is flush with renewables and rapidly onboarding these inherently unstable sources of power to its grid. While this is helping to decarbonize ERCOT by replacing less environmentally friendly power sources like coal and natural gas with wind and solar, renewable energy is unpredictable. At any given hour, it could be breezy and sunny, or it could be cloudy with no wind, meaning the grid has to brace for all renewable energy to go offline at any point and have a backup power source on deck.

Finally, the state's biggest population centers are often far from where power is generated. For example, low-cost renewable energy sites stretch across West Texas, hours from major hubs like Dallas and Austin.

Or take the rural town of Rockdale. It was once home to the largest aluminum plant in the world, run by Alcoa. But starting in 2008, it began to shut down its operations. That energy capacity was going to waste, as it would've been prohibitively expensive to build the transmission capacity necessary to carry it to major population centers. The arrival of crypto miners helped to resolve that imbalance by consuming the surplus energy.

To ensure grid reliability at all times, demand must be even with supply. ERCOT operators can tinker with the supply side, spinning natural gas turbines up or down on short notice to make up for the volatility of renewables, but typically, grid operators aim to reduce customer demand to maintain balance.

Through established "demand response" programs, ERCOT will actually pay major industrial users to cut power. If that curtailment does not prove sufficient, the grid can also request that residential buyers conserve their power use voluntarily. And when all else fails, ERCOT can run rolling blackouts, shutting down different parts of the state in quick succession but with no one patch suffering an outage for an extended period of time.

The problem with that first and best option is that many of these arrangements between ERCOT and energy buyers require response times of ten to thirty minutes. But because ERCOT is going it alone, the grid requires a much faster reaction, sometimes in the range of sub-seconds, according to Lancium's Connell.

This is where bitcoin mining comes into play. Miners function as "interruptible load," meaning they are able to turn off all of their machines with a few seconds' notice when the grid is in a pinch and needs the extra power. Bitcoin has no uptime requirement, nor is the gear worn down by regularly powering off and on.

It also makes good economic sense for the miners. Miners commit to buying a certain amount of power,and either use it for mining if the grid doesn't need it, or sell it back at a profit if the grid demands it.

Transmission towers are shown on June 15, 2021 in Houston, Texas. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which controls approximately 90% of the power in Texas, has requested Texas residents to conserve power through Friday as temperatures surge in the state.

Brandon Bell | Getty Images

"Imagine how much you would have to pay Amazon to say, 'Hey, there's too much demand for power. Please power down your data center,'" said bitcoin mining engineer Brandon Arvanaghi, who now runs Meow, a company that enables corporate treasury participation in crypto markets.

"But it can do that with bitcoin very easily, because all you have to do is pay the miners slightly more than what they would have made mining for bitcoin that hour," continued Arvanaghi.

Even bitcoin miners that haven't cut a deal with ERCOT sometimes voluntarily power down at times of peak consumption when prices shoot higher.

Lancium is building bitcoin mines where wind and solar are abundant and the transmission system is constrained, meaning that power wants to flow down the line, but the lines are full.

As Lancium Chief Executive Officer Michael McNamara describes it, these sites act like a large power station but in reverse. The mines will absorb abundant renewable energy at times when supply outpaces demand, thereby monetizing these assets when there are no other buyers. And on the flip side, the mines will incrementally ramp down their energy intake, as demand on the grid rises.

In a sense, you can almost think of bitcoin miners as temporary buyers keeping these energy assets operational until the grid is able to fully absorb them.

"In times of scarcity, our data centers will go down, and those lines can carry the renewable energy to Houston, Dallas and Austin where they need the energy," said McNamara.

McNamara tells CNBC the net effect of this is retiring coal and gas faster, while rapidly adding wind and solar at the same time, essentially making bitcoin mining a fundamentally decarbonizing technology.

Bitcoin can also be used to unlock the state's sequestered deposits of natural gas.

For years, oil and gas companies have struggled with the problem of what to do when they accidentally hit a natural gas formation while drilling for oil. Whereas oil can easily be trucked out to a remote destination, gas delivery requires a pipeline.

If a drilling site is right next door to a pipeline, they chuck the gas in and take whatever cash the buyer on the other end is willing to pay that day. But if it's 20 miles from a pipeline, things start to get more complicated.

More often than not, the gas well won't be big enough to warrant the time and expense of building an entirely new pipeline. If a driller can't immediately find a way to sell the stash of natural gas, most look to dispose of it on site.

One method is to vent it, which releases methane directly into the air a poor choice for the environment, as its greenhouse effects are shown to be much stronger than carbon dioxide. A more environmentally friendly option is to flare it, which means actually lighting the gas on fire.

But flares are only 75% to 90% efficient, according to Adam Ortolf, who heads up business development in the U.S. for Upstream Data, a company that manufactures and supplies portable mining solutions for oil and gas facilities. "Even with a flare, some of the methane is being vented without being combusted," he said.

This is when on-site bitcoin mining can prove to be especially impactful.

Ortolf says that when the methane is run into an engine or generator, 100% of the methane is combusted and none of it leaks or vents into the air.

"But nobody will run it through a generator unless they can make money, because generators cost money to acquire and maintain," he said. "So unless it's economically sustainable, producers won't internally combust the gas."

Bitcoin makes it economically sustainable.

"50% of the natural gas in this country that is flared, is being flared in the Permian right now in West Texas. I think that is an enormous opportunity for bitcoin, because that's right now energy that is just being wasted," said Cruz in October.

Hertz-Shargel from Wood Mackenzie predicts that bitcoin could more than double demand growth in ERCOT's territory, but unlike Cruz, he doesn't think that additional demand is a good thing.

"The analogy I like to use is that if you start smoking two packs a day and then cut back to one pack on holidays, that doesn't make smoking good for your health," he says.

"The net impact is a very large addition of load onto the grid," agrees AdrianShelley, who runs the Texas branch of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy and lobbying group. Shelley suspects that not all of that consumption is concentrated during times where there is a surplus of energy.

"I don't know that it would be the case that they would only use energy that there otherwise wasn't demand for," Shelley told CNBC.

Hertz-Shargel argues that ERCOT should be focused on grid improvements to make it easier to get power from solar and wind farms to big consumption centers, and that bitcoin miners aren't the right way to deal with demand fluctuations. Instead, he argues, "the intermittency of renewables should be met with demand response from societally-beneficial loads, like industrial facilities, commercial buildings, and residential air conditioners or energy storage."

But ERCOTinterim CEO Brad Jones thinks bitcoin miners can be helpful.

Jones has been touring the state and hosting public events to answer questions from Texans about the electric grid. Besides winter weather, the impact of cryptocurrency mining on the grid is a common question.

"I'm pro bitcoin...but I'm too risk averse to be an investor in bitcoin," Jones told a crowd of residents in Frisco, Texas on Wednesday night. The ERCOT chief went on to explain the mutually beneficial relationship between the grid and bitcoin miners.

"A lot of these solar and wind can produce power down to a negative power range, negative $23 per megawatt hour," Jones said. "These bitcoins see that as a great opportunity. They can get paid to use power. And that's why they're coming to the state. But that's not necessarily bad."

Jones makes the point that negative power isn't healthy for the market. Bitcoin miners "soak up" some of that negative power, and when the cost of electricity gets slightly higher than what they're willing to pay for it (around $100, according to Jones), they shut off.

"So I think it's really a valuable potential resource for us."

Continued here:
Bitcoin miners say they're helping to fix the broken Texas electric grid and Ted Cruz agrees - CNBC

We tend to think of the world as the past, present and future, and as these distinguished moments in time. However, we intuitively know that this is not the case. Instead, we are always in a state of flux, this slow progressive evolution in order to suit humanitys growing needs, knowledge and demands. However, with change comes adjustment, and what we are facing right now is an adjustment to the digital realm, the world of Bitcoin and our digital identity: a crossing of the chasm, a state of change away from the physical realm of traditional finance, legacy structures and the world as we know it. This article is meant to highlight some of these critical hurdles brought up by Raoul Pal and Robert Breedlove in an effort to get the collective consciousness thinking about how we can transition to this digital realm with minimal volatility and entropy.

One thing Raoul and Breedlove bring up many times throughout the talk is the metaverse. Therefore, lets first ensure we are on the same page when it comes to the metaverse. We often hear the metaverse is the future; however, what most deep down the rabbit hole may argue is that the metaverse has been blossoming into existence since the birth of the internet. However, we are only just starting to define it now. Lets go deeper ...

Most of us tend to interpret the metaverse as this digital environment where we hang out in a virtual world- the world Mark Zuckerberg is pushing with his Facebook ads, i.e., Meta. But, I would argue that the metaverse is not this virtual world that it is made out to be, but rather a digital interface to ones digital self. It is our digital identity where we interact with our online social community, manage our digital possessions and store our digital wealth, to name a few aspects which are currently easy to identify. With that being said, this osmosis into the metaverse is not a movement of people away from the physical world into the digital world, but rather a transfer of wealth and identity from the physical realm to the digital realm. Although many people already do and will continue to spend time in digital worlds in video games and social platforms, most of us will still very much be rooted in the physical world for the time being.

Building on this idea, what will happen to physical assets? An assets value is subjective and is worth something usually because it provides value to us in some way or another. At the moment, our physical assets offer greater perceived value than our digital assets. This explains the discrepancy between the value of physical versus digital assets globally, e.g., real estate is worth over $300 trillion while the complete cryptocurrency market cap sits at $2.5 trillion (recently as high as $3 trillion). The question now is, how does this value shift over into the metaverse? This, I believe, is a demographic shift. As our population ages, those in earlier generations with limited exposure to the digital realm (i.e., digital identity, digital assets or digital possessions), will slowly bequeath their wealth to their offspring, which will find greater value as technology evolves in the metaverse. However, it should be noted that you will find utility and value in different areas and offerings within the metaverse depending on your age, values, interests, gender and location. Some people may choose to stay primarily in the physical world if the metaverse doesnt seem to provide ample value to them. Others may dive in headfirst.

Where are we now? We are currently in a state of limbo, one toe in the digital plane and the rest of the body out. Most of us have exposure to the metaverse when it comes to our digital identity, but only a handful of us find greater value in digital assets over physical assets, although this is quickly changing. However, as we see greater adoption, we will also encounter greater hurdles (technological, political, financial etc.). Taking this into account, this shift towards the metaverse isnt something that will happen overnight. As previously mentioned, it is a generational demographic shift that has been underway since the invention of the internet. The transition from handwritten letters to email and social media was just the start. Now we should continue to see the transition of wealth, jobs, and identities to the digital plane.

When can we safely say the metaverse is our reality? Just like inflation impacts everyone differently, as it is dependent on your consumption habits, what you classify as the metaverse is unique to you. There are many ways to measure your presence in the metaverse, i.e., by time, wealth, reputation, interests, job, hobbies or knowledge. With that in mind, some people may argue that we are already in the metaverse due to the amount of time we spend engrossed in technology. On the other hand, others may say we havent reached that inflection point just yet, or that the metaverse will become our reality when:

- We spend more time connected to the digital realm than the physical realm - When digital wealth surpasses physical wealth

- When were able to vote for our politicians in this digital world

- When the majority of jobs are in the digital plane

- When we can digitally upload ones consciousness

...and some will say the metaverse will never become our reality.

My personal belief is that the metaverse is supplemental to our physical existence, and it is not one or the other. The metaverse eases our physical existence by dematerializing our limitations and constraints, such as distance, time, aging, wealth, connection, etc. However, there is and will continue to be an abundance of value in the physical world. But ultimately, this decision of whether we are or arent or what is versus what isnt the metaverse is not for me to decide. Ill pass that one onto you.

Opinions aside, although the definition of what constitutes the metaverse may be subjective, what's not so subjective is that we are and will continue to face hurdles as we see greater adoption.

Chart Source

Every new technology has to cross the chasm to reach mainstream adoption (the chasm is detailed in the image above). During this crossing of the chasm, we see creative destruction take hold, where legacy systems collapse and new technology changes the way we interact with theworld. All new technology has some form of disruption. Its just that some technology is more disruptive than others.

With the introduction of the digital camera, we witnessed the dismantling and disruption of the traditional film market. But from this, we saw the boon of photography and documentation. However, when it comes to cryptocurrencies, we have only just started to scratch the surface of what is possible. Here is an example of some of the sectors this new technology has the potential to disrupt:

- The financial system (banking, remittances, micropayments, credit markets, to name a few) - Social media and digital interaction

- The internet (our digital footprint)

- Voting

- Insurance

From everything mentioned so far, it should be evident that we are in the middle of a major global state change, a transfer of identity, wealth, possessions and interactions from the physical realm into the digital realm. As Raoul and Robert eloquently explain, with this state of change in place, we have to overcome some major hurdles. We need to ensure we are heading in the right direction collectively. Therefore, we should ask ourselves, how do we get there safely, without a consolidation of power or the crippling of our economy? These are a few key questions we have to figure out before conquering the chasm of adoption. Lets touch on a few key hurdles we have to face:

If an asset, such as bitcoin, is our primary currency and store of value and it is wildly outperforming the majority of other investment opportunities, then we will be disincentivized to transact and spend with it. Yes, there will be occasions here and there, but in general, the majority of the world we know will be starved of capital. This will push central banks to intervene and over-regulate in order to stop this capital flight from traditional assets to digital assets, but in doing so, itll only lock people into our failing system, delaying the inevitable and amplifying its negative effects down the line.

Eventually, if we can predominately move across into the digital realm, this problem of capital flight will be solved. At this point, bitcoin will reach market saturation, similar to gold today, where it protects purchasing power but is no longer an asymmetric bet on technology and a failure of the current system. But in the interim, how do we take advantage of bitcoins positive properties while also promoting the exchange of bitcoin between one another?

In the short term, if we were to see a seismic shift of capital away from traditional assets and into digital assets, this starvation of capital from traditional assets would create sizable losses. Suppose traditional assets start facing major losses, while at the same time, there is a lack of transacting in digital assets, creating a reduction in realized gains; then wed have a problem on our hands. We could see a significant decrease in capital gain revenue and an increase in capital losses, further eroding the tax base. This could push policymakers to implement overbearing regulation, resulting in measures such as taxation on unrealized gains. This would stifle the prosperity in the metaverse and limit the transition of individuals to the digital realm.

In the long term, if we embrace a currency such as bitcoin as a legal tender:

1. The government will no longer receive capital gains tax from any appreciation in the value of bitcoin. This would be in line with the fact that a countrys legal tender is not subject to taxation if/when it appreciates/depreciates.

2. We live in an inherently deflationary world, whereby technological advancement allows us to get more for less. Over time this advancement increases productivity and efficiency, causing the cost of goods, services and assets to decline slowly. However, this is only possible under a currency with a fixed money supply (such as bitcoin). The lack of monetary expansion causing dilution would allow the currency to capture these technological gains. This may sound positive; however over time, most assets may decline in price, resulting in increased capital losses, reducing tax revenue.

With that being said, one could argue that by adopting a currency such as bitcoin, the government will no longer be spending in a currency that loses purchasing power one day to the next. Therefore, all tax revenue will go further, making up for this reduction in tax revenue. If that is the case, then this may all come out in the wash. However, we should still be conscious of these potential taxation issues. With that in mind, how do we ensure that assets such as bitcoin are taxed appropriately, but as not to restrict their potential as a solution to our fragile system? And, how do we take into account an increase in capital losses?

We are in the middle of one of the biggest revolutions in human history, and alongside this revolution, we face an assortment of immense deflationary forces such as:

- Demographics (an aging population with limited purchasing power)

- Our major debt burden consuming productive capital

- Technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robots consuming jobs

- Competition in the workforce due to overcrowding of what jobs remain

- Currency debasement, destroying our purchasing power

- Monetary intervention suppressing interest rates and traditional asset returns - Capital flight into the digital realm putting strain on the traditional system

As these forces become more pervasive, it becomes harder and harder for the lower- and middle-income segments of the population to survive. This is a big issue! The majority of the population is under immense pressure as they are being squeezed from all angles. How do we give them a voice, meet their needs and stop them from revolting?

One potential option Raoul proposes is embracing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), allowing easier implementation of fiscal stimulus such as universal basic income (UBI). By doing so, we could redirect the flow of the capital away from asset owners and into the hands of the most at-risk individuals. This will aid in bridging the gap between the physical and the digital realm for the lower- and middle-wealth percentiles, allowing them to support themselves as these deflationary pressures take hold.

My worry with this view is that CBDCs have the potential to give governments globally immense power and control. If this power is used in the ways mentioned above, then I am all for it. However, if CBDCs are used with the interests of the few in mind, this will only further consolidate wealth and power and could potentially end this utopian decentralized vision of the metaverse. Therefore, is there a way to implement CBDCs but somehow define the boundaries for which they can be used, preventing misuse and the centralization of power?

However, regardless of which route we chose to bridge the chasm, Raoul does bring up a good point: if we are able to transition over to a decentralized metaverse and democratize this incredible technological boon in productivity and innovation, then we may be able to implement a natural form of UBI, where we could monetize our own digital identity. Although this is currently not possible, as our online corporations current structure is to capitalize off of our data by monetizing our every move, a decentralized metaverse shifts this power and revenue generation into the hands of the user.

As technology advances, we are and will continue to see robots and AI replacing our jobs. Additionally, as energy costs slowly trend to near zero, we should see the cost of living slowly decline. Adding in the fact that we are witnessing a giant demographic shift where people have fewer children due to the costly environment we live in, this should cause gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to skyrocket. This could mean we are about to face one of the most productive periods in human history.

However, with costs slowly working their way to near zero and jobs being replaced by technology, resulting in more time on our hands, will this considerable increase in productivity bring about:

1. A decentralized open-source world where we push for equality of opportunity and where technology is shared freely? If so, this could result in a renaissance period with a focus on culture, art, and science leading to immense prosperity, innovation, and growth;

Or,

2. A darker, more centralized productivity boon where the vast majority of the patents pertaining to this powerful technology that now governs our lives is under the control of a few key players? In this case, we would most likely see significant poverty and some of humanitys more challenging times ahead due to the centralization of power and wealth.

On top of all that, we are currently seeing major global exploitation of our digital identities. Not only are we seeing our online data being used in for-profit activities, but we are also seeing targeted media leading to psychological manipulation allowing these large monopolistic entities to sway the population.

Unfortunately, with everything mentioned above, the free market isnt going to solve these hurdles we face in the way we want. It is going to solve them with the total accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. Therefore, what can we do to ensure this powerful technology of the future is in the hands of the people while also promoting the continuation of free markets?

With all that being said, how we approach these tough questions will define our future. Will crossing the chasm result in a:

a) Decentralized Metaverse? This would be a bright future where creative destruction is encouraged: Where there is a dispersion of power within a decentralized metaverse, brought about by rules and regulations that prevent the destruction and manipulation of the free markets, all while suppressing the overbearing powers of monopolies that asphyxiate competition. It should be noted that we may still have nation-state fiat currencies, but globally, wed embrace an immutable decentralized asset as our world reserve currency. This would lower the cost of living and democratize technology and finance, reducing wealth inequality. But more importantly, it would restrict the centralization of power with a technology that complements our deflationary world.

b) Centralized Metaverse? This would look similar to the current state of play, where a handful of large corporations have overwhelming control over our data and access to vast sums of capital, allowing them to lobby, protect their interests, and influence politics. In addition to the suppression of creative destruction, will we follow in Chinas footsteps and see the rise of CBDCs and social credit scores? This would give the government unfettered access to all our personal data, laying the foundation for the destruction of free markets and suppression of capital flows into any technology that poses a threat to the governments power.

Or will we walk the middle ground just like we have done many times throughout history, experiencing a give-and-take between centralization and decentralization?

We tend to think that when new technologies, such as Bitcoin and the metaverse appear, we all jump on board, and everything is hunky-dory. However, the reality is, if certain events had not happened the way they did, we might not have many of the innovations and advancements we see today. These technologies dont just appear. They are years in the making, a culmination of previous technological progress and human endeavours. They emerge from our experiences, needs and desires, and they are a byproduct of decisions we made ten, fifty, one hundred years ago. With this in mind, coming together as a collective, and understanding the unintended consequences of our choices will help guide us in making more efficient and productive decisions for the future.

The future is bright if we make it.

This is a guest post by Sebastian Bunney. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

See the original post here:
Facing The Chasm: The Future Of Bitcoin And The Metaverse - Bitcoin Magazine