The 1997 Book The sovereign individualWilliam Rees Mogg & James Dale Davidson argue convincingly that the power dominant at the time has always been undermined. By new technologies. People and their properties were frequently geographically static due to advances in agriculture, which made them easy prey for attackers. “specialists in violence”, the forerunners of the modern government, were at the same time both plunderers and protectors. Stirrups, contoured saddles, spurs, and curb bits had an effect similar to that of the stirrup. They shifted power from heavy cavalry towards a knight with a weapon. Gunpowder Revolution upset the feudal system of that time, which was reinforced by the Catholic church. Rees Mogg & Davidson Write “the Church tended to make religious virtues of its own economic interests, while militating against the development of manufacturing and independent commercial wealth that were destined to destabilize the feudal system.” Printing press has disrupted Church even furtherIts monopoly over biblical narration was destroyed. This resulted in a significant loss of its power and influence, which led to the rise of modern nation-states.
Rees Mogg & Davidson assert that the microprocessor will undoubtedly disrupt the nation-state in the same manner that the printing presses disrupted Christendom a couple of hundred years back. The internet itself (a globally-interconnected community) and public key cryptography (which protects both communications and property of Bitcoin) are made possible by microprocessors.
Both the present and future
The currency war is one of the major fronts in decentralization. Bitcoin, which was introduced in 2009, has enabled us to do business without any permissions, no borders and, (often), anonymously. The nation states are jealous of anyone who challenges their money monopoly and will spend huge sums to prevent any serious competition. Bitcoin offers an alternative, and is therefore being attacked by groups like politicians Then, there is the crumbling legacy media.
To transact with Bitcoin you will need miners. The regulators of Europe and America were no doubt watching as China prohibited Bitcoin mining 2021. However, this only resulted to the majority having the most hashing powers. moving From that country, to the United States. They know they will lose control of the regulatory system and revenue due to Bitcoin mining if they ban Bitcoin in Europe and America. Thus, for now, not even Elizabeth Warren – the most Bitcoin-hostile legislator in Washington – proposes to outright ban Bitcoin. Instead, she proposes To expand Know-Your-Customer (KYC), rules on to all participants in the Bitcoin eco-system, and to discourage technologies that enhance privacy or self-protection.
Bitcoin’s hardware is a major weakness (for now). University of Cambridge industry reports are produced on Bitcoin mining. communicates Most Bitcoin miners use an “ASIC” Singapore-based Company produces a chip that mines Bitcoin using the SHA-256 algorithm. BitmainMicroBT, Canaan and other competitors are trailing in their wake. No matter where Bitmain manufactures its ASIC chips the best scenario for Bitcoin decentralization is that the production of ASIC miner (and mining in general) be distributed around the world, so that no region can have an absolute advantage. A good compromise would involve the production of ASIC miner chips at a high level and at scale, but by a greater number than currently exist. This would allow for collusion to be less common.
Artificial Intelligence is the second front in which decentralization will be fought. Peter Thiel spoke at a seminar I attended. It was very similar to what I recall him saying: “Bitcoin is a technology that, on net, favors the individual. AI is a technology that, on net, favors the state.” The latter technology, which favors the state, is what makes it so important to get as many people as possible involved in building a decentralized world.
Bitcoin and AI both pose a similar risk: the possibility of a future where hardware would be monitored, registered under law. For Bitcoin miners, this would require them to register their ASIC chip. It could be that, for AI, you and I, too, would need to register graphics processor units (GPUs), above a specific capacity. (Or, in the software case, that matrixes are required to be registered.) Guillaume Verdon is the man behind @BasedBeffJesos. highlighted Lex Fridman discussed this issue in a recent podcast, saying that the risk could have serious consequences. “[stop] the open source ecosystem from thriving… by executive order, claiming that open source LLMs are dual-use technologies and should be government-controlled.”
While executive orders cannot kill Bitcoin, they can discourage people from using Bitcoin. Similar reporting requirements for bitcoin miners will likely have a significant impact on Bitcoin’s open source. source ecosystem.
Third, 3D printers, assembly tools, and similar devices are a major battlefield. “maker” arsenal. It is a weapon. “maker” movement This article reveals a possible future solution for the centralization problem in Bitcoin and AI.
Imagine the world where 3D printers are available in every home, along with their accompanying tools. What if you could 3D print anything? own Decentralization has advanced light years with the advent of high-quality ASIC Bitcoin mining machines and GPUs to run large language models.
Let’s ignore the scenario of the near future, where 3D Printers and other “maker” The tools used for Bitcoin hardware and AI are the same ones that were once employed by the Catholic Church in 15th-16th century Europe. As of now, one government looks at 3D printers with the same suspicion as the Catholic Church did towards the printing press during the Renaissance. New York State Assembly Bill A8132If passed, it would be necessary to conduct criminal background checks and send fingerprints to the FBI in order to buy 3D printers “capable of creating firearms.” It would be reasonable to assume that governments will fear losing their power. own Registration and centralization will be a priority. “KYC” доавление метод уравлени модулне модели на основании тенолоиески леки ораниаии, которе треут сеодн инормаии воросами сима
Note that the Soviet Union also had controls over seemingly innocuous products like books, photocopiers, fax machines – all of which facilitated the spread of information, and thus, threatened the regime. In East Germany there were also similar attempts to limit the sales of fabric for hot air-balloons, in order to keep people from leaving to West Germany. See the 1982 American movie Night Crossing German movie “The 2018” Balloon Both documents a true escape).
Localized production, either at home or a community fabrication lab or “fab lab”As 3D printers, and similar devices become more popular with governments around the world “maker” The tools can produce more complex electronics. For now, the number of fab labs is growing rapidly. well over 2,000 They are spread all over the globe, with various government levels of assistance. By the way, these fab labs don’t include the many personalized labs that people have in their homes.
Neil Gershenfeld of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms tries understand the world when anyone can make anything and when machines can even make machines more advanced than themselves and with local-sourced materials.
Gershenfeld makes a point in an argument. podcast appearance Localized production doesn’t scale, and is usually for private use rather than commercial sales. Localized manufacturing is not scaled and it is generally for personal use, rather than commercial sale. own 3D-printed and home-assembled Bitcoin miner and then combine their individual hashing power with others in a mining pool and coordinate with one another over the Tor network… then the world starts to look much more decentralized.
The conclusion of the article is:
The common thread between Bitcoin, AI and 3D printing is decentralization. They all have the potential to disrupt nation states. Both Bitcoin’s ASICs and GPUs that run LLMs are located in the real world, where nations have a dominant position. Governments may be more hostile to such hardware, requiring KYC or criminal background checks. Interesting, 3D Printers, Assemblers, and Other “maker” The tools can be used for manufacturing locally (either at home or on so-called “localized” factories) now or in future. “fab labs”(), which enables a more decentralized and globalized world.
On the policy side, there are criminal background checks, registration requirements for 3D Printers, and more. “maker” The tools proposed in New York Assembly Bill A8132 are to be treated with caution and political opposition.
Emile Phamauf is the author of this guest post. All opinions are the author’s. own These views do not reflect the opinions of BTC Inc.
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
“ItsDailyCrypto is not responsible for any activities you perform outside ItsDailyCrypto.”
Source: bitcoinmagazine.com