Satoshi Nakamoto will be forever remembered for the magical breakthrough that altered the path of human history. While many will point to bitcoin as being a game changer, it is actually more isolated than that.
With the introduction of that network, we saw the solution to a problem that had long plagued cryptographers. How do you arrive at consensus without relying upon a centralized entity.
Before this, many wrestled with the problem. Therefore, the game changer from the Bitcoin network came from the fact there was decentralized consensus.
Our entire system is based upon a top-down architecture. In the past, horizontal structures such as cooperatives did not scale. While they were fine in smaller, isolated cases such as with a housing development, they failed when things grew larger and spread out geographically.
Also, they tend to break down if one actor simply decides to ignore the rules. We see this with fishing cooperatives where each agrees to pull in only a certain amount. If one decides to massively exceed it, the rest are almost forced to follow.
This is all eliminated with decentralized consensus. No central party needs to act as arbiter. Here is where society is facing a massive shift.
Most focus upon money since bitcoin was introduced as such. This extends to many other areas as we will see. However, even focusing upon the monetary system, when a key component is accounting, i.e. ledgers, this presents a massive problem.
Who is in control of the ledger? We all know the answer to that. It is why the entire global monetary and financial system is basically run by a cartel. The banks are in change of the ledgers, telling everyone what they own.
Bitcoin obliterated this instantly. We should not underestimate the power of decentralized consensus.
Of course, this applies to a lot more than money.
The entire world is networks.
What we just said about the banks operates against the backdrop of networks. The entire system is a series of networks, controlled by centralized entities. We can usually tell who is in control simply by looking at the name. That tends to be the entity in control of the networks.
Of course, there are networks that bridge between entities, controlled by someone else. Some entities have inserted themselves at this point in the process, operating as gatekeepers among entities. Then there is the interaction between customers and merchants, filled with even more centralized entities.
All of these end up generating databases.
In the social media realm, people like to say that these companies steal people's data. That is incorrect. Nothing is stolen. People willingly give their data over to these entities. It is all voluntary. They control the network.
That is akin to say the bank is stealing your data by placing debits and credits in your account. It is their ledger, database, and network.
Bitcoin broke the mold on this. Who owns the Bitcoin network? Nobody. This is a game changer.
It is also the essence of Web 3.0.
We often use the term Web 2.0 to summarize the client-server architecture that most companies utilize. Even before digitization, we were operating under the same structure. Humanity has dealt with this for a thousand years.
Satoshi provided the world with the ability to establish databases that do not require centralized consensus. Hence, many of the institutions that we commonly deal with are not necessary. Of course, they are not about to pack up and leave quietly.
There is a lot of discussion about artificial intelligence, specifically AGI, and the threat is poses.
Unfortunately, we are stuck relying upon the OpenAIs of the world to tell us if it is. The only consensus that company requires is from those involved such as Sam Altman, the board, and Microsoft. We are wholly dependent upon them.
At the same time, we see the ability to have polls and other ways of rating things online. How do we know the information is valid? We have to trust Amazon, Twitter, or Facebook. On most things, it really isn't that much of an issue.
However, we now have elections taking place throughout much of the world. How do we know those results are valid? We have to trust the government? That is a bad move as we know elections have been stolen throughout history.
This is the danger of centralized consensus.
Many are saying that data is the new oil. If that is the case, how come we have no control over it? Actually, if our lives are becoming increasingly more digital, why are our "lives" in the hands of these entities? Think about it for a second. If a Meta bans your account, your entire digital life, on that platform, just disappears. It is as if you were vaporized.
That is too much power in the hands of any company. Yet that is exactly what we see.
Satoshi gave us the solution. We put up with this because most of the world is still stuck with centralized consensus. The infrastructure, platforms, and networks have not been developed to replace it. This means that databases, the fuel for most everything including the economy, are still in the hands of the same entities.
Online personas are certainly a thing.
This means that, perhaps, the greatest change will be with digital identification. Once again, the present issue becomes evident.
Sovereignty is often discussed in Web 3.0 regarding money. This is naturally a part of it. That said, it is much bigger.
One simply is not free if a overseer, such as a digital platform, can simply wipe someone out and make like they never existed.
All of this stems from the age old problem where consensus had to be centralized. Satoshi presents us with another option.
It is also what has the ability to alter society.
