Summary
There is widespread agreement that blockchain will change the way we store, transfer and verify information in a way that the internet has not done. Bitcoin, the first and most well-known application of blockchain, is often criticized for its energy consumption. In this article, we argue that Bitcoin and blockchain are essential to solve the environmental crisis and that the energy consumption of Bitcoin is not a problem, but rather a solution.
Further, as Cathie Wood (CEO of Ark Invest) wisely pointed out in the debate on Bitcoin and blockchain in the debate with Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter and Square), and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla and Space X) on July 21, 2021, "social" and "governance" [2] are often forgotten. All three believe that Bitcoin, and other blockchains, can solve significant problems within "social" and "governance", which makes electricity consumption less relevant.
This article discusses the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI), bitcoin, and blockchain technology on the future development of humanity, and the environmental implications of these technologies. It highlights the rapid expansion of blockchain technology, which is growing at a rate of 113% per year, and the potential for it to revolutionize industries such as finance and healthcare. The article also discusses the concept of inflation and the potential for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to serve as a hedge against inflation. However, it also notes the environmental impact of bitcoin mining, which requires significant energy consumption. Bitcoin is currently the greenest technology on the planet, with between 39% and 75% of the energy used for mining coming from renewable sources. It also mentions that some countries, like Iceland and El Salvador, are using geothermal or volcanic heat to mine Bitcoin. The article argues that the social and governance benefits of Bitcoin, such as its ability to solve issues related to inflation and corrupt banking systems, outweigh any concerns about its energy consumption. The article also mentions that Bitcoin mining could potentially be used for heating and that the overall energy consumption of other blockchains, which have different purposes than storing digital property, is significantly lower. The article suggests that it is important for society to consider the potential consequences of these technologies and to navigate a responsible course for their future development.
Gorillas, militias, and Bitcoin: Why Congo’s most famous national park is betting big on crypto
To test your understanding of the material, try the English quiz below. Scroll down for the Norwegian version of the text.
Viking raid for digital gold
By: Espen Folmo & Nini Skarpaas Myhrvold
Once upon a time, Norway was a forward-thinking and brave country, a true "askeladd" nation—and we found oil! The hero knew little about oil, but luck was on our side when the marine boundaries between Britain and Norway were not yet drawn. The sharp-sighted ones who acquired competence rather than selling extraction rights created economic wind in the Viking sails. Today, the ship must change course to avoid sailing into the climate abyss. New technology, reduced consumption, and sustainable production are probably our only hope. Andøya is seeking to become the headquarters for satellite launches in Europe, evidence that forward-thinking lightning is taking root in Norway. In the climate debate, the compass may have rusted in place: where organic farming becomes too expensive for the farmer to run, and promoted oil drilling is supposed to be the life vest for green innovation? Of course, it is wise to keep a steady course rather than making hasty decisions. High oil prices strengthen the crown, which partially compensates for the price increase created by raw material shortages and sand in the global supply chain. However, the discontent at home is about high electricity prices, which often hit the weakest the hardest. Experiments by Frans de Waal show that the principle of fairness dominates behavior from advanced primates to humans, and looking through the hollow hand for perspective is probably a poor social economic guide. However, navigating ahead requires us to gain perspective, look ahead, and set sail. The waters are extremely complex, but we must still dare to accommodate paradoxes without being lost in thoughts. To navigate to a safer future, we should at least avoid misunderstanding new technology, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain. Here we will first look at the overall map, and then suggest a brave and wise course within new technology. There is significant empirical and theoretical evidence that there are three factors that will shape the future development of mankind more than anything else in the next decades: 1) Artificial intelligence, 2) Bitcoin and blockchain technology, and 3) environmental crisis. Here we want to look closer at Bitcoin and blockchain specifically. First, we will investigate what and why it is an essential factor. We will then visit the term inflation, before looking at what this means for the environment.
The invention of the blockchain—the technology that secures Bitcoin—is the fastest expanding technological development mankind has ever seen, and was referred to as being as fundamental as the invention of electricity by MIT Professor Christian Catalini as early as 2014. Gary Gensler, former MIT Professor and current head of the SEC, said in his speech to the EU that the blockchain is as important as the internet [1]. The blockchain is now growing twice as fast as the internet, i.e. 113% per year. There is widespread agreement among researchers and professionals that Bitcoin will be a beneficial investment for the environment and mankind, even though this blockchain uses as much electricity as the Christmas lights in the USA. Other blockchains, which have different purposes than being a secure storage mechanism for digital property, use significantly less electricity. The term ESG, which stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance, is used to ensure the correct course in many organizations, which is of course very wise. However, as Cathie Wood (CEO of Ark Invest) wisely pointed out in the debate on Bitcoin and blockchain in the debate with Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter and Square), and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla and Space X) on July 21, 2021, "social" and "governance" [2] are often forgotten. All three believe that Bitcoin, and other blockchains, can solve significant problems within "social" and "governance", which makes electricity consumption less relevant. Bitcoin is currently the greenest technology on the planet, and between 39% and 75% of the energy used to mine Bitcoin comes from renewable energy sources [3]. The figure varies significantly, and Musk has said that he will not accept Bitcoin as payment for Tesla cars until the figure is safely over 50%. His primary project is environmental protection, which is something that is impossible to disagree with. Iceland uses geothermal energy to mine Bitcoin. El Salvador, which has adopted Bitcoin as its national currency, produces the world's safest crypto-asset with volcanic heat. Several countries in Central and South America are considering the same, and Sri Lanka has recently appointed a committee to promote the integration of blockchain in order to fit into the future international market. On the other hand, it was not long ago that the leader of the MDG, Rasmus Hansson, said: "My biggest problem with bitcoin is that I don't understand what it is and why we should use Norwegian nature to extract it" [4].
We must zoom out from Norway to understand what makes many people today feel almost spiritual or religious allegiance to Bitcoin, and that this is one possible solution to many of humanity's greatest challenges, including the environmental crisis. Dorsey believes that Bitcoin is humanity's best attempt at survival and creating world peace. What on earth is wrong with him? We here in our green, oil-drilling, environmentally conscious North obviously know why this is the wildest nonsense: Bitcoin uses a lot of electricity! Even Elon Musk says so, even though he bought Bitcoin for one and a half billion dollars in March 2021—he has not sold it. But this Dorsey, and all others who believe that Bitcoin solves anything, should rather take a trip to us in Norway, and we will show them how we pump up oil to protect the environment and create world peace through strategic peace prizes. Some might argue that we Norwegians do not understand why Bitcoin is needed, because few of us have experienced having money in the bank for a house on Friday, but barely enough for a dog house on Monday. In our safe homes we close our eyes to the fact that there are several countries, even here in Europe, where this has been, or is, a reality. Both Dorsey and investment legend Paul Tudor Jones have recently been warning about accelerating inflation and that it is an enormous threat to society [5] [6]. The freedom we have here through systems such as Vipps alienates us from the corrupt bank systems in other parts of the world—systems where you are lucky if you are allowed to open a bank account, but still cannot dispose of it freely, with transaction costs higher than we would ever have found acceptable. Turkey is now officially at war with Bitcoin, and it is illegal to talk about inflation. Isn't that fascinating? Inflation is difficult to measure, and even the head of the US central bank, Jerome Powell, has claimed that inflation and employment targets are not credible at various press conferences in the past half year. Nevertheless, inflation is something that in practice is a sort of prohibition on saving. Perhaps the biggest problem is that when you prevent saving, for example through negative interest, you tend to create more consumption. After all, what do you do when you don't save by saving? Isn't that exactly more consumption that economists believe we need to save our economy? To put this in context, we need the following knowledge: Since 97% of the money in the world is printed out of thin air, as was empirically proven by Professor Richard Werner in 2014, we are dependent on printing more money, that is, making the value of our loans less. When the money supply increases, the quantity of goods should also increase. At places like the Business School and BI, you can earn a PhD in such principles, typically called supply and demand. So the answer is yes, to "save" an inflation-based economy, we need more consumption. But on the other hand, the UN believes that the temperature on our planet can now rise 5 degrees in 20 years. To put this in perspective, David Attenborough says that 4 degrees will cause even cockroaches to move to Mars, and if we remove one degree, we will soon have three kilometers of ice over our heads in Norway. It seems that the needs of the economy and the survival of the planet do not go hand in hand. It is clear that oil drilling, or turning off nuclear power plants in Germany and the US—and using coal-fired power plants instead —can be one solution to this. At least according to the most ardent greenwashers out there, who often assume political power based on short-term solutions that appear environmentally friendly on the surface. Another solution would of course be to ban Bitcoin, as we at least remove a power consumption that no one in Norway understands—and if there's something that really annoys us, it's things we don't understand (cf. Rasmus Hansson).
So, what on earth is this Bitcoin stuff? Well, Bitcoin is first and foremost three things:
- Money that is not controlled or seized by a government or other power.
- Bitcoin can also not be censored, but can easily be traced, which makes corrupt politicians and other criminals avoid Bitcoin (which is confirmed by research).
- Bitcoin is also property that does not need a police or military force to defend it."
These three properties may seem a bit meaningless to us Norwegians, so let's try to explain what this means in practice. Let's start with the forced marriage between state and economy. Once upon a time, state and religion were one and the same thing in most countries. This is no longer the case, but for some reason, the state and control over the money printing machine are often one and the same thing. This is also the case in Norway, but to a lesser extent than in many other places. It is clear to many that China wants total control over citizens who will soon be able to use their digital currency, and it is a poorly hidden secret that it is convenient for many countries to pay with money printed out of thin air. It's almost magic. If governments can print money ad infinitum, why do we have to pay taxes? The perhaps surprising answer is that we don't have to. Taxes are used in many countries to a large extent to punish or restrict certain types of behavior. Taxes are also a way to camouflage the tax on money printing. But when money is printed, the money becomes less valuable. Some people don't think so. Some people also think the earth is flat. For the rest of us, it seems relatively logical that more money in circulation leads to less value of the money. The problem with inflation, in addition to it being a hidden tax, is that it increases consumption. So you have to ask yourself if, after reading the first part of the relatively dystopian UN report (on the environment), you think increased consumption is something we should vote for with our money? We also mentioned that Bitcoin is property that cannot be seized. Now, we take property rights as a given here at home. But let's imagine that someone comes and moves into your house and throws your family out. Of course we know that the police will come and correct the misunderstanding. But all those who maintain law and order, whether by bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan, or by acting as intermediaries in all kinds of transactions—be they property, services, attention, or art—often take a significant portion of the transactions. Maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency, for example, requires a significant military and police budget. Or think about what it costs to insure the buyer/recipient that watches, diamonds, money, or art are genuine? What if there was an economic system where none of these parts were necessary? It exists, and it's called Bitcoin. It doesn't sound too bad actually—but it still uses electricity! Let's imagine that we go to the store and find meat that expired yesterday. Many stores avoid selling it to us at a cheap price, which they should do from an environmental standpoint—and increasingly do. It is the same with Bitcoin: Miners, those who maintain the safest value network on the planet, often seek out the cheapest electricity, that is, the one generated at night, in excess, or too far away from users. In addition, there is technological innovation at a high speed within the Bitcoin community, such as using the gas that is otherwise burned at oil platforms to create Bitcoin. But this is too good to be true, something must be terribly wrong? Well, there is no doubt that Bitcoin does not grow on trees, but when you reach the level that Dorsey has reached, after ten years of trying to improve the quality of life of people all over the world, world peace is probably more important than anything else. Much more important than Christmas lighting, and perhaps more important than strategic Nobel prizes as well. Many will challenge the claim that the Iraq war was due to Saddam Hussein getting the crazy idea to sell oil in euros, and we are also skeptical of many things. What we do not need to doubt is that measuring the world's values and services with rubber bands, and different rubber bands—for example, currencies that fluctuate in line with the government's printing press—leads to significant difficulties and injustice worldwide. And when, in addition, we have nations where politicians enrich themselves by printing money, it is quite possible that the answer is not as simple as pumping more oil and thinking that Bitcoin is something environmentally dirty. Not that any Norwegians think so, but maybe worth chewing on. When you chew a little, it is quite possible that in a few years you will wonder why we allowed energy for heating, which at the same time did not perform tasks such as AI algorithms, or Bitcoin mining. It is like firing the crow, as we say in good Norwegian. El Salvador's brave use of volcanoes to create Bitcoins almost reminds us of poor Norway, which at one time was brave enough to start extracting the natural resource oil! Maybe the oil of the future is digital? Well, most people refer to Bitcoin as digital gold, and it can now be sent almost cost-free at the speed of light via Twitter. Maybe Dorsey will win this round, but don't tell anyone—then they'll just start mining Bitcoin while heating up Frognerbadet. Who do you think the money would go to?"
Bitcoin mining is a way to validate transactions, and it requires electricity to do so. But it also requires a lot of complex computer equipment, and that equipment has to be disposed of eventually. This creates a lot of waste. So is Bitcoin environmentally friendly or not? It's not that simple. However, let's imagine we go to the store and find meat that was past its expiration date yesterday. Many stores avoid selling it, or at least label it as such. But what if the store owner could just print more money and buy more fish? Would the store owner do it? Of course they would. What would be consequences for our environment? Yes, it would be really bad: It seems that the needs of the economy and the survival of the planet do not go hand in hand. This is at least one of the reasons why we have Bitcoin.
References
[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/gary-gensler-speaks-to-the-european-parliament-on-bitcoin-and-crypto-regulation-2021-09-01
[2] The ₿ Word | Live with Cathie Wood, Jack Dorsey, & Elon Musk YouTube: watch?v=Zwx_7XAJ3p0
[3] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/publications/3rd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking-study
[4] https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/mdg-krever-bitcoin-forbud-odelegger-norsk-natur/s/12-95-3424097115
[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/23/twitter-and-square-ceo-jack-dorsey-says-hyperinflation-will-happen-soon-in-the-us-and-the-world.html
[6] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/20/paul-tudor-jones-says-inflation-could-be-worse-than-feared-biggest-threat-to-markets-and-society.html
Vikingtokt etter digitalt gull
Av: Espen Folmo & Nini Skarpaas Myhrvold
En gang i tiden var Norge et fremsynt og modig land, en ekte askeladdnasjon – og vi fant vi fant! Helten visste lite om olje, men lykken stod oss bi da de marine grensene mellom Storbritannia og Norge enda ikke var trukket. Skarpsynet som skaffet kompetanse fremfor å selge utvinningsrettigheter skapte økonomisk vind i vikingseilene. I dag må skuta endre kurs for ikke å seile i klimaavgrunnen. Ny teknologi, redusert forbruk og bærekraftig produksjon er antakelig våre eneste håp. Andøya søker å bli hovedsete for satellittoppskyting i Europa, et bevis på at foranskutte lyn slår rot i Norge. I klimadebatten har kompasset kanskje rustet fast: Der økologisk landbruk blir for dyrt for bonden å drifte, og fremholdt oljeboring skal være redningsvest for grønn nyskapning? Det er selvfølgelig klokt å holde stø kurs fremfor forhastede beslutninger. Høye oljepriser styrker kronen, hvilket delvis kompenserer for prisøkningen skapt av råvaremangel og sand i det globale forsyningsmaskineriet. Misnøyen her hjemme handler likevel om høye strømpriser, som ofte rammer de svakeste sterkest. Eksperimentene til Frans de Waal viser at prinsippet om rettferdighet dominerer atferd fra avanserte primater til mennesker, og det å se gjennom den hule hånd til vinning for perspektiv er antakelig en dårlig sosialøkonomisk rettesnor. Likevel krever det å navigere videre at vi vinner perspektiv, samskuer fremtiden, og setter seil. Farvannet er uhyre komplekst, men vi må likevel tørre å romme paradoksene, uten å forvilles i tanker. For å navigere til en videre trygg fremtid bør vi i det minste unngå å misforstå ny teknologi, slik som kunstig intelligens og blockchain. Her vil vi først kikke på det overordnede kartet, og deretter antyde en modig og klok kurs innen ny teknologi. Det er betydelig empirisk og teoretisk belegg for at det er tre faktorer som vil prege fremtidens utvikling for menneskeheten mer enn noe annet de neste tiårene: 1) Kunstig intelligens, 2) Bitcoin og blockchain-teknologi, og 3) miljøkrise. Vi ønsker her å se nærmer på Bitcoin og blockchain spesifikt. Først undersøke hva og hvorfor det er en essensiell faktor. Deretter går turen innom termen inflasjon, før vi ser på hva dette betyr for miljøet.
Oppfinnelsen av blockchain – teknologien som sikrer Bitcoin, er den raskest ekspanderende teknologiske utviklingen menneskeheten noen gang har sett, og ble omtalt som like fundamental som oppfinnelsen av elektrisitet av MIT-professor Christian Catalini allerede i 2014. Gary Gensler, tidligere MIT-professor og nåværende leder av SEC, sa i sin tale til EU at blockchain er like viktig som internett[1]. Blockchain vokser nå dobbelt så hurtig som internett, altså 113% i året. Det er bred enighet blant forskere og fagfolk om at Bitcoin vil være en gunstig satsning for miljøet og menneskeheten, selv om denne blockchainen bruker like mye strøm som juletrebelysningen i USA. Andre blockchains, som har andre formål enn å være en sikker oppbevaringsmekanisme for digital eiendom, bruker betydelig mindre strøm. Termen ESG, som står for Environmental, Social, and Governance, brukes for å sikre riktig kurs i mange organisasjoner, noe som naturligvis er svært klokt. Men som Cathie Wood (CEO hos Ark Invest), klokelig påpekte i debatten om Bitcoin og blockchain i debatten med Jack Dorsey (CEO hos Twitter og Square), og Elon Musk, (CEO hos Tesla og Space X) den 21. juli 2021, så glemmes ofte «social» og «governance»[2]. Alle tre mener Bitcoin, og andre blockchains, kan løse vesentlige problemer innen «social» og «governance», hvilket gjør strømbruket mindre relevant. Bitcoin er dessuten i dag den grønneste teknologien på planeten, og mellom 39 og 75% av strømmen som brukes til å mine Bitcoin kommer fra fornybar energi[3]. Tallet varierer kraftig, og Musk har sagt at han ikke vil akseptere Bitcoin som betaling for Tesla-biler før tallet med sikkerhet er over 50%. Hans primære prosjekt er miljøvern, noe det er umulig å være uenig i. Island bruker jordvarme til å mine Bitcoin. El Salvador, som har innført Bitcoin som nasjonalvaluta, frembringer verdens sikreste crypto-asset med vulkansk varme. Flere land i Mellom- og Sør-Amerika vurderer det samme, og Sri Lanka har nylig utnevnt en komité for å fremme integrering av blockchain, for å innpasse seg fremtidens internasjonale marked. Her hjemme derimot er det ikke lenge siden lederen av MDG, Rasmus Hansson, uttalte: «Mitt største problem med bitcoin er at jeg ikke skjønner hva det er og hvorfor vi skal bruke norsk natur til å utvinne den»[4].
Vi må zoome ut fra Norge for å forstå hva som gjør at mange i dag opplever en nesten spirituell eller religiøs tilhørighet til Bitcoin, og at dette er én mulig løsning på mange av menneskehetenes største utfordringer, inkludert miljøkrise. Dorsey mener Bitcoin er menneskehetens beste forsøk på å overleve, og å skape verdensfred. Hva i alle dager feiler det ham? Vi her i vårt grønne, oljeborende, miljøforkjempende Nord vet selvfølgelig hvorfor dette er det villeste vås: Bitcoin bruker masse strøm! Det sier til og med Elon Musk, selv om han kjøpte Bitcoin for en og en halv milliard dollar i mars 2021 – han har for øvrig ikke solgt. Men denne Dorsey, og alle andre som tror Bitcoin løser noe, burde heller ta seg en tur hit til oss i Norge, så skal vi nok vise hvordan vi pumper opp olje for å sikre miljøet og skaper verdensfred gjennom strategiske fredspriser. Noen kunne innvende at vi nordmenn ikke forstår hvorfor man trenger Bitcoin, for det er få av oss som har opplevd å ha penger på konto til et hus på fredag, men knapt til et hundehus på mandag. I våre trygge stuer lukker vi øynene for at det er flere nasjoner, selv her i Europa, hvor dette har vært, eller er, en realitet. Både Dorsey og investeringslegenden Paul Tudor Jones har i det siste vært ute og advart om akselererende inflasjon, og at det er en enorm trussel for samfunnet[5][6]. Friheten vi har her hjemme gjennom systemer som Vipps fremmedgjør oss for de korrupte banksystemene i andre deler av verden – systemer hvor du er heldig hvis du får lov til å åpne en bankkonto, men likevel ikke kan disponere den fritt, med transaksjonskostnader høyere enn vi noen gang ville funnet oss i. I Tyrkia er de nå offisielt i krig med Bitcoin, og det er ulovlig å snakke om inflasjon. Er ikke det fascinerende? Inflasjon er vanskelig å måle, og selv lederen av den amerikanske sentralbanken, Jerome Powell har påstått at inflasjons- og arbeidsmål ikke er troverdige på diverse pressekonferanser det siste halvåret. Likevel, så er inflasjon noe som i praksis er et slags forbud mot sparing. Det kanskje største problemet er at når man hindrer sparing, for eksempel ved negativ rente, så tenderer man å skape mer forbruk. For hva gjør man når man ikke sparer på å spare? Er det ikke nettopp mer forbruk økonomene mener vi trenger for å redde økonomien vår da? For å sette dette i kontekst trenger vi følgende kunnskap: Ettersom 97% av pengene i verden er trykket ut av løse luften, noe som ble empirisk bevist av Professor Richard Werner i 2014[7], så er vi avhengige av å trykke mer penger, altså gjøre verdien av lånene våre mindre. Når pengemengden øker, bør også varemengden øke. På steder som Handelshøyskolen og BI kan man ta PhD i slike prinsipper, typisk kalt tilbud og etterspørsel. Svaret er altså ja, for å «redde» en inflasjonsbasert økonomi, så trenger vi mer forbruk. Men på den annen side så mener FN at temperaturen på planeten vår nå kan stige 5 grader i løpet av 20 år. For å sette det i perspektiv, så sier David Attenborough at 4 grader vil gjøre at selv kakkerlakkene må flytte til mars, og fjerner vi én grad, så sitter vi fort med tre kilometer is over hodet i Norge. Det kan altså se ut til at økonomiens behov, og planetens overlevelse, ikke går hånd i hånd. Nå er det klart at oljeboring, eller å skru av atomkraftverk i Tyskland og USA – og heller bruke kullkraftverk – kan være én løsning på dette. I hvert fall ifølge de ivrigste grønnvaskerne der ute, som gjerne inntar politisk makt basert på kortsiktige løsninger som på overflaten ser miljøvennlige ut. En annen løsning ville naturligvis være å forby Bitcoin, for da fjerner vi i hvert fall et strømforbruk som ingen her i Norge forstår – og er det noe som virkelig forarger oss, så er det ting vi ikke forstår (jfr. Rasmus Hansson).
Så, hva i alle dager er dette Bitcoin-greiene da? Jo, Bitcoin er først og fremst tre ting:
- 1) Penger som ikke styres av eller beslaglegges av en regjering, eller med annen makt.
- 2) Bitcoin kan heller ikke sensureres, men kan enkelt spores, hvilket gjør at korrupte politikere, og andre kriminelle skyr Bitcoin (hvilket bekreftes av forskning).
- 3) Bitcoin er også eiendom som ikke trenger et politi eller militærvesen for å forsvares.
Disse tre egenskapene høres kanskje litt meningsløse ut for oss nordmenn, så la oss heller forsøke å forklare hva dette betyr i praksis. La oss starte med tvangsekteskapet mellom stat og økonomi. En gang i tiden var stat og religion i de fleste land én og samme ting. Dette er ikke lenger en selvfølge, men av en eller annen grunn, så er stat og kontroll over pengetrykkemaskinen ofte én og samme ting. Slik er det også i Norge, men i mindre grad enn mange steder. Det fremstår soleklart for mange at Kina ønsker total kontroll over innbyggere som snart kan benytte deres digitale valuta, og det er en dårlig skjult hemmelighet at det er bekvemmelig for mange land å betale med penger som trykkes ut av løse luften. Det er jo nesten magi. Hvis regjeringene kan trykke penger ad infinitum, hvorfor må man da betale skatt? Det kanskje overraskende svaret er at vi ikke må det. Skatt brukes i mange land i stor grad for å straffe eller begrense enkelte typer atferd. Skatt er også en måte å kamuflere skatten i pengetrykking. Men når man trykker penger, så blir pengene mindre verdt. Noen tror de ikke gjør det. Noen tror også jordkloden er flat. For resten av oss, så virker det relativt logisk at mer penger i sirkulasjon fører til mindre verdi av pengene. Problemet med inflasjon er, bortsett fra at det er en skjult beskatning, at man øker forbruket. Man må altså spørre seg selv om man etter å ha lest første del av den relativt dystopiske FN-rapporten (om miljø) mener økt forbruk er noe vi skal stemme på med pengene våre? Vi nevnte også at Bitcoin er eiendom som ikke kan beslaglegges. Nå er det slik at vi tar eiendomsrett som en naturgitt tilstand her hjemme. La oss likevel tenke oss at noen kommer og flytter inn i huset ditt, og kaster familien din ut. Da vet vi selvfølgelig at politiet kommer og korrigerer misforståelsen. Men alle slike som opprettholder lov og orden, enten det er ved å bombe i Irak og Afghanistan, eller ved å stå som mellommenn i alle mulige transaksjoner –være seg eiendom, tjenester, oppmerksomhet eller kunst – de tar ofte en betydelig del av transaksjonene. Det å vedlikeholde dollaren som verdens reservevaluta krever for eksempel et betydelig militær- og politibudsjett. Eller tenk på hva det koster å forsikre kjøper/mottaker om at klokker, diamanter, penger eller kunst er ekte? Tenk om det fantes et økonomisk system hvor ingen av disse delene var nødvendig? Det finnes, og det kalles Bitcoin. Det høres jo ikke så dumt ut egentlig – men det bruker jo strøm! La oss tenke oss at vi går på butikken, og finner kjøtt som gikk ut på dato i går. Mange butikker unngår å selge oss dette for en billig penge, noe de fra et miljøståsted gjerne burde gjøre – og i økende grad gjør. Tilsvarende er det med Bitcoin: Minere, de som opprettholder det tryggeste verdinettverket på planeten, søker ofte opp den billigste strømmen, altså den som generes om natten, er i overskudd, eller befinner seg for langt vekk fra brukere. I tillegg skjer det en teknologisk nyskapning i høy hastigheten innen Bitcoin-miljøet, som å bruke gassen man ellers brenner ved oljeplattformer til å skape Bitcoin. Men dette er jo for godt til å være sant, her må noe være riv ruskende galt? Vel, det er ingen tvil om at Bitcoin ikke gror på trær, men når man kommer på nivået Dorsey har kommet til, etter å ha brukt ti år på å forsøke og bedre livskvaliteten til mennesker over hele verden, så er antakelig verdensfred viktigere enn alt annet. Mye viktigere enn julebelysning, og kanskje viktigere enn strategiske nobelpriser også. Mange vil betvile påstanden om at Irakkrigen skyltes at Saddam Hussain fikk den forrykte ideen å omsette olje i Euro, og vi er også tvilende til mye. Det man ikke trenger tvile på er at det å måle verdens verdier og tjenester med gummistrikker, og ulike gummistrikker– for eksempel valutaer som svinger i takt med regjeringens pengetrykkemaskin – fører til betydelige vansker og urettferdighet verden over. Og når man i tillegg har nasjoner der politikere beriker seg selv ved å trykke penger, så er det fullt mulig at svaret ikke er så enkelt som at den beste løsningen er å pumpe mer olje og tenke at Bitcoin er noe miljøsvineri. Ikke at noen nordmenn tenker det, men kanskje verdt å tygge litt på likevel. Når man får tygd litt, så er det fullt mulig man om noen år vil undre seg på hvorfor man i lang tid tillot energi til oppvarming, som samtidig ikke utførte for eksempel AI-algoritmer, eller Bitcoin-mining. Det er jo å fyre for kråka som vi sier på godt Norsk. El Salvadors modige bruk av vulkaner til å skape Bitcoins, minner nesten litt om det fattige Norge som en gang i tiden var modige nok til å sette i gang med utvinning av naturressursen olje! Kanskje fremtidens olje er digital? Vel, de fleste kaller Bitcoin for digitalt gull, og det kan nå sendes tilnærmet kostnadsfritt i lyshastighet via Twitter. Mulig Dorsey vinner denne runden, men ikke si det til noen – da vil de bare begynne å mine Bitcoin samtidig som de varmer opp Frognerbadet. Hvem skulle de pengene gå til mon tro?
Referanser
[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/gary-gensler-speaks-to-the-european-parliament-on-bitcoin-and-crypto-regulation-2021-09-01
[2] The ₿ Word | Live with Cathie Wood, Jack Dorsey, & Elon Musk YouTube: watch?v=Zwx_7XAJ3p0
[3] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/publications/3rd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking-study
[4] https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/mdg-krever-bitcoin-forbud-odelegger-norsk-natur/s/12-95-3424097115
[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/23/twitter-and-square-ceo-jack-dorsey-says-hyperinflation-will-happen-soon-in-the-us-and-the-world.html
[6] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/20/paul-tudor-jones-says-inflation-could-be-worse-than-feared-biggest-threat-to-markets-and-society.html
[7] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.10.013
Quiz
-
What are the three factors that will shape the future development of mankind more than anything else in the next decades?
a) Artificial intelligence, blockchain, and environmental crisis
b) Climate change, renewable energy, and overpopulation
c) War, famine, and disease
d) Education, healthcare, and infrastructure -
What did MIT Professor Christian Catalini say about the invention of the blockchain in 2014?
a) It is as fundamental as the invention of electricity
b) It is a passing fad and will not have any long-term impact
c) It is too complex for most people to understand
d) It is a threat to national security -
What is the annual growth rate of the blockchain?
a) 50%
b) 75%
c) 113%
d) 200% -
How much electricity does the blockchain that secures Bitcoin use?
a) As much as the Christmas lights in the USA
b) As much as a small city
c) As much as a large country
d) As much as the entire world -
What does the term ESG stand for?
a) Environmental, Social, and Governance
b) Economic, Sustainable, and Green
c) Energy, Security, and Growth
d) Efficiency, Safety, and Governance -
What percentage of the energy used to mine Bitcoin comes from renewable energy sources?
a) 39%
b) 50%
c) 75%
d) 90% -
Who participated in a debate on Bitcoin and blockchain on July 21, 2021?
a) Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, and Cathie Wood
b) Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg
c) Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Vladimir Putin
d) Richard Branson, Tim Cook, and Larry Page -
Who said that Bitcoin is the greenest technology on the planet?
a) Cathie Wood
b) Elon Musk
c) Jack Dorsey
d) Gary Gensler -
What did Cathie Wood say about the term ESG in the debate with Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk?
a) It is not relevant to Bitcoin and blockchain
b) It should be expanded to include blockchain and Bitcoin
c) It is too broad and needs to be narrowed down
d) It is only relevant to traditional industries
Correct answers
- a) Artificial intelligence, blockchain, and environmental crisis
- a) It is as fundamental as the invention of electricity
- c) 113%
- a) As much as the Christmas lights in the USA
- a) Environmental, Social, and Governance
- a) 39%
- a) Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, and Cathie Wood
- a) Cathie Wood
- d) It is only relevant to traditional industries
