https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2015/02/26/05/56/spacecraft-649933_1280.jpg

First watch these videos to learn what a [Von Neumann Probe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft) is:
https://youtu.be/vHMIv_zAbrM
https://youtu.be/4H55wybU3rI

In my last article I posted how [Barclays Bank claims Bitcoin is nothing more than a virus](https://steemit.com/crypto/@dana-edwards/barclays-bank-claims-bitcoin-is-nothing-more-than-a-virus).  I mentioned the concept of memetics, and universal Darwinism. The function of Darwinism itself is the spread of intelligent life on earth and this process of evolution is why life can change it's form, it's behaviors, and continuously adapt to the changing environment of earth. In many instances life almost went completely extinct only to come back stronger, more resilient.

When we think about Bitcoin in the big picture context (the story of life) then we also assume Barclays is correct (Bitcoin is a virus) then we have to ask ourselves whether or not this virus will be beneficial. In my opinion Bitcoin does seem to spread like a virus, and cryptos in general has this kind of spread. At the same time I also admit that crypto if done right will be an ecosystem which evolves around the principle of "survival of the fittest" where the fittest technologies survive.

Where I disagree with some in this space is exactly how this fitness is measured. In my own posts I communicate that global sentiment is a critical factor in guaranteeing that the evolutionary trajectory of crypto maintains a beneficial path. For this reason I do not take an ideological stance, I do not even put my own personality or bias in, because I think that itself is putting vulnerabilities (bugs) into the technology. In order words, by taking on the attitude that I do not know what is best for everyone (only what is best for me), I can then reduce the weight of my opinions and instead focus on building technologies where the users of it determine it's fitness.

Think outside of yourselves and don't think small
----

One of the problems I see is many people in the crypto space think small. What I mean is, the ideological perspective for determining which features to implement is small because it puts the evolutionary trajectory on a path guided by narrow human centric concerns. I have no problem with being human centric (I'm human as far as I know), but I do think it's limiting to not think of the big picture in how a technology like Bitcoin can evolve. So below I will present some ideas on how I think Bitcoin can evolve over 100 years:

- [Will market incentives evolve Bitcoin into a fully autonomous AI?](https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@dana-edwards/will-market-incentives-evolve-bitcoin-into-a-fully-autonomous-ai)? Six months ago I proposed this question.
- [Will an artificial intelligence ultimately become the global mining cartel? (AI as Mining Monarch)](https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dana-edwards/will-an-artificial-intelligence-ultimately-become-the-global-mining-cartel-ai-as-mining-monarch).  Six months ago I also proposed this question.

Let's discuss the first two example questions I asked the community. When we look at the evolutionary trajectory of technology such as the Internet, or even something like Google and Amazon, we sometimes think too small. People thought Amazon would only ever be just some sort of online bookstore. People thought Google would only ever be just a search engine. Guess what? Google is on an evolutionary trajectory to evolve into an AI company and potentially even an AGI. Amazon is on a trajectory to evolve into a completely automated factory, which is to say as technology gets better we will buy more and more stuff from Amazon until we buy everything from them.

What exactly is Bitcoin evolving into? Well first of all mining efficiency increases with humans involved only to a certain point before humans become the limiting factor increasing the cost of this mining. In terms of cost we can also measure centralization as a cost because humans produce centralization in systems. So I proposed the idea that Bitcoin may be on an evolutionary trajectory which leads first the mining to become fully autonomous, eventually run by AI (if AI becomes sophisticated enough to take this function from humans), and then what? That is when Bitcoin eventually becomes run by an AI and if Ray Kurzweil is right in our lifetime then if an advanced AI is possible while Bitcoin still exists then it's likely that Bitcoin will evolve in that direction unless humans move away from Proof of Work which in my opinion provides all the right economic incentives to build an AI or even an AGI.

A Von Neumann Probe is a probe which contains the seeds of life. It would function to spread life throughout the galaxy and universe as a whole. In 2018 Bitcoin is like a mere toy, a speculative instrument, and it does not have a generalized role in society. Bitcoin is currently attractive to people who have a political attitude, focused on human concerns, or people who are trying to get rich under capitalism,  but it is not yet used to encourage science, or to cure diseases, or to enable space exploration. In other words the social issues which attract people to Bitcoin currently are narrow, limited, and may not even exist in 20 years (almost certainly not in 100 years).

Relying on global sentiment to direct the evolutionary trajectory of a technology
---

In terms of a corporation, a company determines whether or not it is fit based on the satisfaction of the customer and how much profit it can generate for it's shareholders. Bitcoin has the problem of not having any metrics that I'm aware of which the developers are tracking to determine if Bitcoin is succeeding or failing. If Bitcoin is going on technical metrics then it's failing because many technologies (including Ethereum, including Steem, including EOS, including Tezos, including Dash) are theoretically or and practically superior. In other words we can measure the scalability of competing platforms and see that Bitcoin is at an evolutionary disadvantage.

We also can see that Bitcoin is at a disadvantage when it comes to governance. Bitcoin currently is a technocracy and public sentiment is not considered really. Miners and developers basically determine how Bitcoin evolves. These groups are either politically motivated, or financially motivated, or both. There is no capturing public sentiment, there seems to be no objective measurement so that a data driven development approach can happen. In other words, if people are coding their opinions into Bitcoin then Bitcoin will take on the face of the developers and miners.

This is good for a niche product. A niche product must maintain it's function to the niche community. If Steem for example wants to remain a niche product then it must always satisfy it's current user base even if it remains small long term. The problem with this is that some decisions sacrifice future growth in order to maintain that niche community. If a product or platform desires to be supported by a billion people then a few thousand people cannot direct the evolutionary trajectory. The platform must take feedback from all people and development of features must prioritize based on the data received. 

If we look at how governance works then we will see that for the most part the governments are required to evolve in alignment with public sentiment. If public sentiment goes too far against any politician, any policy, then eventually it changes. In order for Bitcoin, or crypto projects to get big, they have to become much more adaptable. To be adaptable is to be able to evolve with public sentiment and exist in a state of co-evolution with the users (not just current users but potential future users).  On this crypto projects seem to be failing, in that I haven't found manage projects where the developers admit they do not know what is best, or what the future of humanity will be, and then seek to create platforms which can become whatever humanity needs at any point in time (promoting multi-generational resilience).

If Bitcoin is to be like gold then this in my opinion is a missed opportunity. Bitcoin as a virus in my opinion is more valuable than Bitcoin as gold because viruses can evolve quite fast while gold is just gold. Gold is only valuable in the minds of people. Gold might be valuable one generation and worthless the next because human nature itself can be modified by technology. This is the point, that human nature can be modified by technology, is why the design of a technology has to be adaptable enough that the technology can also evolve with and adapt to changes in human nature.

For more of the big picture watch these videos with crypto in mind and share your thoughts
===

https://youtu.be/cJONS7sqi0o
https://youtu.be/qNtQwUO9ff8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjE-Pkjp3u4

References
---
1. [Genesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative)
2. [Genesis Block](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block)
3. [Global Sentiment Analysis](https://steemit.com/eos/@dana-edwards/global-sentiment-analysis-public-sentiment-as-the-invisible-hand-behind-democracy-and-how-it-relates-to-dpos)