Decentralized currencies in the form of cryptocurrency are gradually becoming an integral part of the global economy. Historically, countries have delegated central banks the task of managing the currency used within their geographic domain. In direct opposition to this concept, private decentralized trust networks known as cryptocurrencies have emerged. These currencies have the potential to serve as both a commodity and a currency and exist inherently so long as they have adequate users. While non-tender based commodities such as precious metals have been traditionally used in tandem with state-backed currency, signals suggest that cryptocurrency could eventually replace governmental “fiat currencies.” This substitution has the capability to fully decentralize an economy, freeing citizens and markets from monetary policies instituted by their nation’s central baking system. The transition from a centralized to decentralized economy will inevitably affect the power relationship between the central banks who control fiat currencies and the citizens who will no longer use them. This study examines this journey and provides insight into how cryptocurrency will disrupt how power manifests itself between citizens and the institutions that control them in order to create a clearer picture of what a completely decentralized, inherently more global economy will look like. This research is then used to answer how the transition from a fully centralized, fiat currency-based economy to a decentralized, cryptocurrency-based economy will affect the power relationship between a nation’s citizens and institutions of monetary control.

In order to properly talk about the implications of decentralized cryptocurrency, it is first necessary to clearly define what these currencies are because the term is somewhat nuanced. This paper focuses on the implications of blockchain-based decentralized currencies or 3 cryptocurrencies. These currencies first appeared in a 2008 paper authored under the pseudonym, Satoshi Nakamoto. Nakamoto was the brainchild behind the methodologies of the technology that eventually became the first cryptocurrency, bitcoin. He described bitcoin as a peer to peer decentralized currency system where each user contributes a form of “work” that gives the currency its value. I the Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Mohilevskyi extends this definition claiming that a cryptocurrency is a “coin cryptographically protected against tampering” where “all information about transactions is stored in the blockchain system.” Nikitin, the CEO of a large cryptocurrency-based banking service, puts this definition into a geopolitical context claiming that cryptocurrency should not depend on any national currency and be purely peer to peer to ensure proper decentralization. Nikitin’s definition differentiates decentralized cryptocurrencies from centralized digital currencies currently being used in some countries, most notably within the US developed by large corporations This definition of a decentralized cryptocurrency will be used for the remainder of this paper. It is vital when distinguishing cryptocurrencies from digitized forms fiat and other centrally controlled currencies.

When analyzing how power manifests itself between central banks and citizens in instances where cryptocurrency functions as a primary currency, it is crucial to consider the legitimacy of this possibility and the steps that must be taken to achieve this transition. In its present form, within most developed economies, cryptocurrencies are treated as a commodity. In other words, this means that they are a material of value that can be bought and sold similarly to items such as precious metals, food, and oil. Only a select few developing countries who have undergone significant economic hardship have adopted cryptocurrencies as a primary form of currency. In order for cryptocurrencies to make the transition from a commodity to a primary form of currency, they must first meet all the required functions of money in a society.

The European Central Bank defines the three primary functions of money as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value (Gerdesmeier, 2009). For a currency to be considered a medium of exchange, its ease of use is a crucial factor. According to Nguyen, a cryptocurrency researcher, “money is used as an intermediary in trade to avoid the inconveniences of a barter system.” This means that currency should not add any additional “inconveniences” to transactions. Additionally, both parties must desire to possess the currency being used for the transaction; otherwise, it is worthless. Some have argued that since cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin are not state-sponsored, they do not meet this criterion. This is false for two reasons. Firstly, blockchain technologies rely on proof of work, which gives them an inherent value so long as the technology's backbone remains secure. Secondly, the lack of state sponsorship increases the number of people who could potentially use these currencies since the currency’s functionality is no longer confined to any given geographic area. Therefore, for these reasons, “as a medium of exchange, Bitcoin is used for transactions, and national backing should not be too strongly of a criterion for backing a currency” (Carrick, 2016). For a currency to be considered a unit of account it must be able to appraise all transactions. Since nearly all blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are finite and infinitely divisible, all transactions can be priced regardless of size (Carrick, 2016). Therefore, they fulfill the role as a unit of account since all goods, services, assets, and liabilities can be assigned a price regardless of individual values. For a currency to be a substantial store of value, as defined by the European Central Bank, it must be able to hold its value over time. At the present time, most cryptocurrencies are very volatile and should not be considered an adequate store of value and, therefore, do not meet this requirement (Heller, 2017). However, they can be used to offset risk due to their tendency to track markets inversely (Carrick, 2016). The ladder point is especially 5 significant in developing countries with risks resulting from government agencies. Due to this volatility level, which can be quite severe in some cases, most cryptocurrencies do not currently meet the third function of money as a store of value. Regardless of this fact, it is mathematically proven that volatility goes down as blockchain users increase; therefore, in the relative future, cryptocurrencies will meet the third function of money as a store of value so long as their popularity continues to rise at the present rate (Sichinava, 2019). Furthermore, historically when citizens have been given a choice between investing in a nationally backed fiat currency of an irresponsible regime or a volatile cryptocurrency, citizens have chosen the cryptocurrency. This has been observed in countries such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, where the country's fiat currency is also experiencing comparable, and often much more significant, levels of volatility (Mahdavieh, 2019).

The roles and decisions of central banks in the development of cryptocurrencies is vital. The decisions that legislatures make regarding the role of decentralized money will greatly affect the function of these currencies on a global scale. These decisions are a prerequisite for developing a common framework for regulating “quasi-money” (Krivoruchko, 2018). Thus far, central banks have taken varied positions regarding their approaches to regulating or deregulating these decentralized forms of currency. Most of these decisions can be clearly linked to the value and volatility of the given nation’s fiat currency. Countries with more unpredictable monetary systems tend to be more favorable of deregulation. Countries with less volatile fiat currencies tend to take one of two approaches. They either treat cryptocurrencies similarly to traded securities and implement a capital gains tax or treat them as a commodity such as gold and tax them at a typically much higher long-term capital gains rate (Raskin, 2019).

After the value of cryptocurrencies stabilizes and the third function of money is met as a substantial store of value, there is still a crucial roadblock on the path to cryptocurrency’s direct function as a primary currency. Financial intermediaries such as central banks currently hold power through their control of monetary systems. For this reason, since they value this power, these institutions must be adequately incentivized to forfeit their position to a decentralized system. In order for this to be successful, these incentives must directly motivate the banks themselves and the citizens of the countries that they control because, in democratic societies, the citizens typically have some level of power over their role in controlling the nation's legislation. From a citizen’s perspective, removing all institutional middlemen significantly lowers transactional costs and time, saving them money each time during every transaction. In addition, citizens gain an increased level of monetary stability due to the global scale of cryptocurrencies (Belke, 2020). This is because globalization insulates individual economies from local issues such as political unrest (Mohilevskyi, 2018). A citizen’s distrust in their government is mitigated because no government or central bank can directly control their money supply due to decentralization (Nguyen, 2019). These factors empower citizens by taking control away from legislatures and giving citizens power over their monetary systems. At its present state, cryptocurrency does not serve as a model proxy for fiat currency due to its high inflation rate. The relatively low level of cryptocurrencies being adopted as a primary currency can be attributed to this volatility. In many cases, fiat money and decentralized currency's coexistence serves as a threat that keeps central banks in check because banks recognize how easily replaceable they are as institutions (Beretta, 2020). There is a significant amount of evidence that suggests that this system is preferable due to the increased criminal activity and fraud that has historically been observed in countries with fully cryptocurrency- 7 based economies end; however, the developing state of these countries should be considered. Eichengreen, an economist working for the National Bureau of Economic Research, claims that this two-party system will eventually converge into a middle ground in the form of a state-run centralized cryptocurrency-based system (2019).

This paper was written in the pursuit of predicting the most probable path that monetary institutions will take regarding their treatment of decentralized cryptocurrencies. Through considering the motivations of lawmakers, bankers, and citizens, a clearer picture can be gained as to how hierarchal power will shape the future of the technology. It is clear that those who currently hold a stake in monetary policy will favor command-and-control style regulation. In contrast, others who will be the primary users of the technology will favor monetary freedom due to the many economic and security-based invectives of decentralization. Regardless of its present state, in the future, as cryptocurrency gains a more extensive user pool, its value will inevitably stabilize and fully replace all forms of legal tender due to the many incentives that it offers. Realworld examples of this phenomenon have shown that the developed counties will most likely prefer a semi-decentralized model where regulators still have some power over the technology. These standards will be built in tandem with the growth of a cryptocurrency-based economy. Regardless of the decentralization level, this transition will take power away from central banks, legislatures, and governments and give power to citizens in the forms of monetary freedom, transactional privacy/security, and economic stability.

Introduction

I am creating this tutorial after spending a large amount of time going through I tedious trial and error process while working to install Pytorch on the Jetson TX2. The same process should apply for the Nvidia Jetson Nano, TX1, and TK models (as long as you are using CUDA 10 which comes with the newest version of Nvidia Jetpack).

Recommendations

Ensure that your Jetson’s fan is running. If not, run

$ sudo ~/jetson_clocks.sh

or if on the most recent version of Jetpack (as of July 2019) run

$ sudo /usr/bin/jetson_clocks

Step 1: Clone Pytorch

Note: If you do not need the full pytorch install (for example you are using a very specfici pakcage) you do not need to include the –recursive flag. Instead clone normally and add the desired submodule manually.

$ mkdir [install location]
$ cd [install location]
$ git clone --recursive ttp://github.com/pytorch/pytorch
$ cd pytorch

Step 2: Set Environment Variables for Installation

$ export USE_NCCL=0
$ export USE_DISTRIBUTED=0
$ export TORCH_CUDA_ARCH_LIST="5.3;6.2;7.2"

Step 3: Install Dependencies

$ sudo apt-get install python3-pip cmake
$ sudo python3 -m pip install -U pip
$ sudo python3 -m install -U setuptools
$ sudo python3 -m install -r requirements.txt
$ sudo python3 -m pip install scikit-build --user
$ sudo python3 -m pip install ninja --useri

Step 4: Configure and Install Pytorch

This will take a long time (typically around 4-5 hours)

$ python3 setup.py bdist_wheel
$ sudo python3 setup.py install --user

I can not prove my existence and neither can you

Does one and one really make two?

Maybe we’re living in a virtual plane

Like pieces in a game

Upon further speculation

It is as if we live in a simulation

Everything is defined my mans information

A figment of imagination

No one can guarantee

That this is base reality

Reality is subjective

Perception is introspective

Knowledge is based on assumption

Therefore knowledge is deception

The only defense is

To distrust your senses

Assume everything is a fiction

Senses are your affliction

Lies told often enough

Becomes truth

Read between the lines

Escape societies confines

You define your own reality

Do not fall victim to fallacy