In the era of AI, what is left of Bitcoin?

Author: Sevclub, Seven Research

Recently, Bitcoin has fallen below 60,000, let me give everyone a massage.

I increasingly feel that AI and Bitcoin may be two sides of the same coin.

The first time I had this feeling was recently. Now, when I read any article, watch a video, or even see a post on social media, the first thought that pops into my mind is: Is this made by AI?

I didn't used to think this way. I used to assume it was real. Now I start with doubt. And this doubt is becoming harder to shake off.

Ironically, I use AI every day to write, make videos, and generate images, so I understand one thing better than many people: the cost of faking things with today's AI has become absurdly low.

An article takes seconds. An image takes a minute. A video is getting closer and closer to looking like a real person.

They are getting cheaper and more realistic.

Thus, I began to realize one thing: AI is not just changing productivity. It is also changing something more fundamental, which is authenticity.

In the internet age, what was truly reduced was the cost of information dissemination; in the AI age, what is truly reduced is the cost of information production.

When the production cost approaches zero, information begins to flood, and the more dangerous part is that true and false start to mix together, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish.

At this point, the situation reverses: easily accessible content becomes less valuable, and what becomes truly precious is whether you can still confirm "this thing is real," which is "verifiability."

Thinking of this, I suddenly reinterpreted the criticism that Bitcoin "wastes electricity," which has been one of the most criticized points over the years.

AI consumes electricity, and everyone can understand that it produces stronger models, higher efficiency, and lower costs. But what about Bitcoin? It consumes so much energy every year, seemingly just to maintain a ledger, which looks like a waste in every way.

To be honest, I used to struggle with this criticism.

Until recently, I started to look at it from a different angle. Both consume computing power. AI produces "capability." Bitcoin produces another thing, which is "verifiability."

Many people misunderstand Bitcoin. It never relies on others to believe in it. On the contrary, its purpose is to let you not have to believe anyone.

You don't have to believe in banks. You don't have to believe in platforms. You don't have to believe in developers. You don't even have to believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.

You just need to verify.

Where every Bitcoin comes from, where it goes, whether every transaction has occurred, whether the entire ledger has been modified—none of this relies on trust. It relies on mathematics, on cryptography, and on countless nodes around the world maintaining it together.

AI can generate a fake image, can create a fake video, and can even forge a person's voice. But it cannot make the entire Bitcoin network acknowledge a non-existent transaction out of thin air.

This has nothing to do with how smart AI is. Here, the competition is not between the same kind of ability; one is about generation, the other is about verification.

Those consumed electricity doesn't seem so wasteful anymore.

Suddenly, I feel that the electricity consumed by Bitcoin doesn't seem so wasteful anymore.

It consumes electricity not to increase computing speed or to run models; it consumes it for another cost, which is the cost of altering history. The more it consumes, the more expensive it becomes to change this ledger.

In other words, it burns energy, and in return, it provides a ledger that anyone can independently verify. Interestingly, this reminds me of the Renaissance topic from five hundred years ago, which I previously wrote about, and it fits perfectly today.

What truly changed the world back then was not only Gutenberg's printing press but also double-entry bookkeeping: one reduced the cost of knowledge replication to a very low level, and the other lowered the cost of trust in the commercial world. One is responsible for creation, and the other for verification; the commercial civilization of the following centuries was built on these two things.

Today, AI is very much like a new printing press, once again bringing the cost of content production close to zero.

So, what will be the "double-entry bookkeeping" of this era? I don't know the answer.

But blockchain is at least the closest attempt so far.

It is not responsible for telling you which news is true, nor for proving which image is not generated by AI. It is responsible for something more fundamental: allowing the ownership of assets and historical records in the digital world to be independently verified without relying on any centralized institution.

One is responsible for creation, and the other for proof.

Perhaps this is why I have always felt that AI and blockchain are not in competition.

AI continuously lowers the cost of generation. Blockchain continuously lowers the cost of verification. One is responsible for creation, and the other for proof.

As for whether Bitcoin will succeed? I don't know.

It may still be a bubble. Quantum computing, regulation, and technological evolution could all change its fate.

But at least today, I no longer understand it as a "machine for producing Bitcoin." I prefer to understand it as a "machine for producing verifiability."

And in an era where AI can generate everything, what is truly scarce may no longer be "more content," but "more independently verifiable facts."

As for whether the market will reprice it because of this, that's another matter.