Bitcoin evolution paradox

Initially posted on Twitter https://x.com/dr_ukolova/status/1776727883626512485

There is a new hypothesis in town saying that “Bitcoin is the money of your enemy but it’s not the money of Bitcoin’s enemies”. Kinda sounds cool, but something feels tricky. Let’s address the trickyness, shall we?

Part I. 'Bitcoin is the money of your enemies'

If Bitcoin is the money for your enemies it means that you, as an individual, can and probably do/will have people with interests that contradict those of your own. Obviously, such a situation causes various types of disputes often leading to conflicts (from drunk fistfights to global wars). So according to the above mentioned notion, Bitcoin should be the means of diplomatic “I don’t agree with you, but I will protect the freedom of your right to act the way you see fit”. Diplomatic, rational - overall pretty noble notion. Plot twist: Works right until someone actually takes his Bitcoin wealth and weaponises it against you and your will. At this point nobility and gentleman agreements suddenly go down the drain.

Julius Ceasar being killed by his Senators

Part 2. '…enemies of Bitcoin'

Question1. What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a protocol that is running across the network between nodes. Does it have its own interest? No, it’s not an animal and not a human, it doesn’t have intellect and can’t have its own agenda or goal. It’s a dozen lines of code- and that’s it. It doesn’t have a purpose, self-identification, self-awareness, self-reflection, own interests. It’s not a subject, it’s an object. It’s literally zeroes and ones simply fulfilling the program/agenda/computational rule that an observer appoints to it. It’s not a digital being that adjusts to the environment the way viruses mutate. For Bitcoin to evolve there always must be an observer and the steering wheel that decides what changes to embrace and which to ignore, where to go, at what speed, with which tradeoffs etc.

Question 2. One might argue that “enemies of Bitcoin” means enemies of Bitcoin community.

This hypothesis, supposedly, is wrong too. Why? Because according to many “Bitcoin OGs” there is NO BITCOIN COMMUNITY, there is just a bunch of different individuals or groups of hodlers/miners/devs with different goals and approaches that influence the development and evolution of the protocol.

Plot twists: a) bitcoin is a bunch of binary files put together, which are passive unless there is a user that runs a node (as in quantum mechanics - there matter is dead unless there is an observer/operator that ignites ‘life’ into it). It’s not a spontaneous “running in its own” system. Thus - this argument is invalid because Bitcoin, indeed, doesn’t have a community- it’s a code base, it’s passive not active. Thus, there are always actors that run and define the ‘destiny’ of Bitcoin protocol - even if you don’t like to call them ‘community’.

b) if there is no bitcoin community there is no shared interest that can gain enemies because every participant of the network is a potential enemy to the other party. So, the notion of bitcoin enemies is wrong by default as everyone is an enemy of everyone (I guess this was the actual initial NAP/Game theory narrative behind Bitcoin, right?).

c) if there is no community and bitcoin is just a bunch of binaries - who is the judge of whether someone acts according to or against Bitcoin? If you fork Bitcoin Core and make your own version of it - are you the enemy of Bitcoin? Do you become an enemy if you fork Nakamoto Consensus and amend it while leaving the blockchain part to exist? Are you an enemy if you take a bunch of BTC and issue whatever vouchers/IUOs based on it lying in your vault? We can continue with questions, but the core question here is - who is to decide? Especially taking into account that there is no Bitcoin community as we have established above, who, supposedly, ‘is the one to decide’?

Part III. Bitcoin is the money of your enemy but not the money for Bitcoin’s enemies.

The whole purpose of cypherpunk movement and Bitcoin in particular was to bring freedom and sovereignty to an individual via giving him power and resources to protect himself and fulfil his own will (which is usually to be left the fuck alone).

But the line above means that if you as an individual have an enemy, you must let him use bitcoin to attack you ‘cause it’s freedom. But if “bitcoin” has an enemy - you must comply and act in such a way that protects the common Bitcoin good.

Does it sound cypherpunk to you?

Open questions to think about:

1. What is Bitcoin common good?

2. Since when has it been there?

3. Who has established it and when? (As my historian friend likes to say - everything was invented/established at some point.)

4. What else is there to Bitcoin common good? Who has the right and power (potesta et auctoritas) to amend it and enforce it?

5. Why individual must comply and sacrifice himself for the sake of Bitcoin common good while receiving nothing in return (and often - suffering financial, reputational and, most importantly, time-losses?