Ascension Day has yet to arrive for Bitcoin, although some of its apostles display an almost religious admiration for Satoshi Nakamoto’s creation. Beyond the technical aspect of Blockchain technology, Bitcoin also carries social values. This decentralized model aims to revolutionize the way people share value and trade on the Internet. And there’s a good reason for that. Stepping away from the creation evangelists of Satoshi Nakamoto, and staying factual, Bitcoin has shown that it is possible to use a network of computers connected to the Internet to create and maintain a pool of shared data without the need for a trusted central authority. And despite the euphoric speculation surrounding its digital currency (bitcoin), Bitcoin (the network) stands unfazed amid the financial chaos.
It is therefore no wonder that some people believe that the incorruptible mathematics underlying Bitcoin can, if properly used, make business and social processes more efficient. Or rather to put the church back in the middle of the village in our economy. When you set foot in the cryptosphere, you will probably come across one of these individuals:
- Bitcoin evangelists (Bitcoin Maximalists)
These are those who believe that Bitcoin on its own satisfies the definition of a neutral, decentralized and non-state monetary system. They have a rather idealistic view of what Bitcoin can bring to our world. They believe that the conditions that led to the launch and start of Bitcoin will not be repeated, and that overall the creation of other cryptocurrencies undermines the economic scarcity of Bitcoin. Although they tolerate the creation of other digital assets, Bitcoin’s value proposition is unique and inimitable in their eyes. Bitcoin has for them, finally, brought the long-awaited currency in the age of the Internet, a currency controlled by its users and for its users. The mysterious disappearance of its creator plays a big part in this because, thus, no one has control over Bitcoin. There is some belief in Bitcoin’s superiority over other blockchains. Without expanding further on this profile, you will have understood that, overall, these individuals are particularly fetishistic towards the Bitcoin deity.
- Cryptosphere Atheists (Bitcoin Deniers)
This group rejects the idea that the “private” market should issue money, moreover bitcoin is not a currency for this group, and argues that the computer discovery of Bitcoin is not an economic invention . Rather, they believe that since governments derive their authority from the people, democratic states must continue to maintain a monopoly over money in the public interest (a right that extends to the ability to print, issue or to depreciate silver at the discretion of the state). For them, it is thanks to the state currency that the role of the welfare state can be ensured and not otherwise. Under no circumstances is a currency like bitcoin and its underlying technology viable to ensure the role of governance and the system of redistribution of wealth within a country. They believe that Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies more broadly, support drug trafficking and money laundering. For them, cryptocurrencies are an ecological disaster and an energy abyss, considering the passage that the Bitcoin network is in the hands of crooks building sumptuous Ponzi schemes. Overall, and without elaborating further, for this group, Bitcoin, and the cryptosphere more broadly, is a vast, unregulated speculative hoax that will sooner or later collapse. No question here of making any offering to the Pope 3.0.
- Cryptophile Jesuits (Crypto Agnostics)
Members of this group believe Bitcoin has either a narrow, major, or no place in a larger cryptocurrency ecosystem. Although they may consider some to be better or worse than others, they believe that most cryptocurrencies are inherently good because they provide an alternative to existing monetary systems. Bitcoin has a place in this group, but no more than others. Specifically, they speculate that by offering different feature sets or focusing on different use cases, cryptocurrencies serve a new type of currency and programmable infrastructure that rivals Bitcoin. Once again, without expanding further, this group likes cryptocurrencies as a whole, without putting Bitcoin on a pedestal in particular. A sort of cryptographic polytheism.
Of course, in this article, I have enlarged the line of these three groups of individuals. Each member does not have the same degree of attachment and conviction towards each community previously described. On the other hand, you will notice that when you read or listen to an individual discuss the subjects revolving around Bitcoin and others, their vision of the cryptosphere is often radical. Either very favorable or very unfavourable. Either fanatical or refractory. Whatever happens, from my point of view, currency or no currency, Bitcoin and its virtual currency force the current monetary systems to beef up their game from a technological point of view. And you, do you recognize yourself in one of these three groups?
To conclude, I will quote Melvin Kranzberg, professor of history and founder of The Society for the History of Technology : “Technology is neither good, nor bad, nor neutral[…] It reinforces and disempowers different actors. It can and has been leveraged into different visions of a better future.” 27th edition of the magazine Technology & Culture1986.