-
@ Pattern
2025-03-16 19:02:00Over all these years (about 17 or 18 already), we have seen how Bitcoin has evolved, both in technological terms, in terms of its ease of use through the evolution of the tools necessary for it, and in the growth of its use among individuals, merchants, or groups of individuals and/or merchants, who join together to try to build economies that benefit from the potential of this technological innovation.
Bitcoin was created as a tool for individuals or groups of individuals to trade or store their wealth and preserve it over the years without having to trust or depend on governments or financial institutions dictating what can and cannot be done with this tool. It was created as the first tool for financial freedom in human history that requires neither the approval nor the approval of those who hold different forms of power, nor does it require any rules imposed on individuals who use it for whatever purpose they deem appropriate, beyond the immutable and agnostic rules written in its original code. The complex consensus mechanism required to introduce changes to this code has allowed Bitcoin's properties to endure. Beyond opinions about the appropriateness or otherwise of introducing changes such as the block size and the negotiated solution (primarily through the New York agreement) that resulted in the introduction of Segwit, and later Taproot, these are now facts accomplish that Bitcoin users de facto accept by using it.
In recent years, and even more so since 2020, new generations of adopters have joined, bringing with them all their beliefs and philosophical baggage. They have been discovering how this innovation is useful and can adapt to both their beliefs and convictions about the correct way to proceed in economic and life terms. This doesn't happen by chance; rather, it's a reflection of the aforementioned: Bitcoin has no rules other than those contained in its code, which is agnostic and allows for absolute freedom, whether you like it or not. Even differences in those beliefs are no impediment to different groups or individuals negotiating and trading with each other without any agreement other than the rules established in this code.
It's sometimes surprising to see these new entrants attempt to establish standards for being a good Bitcoiner, going so far as to propose a philosophical, almost dogmatic framework that even includes a type of diet or lifestyle that must be followed to demonstrate a "low time preference," which would guarantee the status of a good Bitcoiner.
A good Bitcoiner is simply one who knowledgeably adheres to the consensus, without further ado, values it, and uses it as they see fit.
Like any tool of freedom, is Bitcoin a threat to the status quo? Of course it is. It threatens the most basic form of power, which is the control of individual wealth. Are there threats to Bitcoin? Undoubtedly, and they come in various forms, some unique to the ecosystem, such as the different forms of centralization. Such as the centralization of mining or core development, although that would be a subtle example compared to others that are much more visible and celebrated by so many. One example is the large amounts of Bitcoin held by relatively new holders, whose level of trust remains to be seen. Another example is the "Bitcoin paper", in the form of contracts traded on Wall Street and held by financial institutions that have nothing to do with the origins of this technology and the ethics with which it was conceived. By issuing these contracts and trading them on the financial market (ETFs being the most publicized), these entities propose a delegation of trust, since the 1-to-1 backing of these contracts with real Bitcoin is completely contradictory to the purpose Bitcoin pursues (money independent of financial institutions or governments, without the need for permissions or delegation of trust). Any other form of Bitcoin holding that does not include self-custody is in itself a delegation of trust to the custodian, who becomes a centralizing agent. The examples are many and varied, although with varying degrees of respect for the ethics with which Bitcoin was created. “Strategic reserves” held by governments or institutions are another form of centralization, in the case of governments, with potential political consequences at the global level.
External threats come from regulations, taxes, and, why not, seizures, as has historically occurred with gold. Are states capable of enforcing these regulations, impositions, or seizures? That remains to be seen and will undoubtedly depend on the behavior of each individual Bitcoin holder.
Remember: in the shadows, money is hidden like a secret, and excess money becomes a risk to public order. The system is set up so that money flows upward, and you, from the bottom up, if you manage to keep some... you'd better have a plan, because they'll want to take it from you one way or another, with taxes, inflation, or excuses.