The "Dark
Side" of Bitcoin: A Secret Creation or a Bubble of Faith?
I. Introduction: The
Enigma of Satoshi and the Shadow of Origin
Bitcoin, a digital
innovation promising a revolution in the monetary field, stands as a
decentralized, transparent system free from the shackles of traditional
financial intermediaries. However, this promise of autonomy and openness is
overshadowed by a foundational enigma: the mystery surrounding its birth. Bitcoin's
genesis seems straight out of a secret archive of a powerful nation's
intelligence services, a provocative hypothesis that invites deeper
investigation into its true foundations. This inherent paradox — a system
advocating for radical decentralization, yet whose origin is singularly opaque
and centrally unknown — constitutes the core of what could be called its
"dark side." The central question this analysis seeks to unravel is
whether Bitcoin's perceived value is based on robust and rational foundations,
or if, on the contrary, it is a collective construct, an illusion maintained
primarily by widespread belief and speculative behavior. 77To address this
fundamental question, this analysis will explore the enduring mystery of
Satoshi Nakamoto's identity, critically compare it with fiat currencies,
analyze the speculative nature and psychological foundations of its market
value, and examine the technical and legal implications of its underlying
mechanisms.
II. The Veil of
Anonymity: Following in the Footsteps of Satoshi Nakamoto
II.1 The Ghost in the Machine: The Elusive Identity of Satoshi Nakamoto
The development of
Bitcoin, the drafting of its foundational white paper, and the implementation
of its original reference software were the work of a person or group of people
operating under the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto." To this day, the
true identity, age, and geographical location of Satoshi Nakamoto remain
unknown, constituting one of the greatest enigmas of the digital age. Although
a profile on the P2P Foundation suggested he was a 37-year-old man living in
Japan, born on April 5, 1975, most experts consider this information to be
false and deliberately chosen for its symbolism, not its veracity. Linguistic
analyses of his writings have suggested a possible origin or education in the
United Kingdom due to the consistent use of British spelling. Speculation about
his location also extends to the United States, based on the timing of his
online posts.
II.2 The Genesis of a Digital Enigma: The Bitcoin
Launch Process
Satoshi Nakamoto
introduced Bitcoin to the public through a gradual and methodical process that
unfolded between 2008 and 2009. The first public announcement occurred on
October 31, 2008, with the publication of the white paper "Bitcoin: A
Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" on a cryptography mailing list. This
eight-page document detailed the proposal for a decentralized digital currency
that would use cryptography to secure transactions and prevent double-spending.
Shortly before the
white paper's publication, on August 18, 2008, the domain bitcoin.org was
registered, which would become the project's official site. Crucially, Satoshi
used AnonymousSpeech.com, an anonymity service, for this registration, which
made direct tracing of the registrant or their location extremely difficult. It
is important to differentiate this domain from bitcoin.com, which was
registered by a Swedish company in 2000 and is not directly linked to Satoshi
Nakamoto.
The official birth of
the Bitcoin network occurred on January 3, 2009, when Satoshi Nakamoto mined
the Genesis Block, the first block of the blockchain. This block contained an
embedded message that has become iconic: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor
on brink of second bailout for banks." This headline from The Times is widely interpreted as a
statement of Satoshi's principles regarding the global financial crisis and the
need for a monetary alternative.
In addition to
publishing the white paper and launching the software, Satoshi Nakamoto
maintained active participation in online forums, primarily BitcoinTalk, and
mailing lists with other cryptography and programming enthusiasts. In these
spaces, he answered questions, explained how the system worked, collaborated on
development, and participated in discussions, before gradually disengaging from
the project in 2010.
II.3 The Unbreakable Code of Secrecy: Precautions for
Anonymity
Satoshi Nakamoto's
ability to remain completely anonymous is remarkable and suggests an
extraordinary level of operational security (OpSec). The precautions taken to
protect his identity were significant.
The use of anonymity
services like AnonymousSpeech.com for registering the bitcoin.org domain is a
clear example. Likewise, it is highly probable that he used anonymity networks
such as Tor or Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to hide his real IP address when
publishing the white paper and interacting in forums. The choice of the email
address satoshin@gmx.com, from a German provider known for its robust privacy
policies, suggests it was accessed using methods designed to conceal his
location.
Satoshi demonstrated
a deep understanding of cryptography, networks, and anonymity techniques, which
allowed him to meticulously avoid leaving any digital traces that could link him
to his real identity. His communications were purely technical, lacking
personal details. He maintained a deliberate distance from early developers,
never met anyone in person, and his abrupt and complete withdrawal from the
Bitcoin community in 2010 cut off any possible future traces.
The motivation behind
this extreme anonymity is subject to speculation. One theory suggests it was
crucial for Bitcoin to be perceived as a truly decentralized project, free from
the influence of a central figure. This anonymity would also protect Satoshi
from being targeted by governments, regulators, or corporate interests that
might try to control or discredit the project, in addition to safeguarding his
privacy and personal security given the immense value of Bitcoin holdings
associated with the early mined blocks.
II.4 The Intelligence Agency Hypothesis: Smoke or Fire?
The persistent
unknown regarding Satoshi Nakamoto's identity, coupled with Bitcoin's
disruptive nature, has fueled suspicion of possible involvement by intelligence
services.
Arguments fueling suspicion:
●
Extreme Operational
Security (OpSec): Satoshi's ability to remain completely anonymous for
so long, despite the immense fame and potential value of his Bitcoin holdings,
is remarkable. For many, this suggests a level of sophistication in operational
security that goes beyond an ordinary individual, which could point to
government training or resources.
●
Geopolitical and
Financial Implications: Bitcoin represents a potential threat to state
monetary control and traditional financial systems. The idea of a decentralized
currency that evades government control is so disruptive that some find it
difficult to believe it emerged from an individual or independent group without
some form of support or, at least, without the prior knowledge of powerful
agencies.
●
Advanced
Cryptographic Skills: Bitcoin's design combines various technical
disciplines (cryptography, game theory, distributed networks) in a novel and
effective way. This requires a level of expertise that might be more common in
governmental or military research and development environments.
●
"False
Flag" or Experiment: Some theorists suggest that Bitcoin could have been
an experiment by an agency to test economic warfare concepts, surveillance, or
even as a form of covert funding. While speculative, the nature of the
technology makes it plausible in the minds of some.
Satoshi's
unprecedented ability to maintain his anonymity, despite immense global
attention, becomes a central point of this speculation. That is, the very
strategy that sought to ensure the project's decentralization and eliminate a
single point of control, paradoxically, is interpreted as a sign of a hidden
power structure, perhaps at the state level. This tension between the
aspiration for decentralization and the suspicion of a centralized and powerful
origin is a fundamental component of Bitcoin's "dark side."
II.5 Counterarguments to Intelligence Service
Involvement:
A crucial element
that contradicts the hypothesis of state creation is the message embedded in
the Genesis Block: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second
bailout for banks." This direct reference to the financial crisis and the
implicit criticism of banking and government institutions is an openly
anti-establishment statement. If a state intelligence agency had been behind
Bitcoin, it would be highly illogical and counterproductive to embed such a
clear and challenging message to the structures its own nation supports. This
internal contradiction in the theory of a dark origin reinforces the idea that
the creator was driven by genuine ideological conviction, likely rooted in the
libertarian or cypherpunk movement.
III. Fiat Currency
vs. Cryptocurrency: A Duel of Values and Trusts
III.1 The Basis of Fiat Currency: Trust, Law, and
Central Control
Fiat currency is a
form of money issued by a government that derives its value from public trust
and its designation as legal tender, rather than being backed by a physical
commodity like gold or silver. Common examples include the US dollar (USD), the
euro (EUR), and the Japanese yen (JPY), which underpin most of the current
global economy.
The value of fiat
currency stems from government regulation and public trust. Central banks
control its supply, circulation, and use through monetary policy tools, such as
interest rates, in order to maintain economic stability. Unlike commodity
money, fiat currency has no intrinsic value; its value lies in the collective
agreement that it can be used for the exchange of goods and services. It is, in
essence, a promise by a government or central bank that the currency can be
exchanged for its value in goods.
Among the advantages
of fiat currency are its widespread acceptance and familiarity, its stability
and predictability (derived from government backing and central control), its
seamless integration with existing financial infrastructure (banking,
accounting, payment processing), a clear legal and regulatory framework, and
its high scalability and liquidity for managing large-scale transactions.
However, fiat
currency also has disadvantages. It is susceptible to inflationary pressures
that can erode purchasing power. Its value and stability ultimately depend on
the policies of central banks and governments, which can be influenced by
political and economic factors, introducing uncertainty. Traditional fiat
currency transactions often lack the transparency and traceability offered by
blockchain networks. Furthermore, cross-border transactions can be complex,
slow, and costly, involving multiple intermediaries and exchange rates.
III.2 The Enigma of Bitcoin's Value: Belief or Asset?
The most recurrent
criticism of Bitcoin is its lack of intrinsic value, both from an axiological
(philosophical of value) perspective and from classical financial theory. Fundamental
theories of financial asset valuation, developed by figures such as John Burr
Williams, Benjamin Graham, and David Dodd, link intrinsic value to a persistent
future flow of cash flows, such as dividends or earnings. Bitcoin, by design,
does not generate these traditional cash flows, leading to the conclusion that
it lacks intrinsic value in this established sense.
Unlike fiat
currencies, Bitcoin cannot be valued using traditional macroeconomic metrics
such as GDP or CPI, nor through fiscal and monetary policies, international
trade records, or the political climate. Its value, it is argued, comes instead
from market demand and the utility of its underlying technology, although it
lacks the government backing that distinguishes fiat currency.
The central premise
underlying the discussion of Bitcoin's "dark side" is that its value
exists primarily "because people act as if it has value." This
highlights its reliance on a collective agreement or "faith" as the
primary driver of its perceived value. Academic evidence confirms it as a
predominantly speculative, rather than transactional, asset. Quantitative
analyses have revealed that the "bubble component" often exceeds 99%
of its market price, suggesting that its value is driven by speculation rather
than fundamental utility. Its limited practical use as a medium of exchange reinforces
this perspective.
A comparative
analysis of fiat currencies and cryptocurrencies reveals a fundamental
redefinition of "trust" in modern monetary systems. While fiat
currency bases its value on explicit trust in a central authority (the
government and its central bank) and its ability to manage the economy,
Bitcoin, although presented as a system that eliminates the need for trust in a
centralized entity, implicitly replaces it with a collective and distributed
trust in the integrity of the algorithm, the security of the network, and the
continued belief of other participants. This is a subtle but crucial facet of
the "dark side": the illusion of a complete absence of trust.
Although Bitcoin
eliminates dependence on a single centralized entity, it replaces it with a
dependence on the collective, often irrational, trust of the masses. This
raises a deeper question about the nature of value in the digital age: if value
is ultimately a social construct, then the mechanisms by which that construct
is maintained (centralized government decree versus decentralized algorithmic
consensus and collective belief) become critical. The "dark side" of
Bitcoin, in this sense, is not that it lacks trust, but that its form of trust
is diffuse, less accountable, and more susceptible to psychological phenomena.
Furthermore, the
premise that Bitcoin's value is not "supported by any underlying asset
that rationally gives it sustenance, as is the case with fiat currency (or at
least should be)" requires qualification. The very definitions of fiat
currency explicitly state that it "is not backed by a physical good such
as gold or silver." Its value, like Bitcoin's, ultimately comes from
"public trust in the issuer" or collective belief.
Therefore, Bitcoin's
"dark side" does not lie in it being the only asset without tangible
backing in the traditional sense of a commodity. The crucial difference lies in
who guarantees its value and how that guarantee is maintained. Fiat
currency is backed by the full faith and credit of a sovereign state, its
economic productivity, and the institutional mechanisms of a central bank. Bitcoin,
on the contrary, is sustained by cryptographic proof, network security, and the
collective faith and speculative demand of its users. This reframes the
"lack of backing" argument from a simplistic comparison to a nuanced
distinction in their respective value-sustaining mechanisms, highlighting
Bitcoin's inherent fragility.
Table: Fiat Currency vs. Cryptocurrency: A Comparative
Analysis
|
Criterion |
Fiat Currency (e.g., USD, EUR) |
Cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin) |
|
Definition and
Backing |
Issued by the
government; value derived from trust and legal tender. Not backed by a
physical good, but by state promise and national economy.
|
Digital/virtual,
operates with blockchain technology. Value determined by market demand and
technological utility. No government
backing.
|
|
Control and
Regulation |
Centralized,
controlled by central banks and governments. Supply, circulation, and use
regulated for economic stability.
|
Decentralized,
governed by algorithms or consensus mechanisms. Operates without central
authority, in peer-to-peer networks.
|
|
Nature |
Exists in both
physical form (bills, coins) and digital form (bank balances).
|
Exists exclusively
in digital form.
|
|
Intrinsic
Value |
Has no intrinsic
value. Its value is a governmental promise of exchange for goods and
services.
|
No intrinsic value
according to classical financial theory (does not generate cash flows). Its value is primarily instrumental and subjective.
|
|
Stability/Volatility |
Generally stable,
but susceptible to inflation and government policies.
|
Extremely volatile,
highly susceptible to speculative bubbles.
|
|
General
Acceptance |
Dominant and widely
accepted globally for all types of transactions, including taxes and credits.
|
Less accepted
globally; limited practical use as a general medium of transaction.
|
|
Primary Use |
Medium of exchange,
unit of account, store of value.
|
Primarily as a
speculative investment or store of value. Limited use as a daily medium of
exchange.
|
|
Transparency |
Traditional
transactions with limited transparency and traceability.
|
Blockchain offers
complete transparency of all public (pseudonymous) transactions.
|
|
Cross-border
Frictions |
Complex, slow, and
costly, with multiple intermediaries and exchange rates.
|
More cost- and
time-efficient for cross-border payments, without intermediaries.
|
|
Key Risks |
Inflation,
dependence on monetary/fiscal policies, potential for bubbles due to
unlimited supply.
|
Extreme volatility,
scams/frauds, regulatory uncertainty, risk of significant capital loss.
|
IV. The Mirage Value:
Bitcoin as a Speculative Asset
IV.1 The Illusion of Intrinsic Value
The fundamental
argument against Bitcoin's "real value" is its lack of intrinsic
value, both from an axiological perspective and from classical financial
theory. Fundamental theories of financial asset valuation, developed by
pioneers such as John Burr Williams, Benjamin Graham, and David Dodd, establish
that intrinsic value is derived from a persistent future flow of cash flows,
such as dividends or profits. By design, cryptocurrencies do not generate these
traditional cash flows, leading to the conclusion that they do not possess
intrinsic value in the established financial sense.
Furthermore, unlike
fiat currencies, Bitcoin cannot be valued using conventional macroeconomic
metrics such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
nor through analyses of fiscal and monetary policies, international trade
records, or the political climate. This inoperability of traditional capital
and foreign trade analysis methods underscores the distinctive and often opaque
nature of its valuation dynamics. Although some proponents attempt to attribute
intrinsic value to it based on its utility or network effect, the academic
consensus, as reflected in the available research, leans strongly towards its
predominantly speculative character.
IV.2 The "Bubble Component": A Quantitative
Look at Speculation
The concept of the
"bubble component" is a crucial analytical tool that demonstrates the
significant disparity between Bitcoin's market price and its estimated
fundamental value. The quantitative conclusions are resounding: at its market
peak in November 2021, Bitcoin's bubble component was estimated to exceed 99%
of its value. Even after a substantial price drop in late August 2023, this
component remained remarkably above 99%. This data provides a powerful,
evidence-based argument for Bitcoin's speculative nature, suggesting that the
vast majority of its market price is driven by speculative behavior and
collective belief, rather than underlying intrinsic utility or its function as
a stable medium of exchange.
This valuation
dynamic of Bitcoin operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The collective
belief among investors that Bitcoin will appreciate in the future directly
drives its current demand, which in turn inflates its price. This inflated
price then reinforces the initial belief for both existing holders and new
entrants, creating a powerful positive feedback loop characteristic of
speculative bubbles.
The inherent
fragility of a value system built primarily on expectation and collective
psychology, rather than tangible utility, consistent cash flows, or a stable
economic base, is a fundamental aspect of its "dark side." Such a
system is highly susceptible to rapid and severe corrections when collective
belief fades.
IV.3 Limited Utility as a Transaction Medium
Additional evidence
supporting Bitcoin's predominantly speculative nature is manifested in its
limited practical use for everyday transactions. Research such as that by Chiu
and Koeppl (2019) calculated that, even in 2015, the total stock of Bitcoins in
circulation could only support a maximum of 6.9 million average-sized
transactions per day, indicating its severe limitations as a widespread
transaction medium.
Polaski et al. cite_start observed that
Bitcoin adoption has largely been confined to narrow niches and the
"underground economy," with greater use reported in low-income
countries and among small emerging businesses. Resistance to Bitcoin adoption
in high-income countries is attributed primarily to their well-developed
traditional banking and electronic payment systems, such as credit cards and
PayPal. Additional academic arguments question its fundamental value: White et
al.cite_start argue that Bitcoin
fails as a reliable unit of account, and Ali et al. cite_start argue that digital
currencies face strong barriers to becoming a widespread transaction medium
because their advantages over existing credit money are often unclear. Ciaian
et al. cite_start concluded that
Bitcoin is not a widely used transaction medium and is unlikely to be so, as
its transactions primarily involve transfers between speculative investors
rather than exchanges of goods and services. Other obstacles to its widespread
adoption include the difficulty users face in acquiring new Bitcoins, the
irreversibility of transactions (which raises problems for dispute resolution),
and the relatively high level of computer literacy required to use and
understand the system.
It is important to
highlight a fundamental disconnect between Bitcoin's production cost and its
value. Research refutes the common argument that Bitcoin's fundamental value is
determined by its marginal cost of production. Instead, a crucial inverse
relationship is observed: changes in Bitcoin's market prices drive changes in
marginal production costs, and not the other way around. This means that higher
speculative Bitcoin prices incentivize greater investment in mining operations,
which in turn raises the costs associated with proof of work, mainly
electricity consumption.
The immense energy
and computational effort invested in Bitcoin mining, often cited as a
"cost" that confers value, are not creating intrinsic value. Rather,
they are a consequence of its
speculative price. The "work" in Proof of Work is not productive
labor in the traditional economic sense, but a reactive expense driven by the
pursuit of speculative gains. This reveals a deeper flaw in the "value
through scarcity/cost" argument, exposing the circularity of its economic
justification.
IV.4 Volatility as a Hallmark of Speculation
The extreme
volatility of Bitcoin's prices is an eloquent indicator of its speculative
nature. Historical examples, such as its exponential rise from $1,176 to
$19,357 and subsequent dramatic drop to $5,890 between 2017 and 2018,
illustrate this characteristic. This volatility, it is argued, has
"derailed the notion of its value." In the realm of financial assets,
everything is inherently speculative, and value is largely derived from
individual and collective belief in its future worth.
V. The Psychology of
Digital Money: Emotions, Herds, and Bubbles
V.1 The Human Element in Digital Finance
The field of
behavioral finance is fundamental to understanding economic phenomena, as it
integrates insights from psychology into traditional economic models. This
discipline underscores those human economic decisions, especially in volatile
markets, are not purely rational but are significantly influenced by emotions,
cognitive biases, and the broader social context.
V.2 The Allure of the Crowd: The Herding Effect
The "herding
effect" or "bandwagon effect" is defined as the psychological
tendency of individuals to adopt ideas, behaviors, or investment strategies
simply because most others do, often without conducting independent critical
analysis. In the cryptocurrency market, this manifest when many investors,
lacking a deep technical understanding of how a cryptocurrency works, are
driven to buy it upon observing its price consistently rising, driven by the
actions of others.
The unregulated
nature of cryptocurrency markets, coupled with their inherent high volatility
and the ubiquitous influence of social media in disseminating information and
opinions, significantly amplifies this herding effect, leading to rapid and
often irrational price swings and increased investment risk. To illustrate the
underlying psychological mechanism, one can refer to Sherif's famous 1935
experiment on informative social influence, which demonstrates how individuals
rely on others to define reality in ambiguous or uncertain situations, leading
to the convergence of judgments. This directly connects to financial markets,
where, particularly during periods of extreme price movements (such as panic
selling during downturns or greed-driven buying during rallies), rational
analysis can be supplanted by collective emotional responses, driving investors
to herd behavior.
V.3 The Rose-Tinted Glasses: The Optimism Bias
"Optimism
bias" in the context of cryptocurrency investment is defined as the
cognitive tendency of investors to systematically minimize the effects of
potential losses while exaggerating their potential gains, leading them to act
primarily on subjective emotions rather than technical or objective arguments.
This bias has significant impacts on
investment decisions:
●
Overestimation of
Gains: Optimistic investors tend to overestimate the potential for future
cryptocurrency gains, leading them to assume disproportionately greater risks
without adequately considering the possibility of substantial losses.
●
Underestimation of
Risks: This bias can lead to a dangerous underestimation of the inherent risks
associated with cryptocurrency investment, resulting in a lack of preparation
for adverse market scenarios or extreme volatility.
●
Lack of Critical
Analysis: Overly optimistic investors may be less inclined to conduct thorough,
critical, and objective analyses of the cryptocurrencies they invest in,
leading to decisions based on fleeting emotions and exaggerated expectations
rather than sound fundamentals.
Adding to these
biases is FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out),
a powerful emotional driver that can lead to impulsive and regrettable
investment decisions in fast-moving crypto markets. Also, loss aversion, where the psychological pain of experiencing a loss
is disproportionately stronger than the pleasure derived from an equivalent
gain, influences investor behavior.
Bitcoin's value is
based on the premise that "it is worth something because everyone acts as
if it is worth something." This collective belief, or "faith" in
its future value, is presented as the main driver of its market price,
especially in the absence of tangible underlying assets or traditional
institutional backing. This collective acceptance transforms Bitcoin into a
"model of symbolic, self-referential, and highly elitist
legitimation", where its value derives more from shared conviction than
from inherent utility.
For a cryptocurrency
user network to grow sustainably and maintain its instrumental value, it must
reach a "critical mass," a threshold of users beyond which the
network begins to grow or goes viral. Below this threshold, the network's value
tends to stagnate. 197The instrumental value of a cryptocurrency appears to
be a direct consequence of its widespread acceptance, which is intrinsically
linked to achieving and maintaining this critical mass of users.
The critique of the
Proof of Work (PoW) mechanism describes this process as a "ritual of
collective legitimation" and "ritualized scarcity." This
establishes a deep connection between Bitcoin's technical functioning and the
collective psychology that drives its value. Bitcoin's value is not simply a
function of its cryptographic design but is intrinsically linked to inherent
human psychological biases that amplify its perceived value. One aspect of the
"dark side" is that this value, relying heavily on human psychology,
is inherently susceptible to irrational euphoria and panic, making it
fundamentally unstable despite its underlying technical robustness. This
suggests a form of "social proof" that can lead to significant market
distortions.
Bitcoin's fundamental
promise and main appeal lie in its decentralization, which seeks to free users
from the control and potential manipulation of central authorities like
governments and banks. This freedom is often lauded as a significant advantage.
However, psychological analysis shows that, in the absence of centralized
regulation, oversight, or a central entity providing "trust backing"
(which fiat currencies possess, however imperfectly), the cryptocurrency market
becomes significantly more susceptible to uncontrolled psychological phenomena
such as the herding effect and optimism bias. This reveals a critical paradox
of the "dark side": the very freedom from central control that
Bitcoin advocates simultaneously becomes a profound vulnerability in terms of
price stability and rational valuation. Without a central authority to
intervene, provide corrective measures, or instill confidence during crises,
the market is largely at the mercy of the unpredictable whims of collective emotion,
leading to exaggerated price swings, speculative bubbles, and severe
corrections. The absence of traditional regulatory "guardrails"
allows psychological biases to exert a disproportionate influence.
VI. Proof of Work:
Technical Legitimation or Ritual of Power?
VI.1 Understanding Proof of Work (PoW): Bitcoin's
Engine
Proof of Work (PoW)
is the fundamental consensus mechanism that underpins Bitcoin's security,
validates transactions, and facilitates the generation of new coins. Thousands
of computers, known as "miners," compete globally to solve a complex
mathematical problem. This problem involves finding a specific
"nonce" (a numerical value) by brute force, using the SHA-256
cryptographic algorithm, until a solution is found that meets an arbitrary
condition (e.g., the hash starts with a certain number of zeros). The first
miner to find the solution "wins the block," meaning they can add a
new block of verified transactions to the blockchain and, in return, receive a
reward in newly created Bitcoins along with transaction fees. This mathematical
problem has no analytical shortcut, requiring immense computational capacity
and, consequently, significant energy expenditure.
In less technical
terms, Proof of Work (PoW) is essentially a chase. Imagine Alice chasing the
white rabbit that jumped down the hole; the first to find it is the only one
who wins. The rabbit, in this case, is a Bitcoin, and the race is, basically,
to find a random number that has no real-world utility for anyone other than
winning the race. This number has nothing rational about it; it can only be
found by enormous computational brute force, just like a password. And what
about those who lose? If only one wins, why do so many miners remain interested
in investing resources in Bitcoin mining? Well, this is where pools come in.
Miners join other miners, combining their computing power, and if together they
are the first to find the sought-after SHA-256 cryptographic algorithm, then
the prize is shared among them all.
VI.2 A Critical Legal-Economic Analysis:
"Work" or Computational Theater?
Applying a critical
and multidisciplinary lens to PoW goes beyond its technical description to
question its deeper implications.
●
Is it truly
"work"? The notion of PoW as productive labor is questioned. The
computational effort does not generate intrinsically useful value; it does not
produce knowledge or directly contribute to social improvement. Instead, it is
characterized as an "act of competitive and destructive energy
expenditure" whose sole function is to guarantee "trust" within
the system. Drawing inspiration from David Graeber's critique of bureaucratic
work, it is suggested that PoW resembles more a "ritual of collective
legitimation" than a form of genuinely productive labor.
●
Meritocracy or
"Hash-tocracy"? The claim of decentralization is critically examined.
It is argued that PoW does not reward effort or merit in a traditional sense,
but rather computational capacity. Those with access to greater resources—such
as specialized hardware (ASICs) and cheaper energy—gain an overwhelming
advantage. This inherent bias, it is argued, leads to a concentration of mining
power in large "mining farms" rather than fostering true
decentralization.
●
Artificial Scarcity: It is questioned
whether the computational difficulty imposed by PoW is truly necessary to
maintain scarcity or if it is merely an "artifice." Although the
Bitcoin protocol strictly limits total issuance to 21 million BTC and
establishes periodic reward reductions (halving), this reduction is described
as "unrelated to actual market demand." The conclusion is that PoW
creates "ritualized scarcity," an engineering of value based on
"faith in difficulty," rather than natural economic principles.
Proof of Work (PoW)
is an «act of competitive and destructive energy expenditure, whose sole
function is to artificially create cryptocurrency scarcity to increase its
value, by guaranteeing 'trust' in the system». An aspect of the "dark
side" arises from the inherent contradiction: an immense amount of real-world
energy is consumed
solely to maintain a system that fundamentally claims to be
"trustless" (i.e., not requiring trust in a central party). This
implies that the pursuit of decentralization and the absence of trust in
Bitcoin comes at a significant and unproductive environmental and economic
cost. The "work" performed by miners does not create tangible
economic value in the traditional sense; instead, it is a highly inefficient
and resource-intensive mechanism for achieving consensus and security in a
distributed network. It is, in essence, "paying for trust" in a
decentralized and computationally intensive way. This challenges the narrative
of efficiency often associated with cryptocurrencies and highlights a hidden
and substantial cost for its supposed benefits.
VI.3 PoW as "Lex Cryptographica": A New
Legal Paradigm?
This crucial section
introduces the concept of "Lex Cryptographica" as an informal source
of normative legitimacy. It draws an analogy with commercial usage or custom,
explaining that, although not imposed by a sovereign authority, it produces
binding social effects within the blockchain ecosystem. It is presented as a
"new type of self-executing normativity based on technical rules,"
where the traditional "social contract" is effectively "replaced
by a computational consensus."
"Lex
Cryptographica" refers to a new legal concept arising from the development
of smart contracts within decentralized blockchain systems. It functions as an
effective regulatory code, where the immutable nature of the distributed ledger
and the automation of transactions make it extremely powerful and decisive. Essentially,
it represents a form of law, legal procedures, and even punishment that is
self-contained and executed within the smart contract itself, operating without
traditional ties to territorial jurisdiction.
The legal
implications and challenges to traditional frameworks are profound:
●
Displacement of Legal
Symbols: Blockchain technology, by intertwining technological and legal
structures, fundamentally alters the understanding of law, initiating a
profound displacement of traditional legal symbols and imaginaries.
●
Emancipation from
Traditional Law: Lex Cryptographica challenges the historical dependence of law on three
essential dimensions: language (by relying on code instead of natural
language), territory (by operating in a virtual world without geographical
jurisdiction), and body (algorithmic execution reduces the need for human
intermediaries and centralized authorities).
●
Algorithmic
Execution: While smart contracts leverage algorithmic execution capability to
enhance cooperation and potentially reduce litigation, the legal legitimacy of
this execution, especially when operating outside traditional judicial
oversight, remains uncertain.
●
Relationship with
External Regulation: Despite its self-executing nature, Lex Cryptographica
is also subject to real-world legislation, creating a complex and often
ambiguous interaction between code-based rules and existing legal frameworks.
●
Smart Contract
Breaches: Cases like DAO and Parity Wallet highlight the significant legal issues
arising from smart contract breaches, where the contracts themselves
effectively become the law, legal procedures, and even the punishment
mechanism.
●
New Governance
Models: The existence of smart contracts within the blockchain system has also
led to debates about blockchain-based "virtual states" as a new
governance model that transcends geographical limitations.
The emergence of
"Lex Cryptographica" represents a profound legal and governance
implication. It means that the rules governing interactions within the
blockchain, and by extension, Bitcoin's operating principles, are embedded
directly in the code, which executes automatically and immutably. This bypasses
traditional legal systems, raising critical and unresolved questions about
redress, accountability, and the very definition of justice when outcomes are
dictated by algorithms rather than human interpretation or judicial process. The
"dark side" here is the potential for a legal vacuum or the emergence
of a parallel legal system that is not subject to democratic oversight,
traditional legal principles of fairness, or established mechanisms of appeal
or amendment. This concept directly challenges the sovereignty of nation-states
over economic and legal matters, suggesting a possible gradual shift towards a
"virtual state" governed by algorithms, with far-reaching and
currently unknown consequences for global governance, international law, and
individual rights.
VI.4 Is Bitcoin a
"Scam"? (Legal Perspective)
From a strict
criminal perspective, Bitcoin cannot be considered a criminal "scam,"
as there is no direct fraudulent deception with malicious intent. However, it
can be argued that Bitcoin functions as a "model of symbolic,
self-referential, and highly elitist legitimation." In this model, its
value is based more on collective belief and acceptance than on inherent social
utility or traditional economic fundamentals. Ultimately, Bitcoin "is
worth something because everyone acts as if it is worth something," and
the Proof of Work mechanism "is worth something because everyone agrees to
pay its cost."
VII. Conclusion:
Unraveling the Bitcoin Myth
The analysis of
Bitcoin reveals a complex intertwining of technological innovation and inherent
vulnerabilities, which form its "dark side." The mystery surrounding
Satoshi Nakamoto's identity and the sophisticated anonymity tactics employed
continue to fuel suspicions of a powerful, perhaps state-level, origin, despite
compelling counterarguments pointing to a genuine ideological motivation.
It has been shown
that Bitcoin's value is not rationally sustained by tangible underlying assets,
as traditional financial theory would require. Although it is acknowledged that
fiat currency backing is also fundamentally based on trust and government
promise, Bitcoin's value is predominantly a product of collective belief,
speculative market dynamics, and amplified psychological biases. The
"bubble component," representing over 99% of its market price, and
its demonstrated extreme volatility, are quantitative proof of its speculative
nature and limited real utility as a transactional medium.
Proof of Work (PoW),
Bitcoin's core mechanism, has been re-examined as a costly "scarcity
ritual" that, paradoxically, tends to concentrate power rather than truly
decentralize it. The immense energy consumed by PoW is not a driver of
intrinsic value, but a consequence of
its speculative price, reversing the traditional economic logic of cost and
value. Psychological factors, such as the herding effect and optimism bias, are
crucial in amplifying speculative bubbles, demonstrating how collective
"faith" and irrational action are fundamental to Bitcoin's perceived
value and market behavior. Finally, the emergence of "Lex
Cryptographica," where code dictates law, poses fundamental challenges to
traditional notions of jurisdiction, governance, and legal accountability.
Bitcoin is not simply
a technological innovation; it is a vast, ongoing, and unprecedented
socioeconomic experiment in decentralized value creation and trust. This
framing acknowledges its revolutionary aspects while maintaining the critical
perspective that its "dark side"—its enigmatic origins, its inherent
speculative fragility, and its profound dependence on collective
psychology—cannot be ignored. To fully understand the implications of Bitcoin
and the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem, continuous critical analysis from a
truly multidisciplinary perspective, integrating insights from finance, law,
and psychology, is imperative. This will allow us to move beyond the often
sensationalist narrative and reflect on the changing nature of value in the
digital age: is value, ultimately, what we collectively believe it to be,
regardless of underlying fundamentals? And, crucially, what are the inherent
risks and social implications when that collective belief, the very foundation
of a digital asset's value, falters or is manipulated?
Sources of information:
●
Personal research. The dark side of Bitcoin.
●
Fiat currency | TRM Glossary, accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.trmlabs.com/es/glossary/fiat-currency
●
Definition of Fiat currency - IG, accessed: July 14,
2025,
https://www.ig.com/latam/glosario-trading/definicion-de-moneda-fiduciaria
●
Crypto vs fiat money: evaluating their role in
business operations, accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://b2binpay.com/es/news/crypto-vs-fiat-money-evaluating-their-role-in-business-operations
●
Does Bitcoin have no intrinsic value? | ForesightNews
on Gate Post, accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.gate.com/es/post/status/9869421
●
The value of a cryptocurrency - - Debates IESA,
accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.debatesiesa.com/el-valor-de-una-criptomoneda/
●
BITCOIN BUBBLES AND A MONETARY MEASURE OF ...,
accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=pennsylvania-economic-review
●
Bitcoin rises 3% and reaches new historical record of
$123,000, accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://capital.es/economia/mercados-e-inversion/el-bitcoin-sube-un-3-y-alcanza-un-nuevo-record-historico-de-123-000-dolares/134517/
●
Bitcoin rises 3% and conquers new historical high at
$123,000, accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.europapress.es/economia/finanzas-00340/noticia-bitcoin-sube-conquista-nuevo-maximo-historico-123000-dolares-20250714113724.html
●
Bitcoin: How to calculate its intrinsic value? José
Luis Cava - YouTube, accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeYRJYZXwos
●
Psychological foundations of economic behavior,
accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://journals.copmadrid.org/jwop/files/1990/vol2/arti3.htm
●
Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences Final
Project ..., accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/handle/10324/71828/TFG-E-2035.pdf?sequence=1
●
The Psychology Behind Cryptocurrency Investing |
Learning ..., accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.learningheroes.com/blog/aprende-crypto/la-psicologia-detras-de-la-inversion-en-criptomonedas
●
Cryptocurrency vs. Traditional Money: Key Differences
- Bitstamp, accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.bitstamp.net/es/learn/crypto-101/cryptocurrency-vs-traditional-money-key-differences/
●
Lex Cryptographia: Legal Extensions to Smart Contract
Breaches and Governance in Blockchain Systems - ResearchGate, accessed: July
14, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389441989_Lex_Cryptographia_Legal_Extensions_to_Smart_Contract_Breaches_and_Governance_in_Blockchain_Systems
●
Blockchain Matters—Lex Cryptographia and the
Displacement of ..., accessed: July 14, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357644340_Blockchain_Matters-Lex_Cryptographia_and_the_Displacement_of_Legal_Symbolics_and_Imaginaries
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario