Bitcoin does not exist. Bitcoin is fetching. The continuation of its uniqueness is not terminal but rather instrumental to somewhat else. Bitcoin sustains identity so that it can serve its sense. And, like uniqueness, the meaning is flexible and exists only in the hive mind that plans it. 

A more knowing way to reflect about Bitcoin then is not to recognize it as a physical theory — as a decentralized payment system operating on a cryptographic procedure — but as narrative. 

The narrative is not like our mind’s way of knowing being, but also as its mode of expressing and generating the potentials of becoming. In other words, narratives are not just signs or imitations of reality — they are actuality. Creator and author of Epsilon Theory Ben Hunt, whose thoughts we shall visit again in future, describe the notion of narrative as “a methodically postmodern idea. 

While the epistemology of Truth with a capital T is further than the choice of this piece, and while indeed the brilliant philosophers at Epsilon Theory are certainly not too far from the truth when they preach about narratives, there is an implicit false contrast between ‘narrative’ and ‘reality’ in the above description that cannot remain unaddressed. 

If we try to know the narratives such as cultural artefacts — as nil but goods of our lazy minds — then yes, narratives can surely be deemed “untrue” or “disconnected from observable facts.” 

Altering Narratives or Altering Bitcoin? 

All mainstream address around Bitcoin narratives is laden with the untrue underlying assumption that the Bitcoin decorum is somehow categorically dissimilar from the Bitcoin narrative. 

Narratives conversion, Bitcoin doesn’t, is a thought: 

Indeed, it was constantly the other way about when the narratives modify — the whole nature and identity of the asset alterations. It is almost as if the advantage is nothing but the underlying imitative of the narrative. 

Narratives command how we notice Bitcoin, and when they shift, our conduct changes, which then, in turn, changes the entire game: the way the whole industry functions, the consumers, the businesses, the legislation, the enforcement and so. 

In 2018, a self-governing Bitcoin researcher going by the pseudonym Hasu inscribed a vivid piece on an alike topic titled Unpacking Bitcoin’s Social Contract which cuts true to the centre of this matter: 

Bitcoin’s rules are prepared on the social layer, and the software only mechanizes it. Where the social contract and the practice layer diverge, the protocol layer is incorrect — always. A disappointment of the protocol layer to temporarily impose the rules of the contract has no permanent manner on the validity of the contract itself.