On Bitcoin: A Study in Applied Metaphysics

Abstract

This essay is dedicated to the memory of Katherine Hawley.1 Bitcoin was invented to serve as a digital currency that demands no trust in financial institutions, such as commercial and central banks. This paper discusses metaphysical aspects of bitcoin, in particular the view that bitcoin is socially constructed, non-concrete, and genuinely exists. If bitcoin is socially constructed, then one may worry that this reintroduces trust in the communities responsible for the social construction. Although we may have to rely on certain communities, I argue that social construction doesn’t imply a demand for trust because the relevant communities don’t take on any relevant commitments. Bitcoin is indeed trust-free.

Engineering the trust machine. Aligning the concept of trust in the context of blockchain applications

“…a two-place relation). The latter, thicker understanding seems to demand an interpersonal relationship between agents who exhibit something along (good)will (Baier, 1986) or committent (Hawley, 2014;Lipman, 2023). The thicker reading cannot be widened to encompass also trust in technology, as technology cannot exhibit agency.…”

“…However, not all scholars agree that this is normatively accurate and argue that proper trust can only exist between agents: "People trust people, not technology" (Friedman et al, 2000). The claim is mostly that the term "trust in technology" is too weak and normatively means not more than reliance on an inanimate, but humanized object (Lipman, 2023;Tallant, 2019). So, using "trust" for describing the dependence on technology would be wrong.…”

“…The trustor expects that the artefact is "likely enough to perform in some desired way φ, compared with other alternatives, that it is worth staking something of value on φ" (Nickel, 2013). It should be noted, however, that the technological artefact also is not competent to perform according to its functionality, as technology cannot exhibit agency (Lipman, 2023). Technological artefacts cannot intend to do something; they cannot be willing to perform according to the trustor's expectations.…”

“…Thus, the development is seen as normatively self-regulating within the group of developers, holding each other accountable to normative standards. Even though the individuals might not be trustworthy per se, the blockchain mechanisms connect them in a way that they serve the network as a whole by pursuing their individual interests (Lipman, 2023). While public, permissionless blockchains achieve a maximum in decentralization, private, permissioned blockchains are more centrally controlled, as they are organized around the controlling organization or consortium (Schlatt et al, 2016;Yaga et al, 2018).…”

Integrating Machine Learning in Anti-Money Laundering through Crypto: A Comprehensive Performance Review

“…Based on blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies are decentralized and operate independently of central banks. Bitcoin, the first and most well-known cryptocurrency, was introduced in 2009, and since then, thousands of other cryptocurrencies have been created, each with its unique features and purposes (Lipman, 2023). On the other hand, money laundering is the process of disguising the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by passing it through a complex sequence of transfers or commercial transactions (Levi and Reuter, 2011;Korauš et al, 2024).…”