michel on bitcoin ness
michel bauwens on bitcoins (satoshi nakomoto) ness
via tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/1962437963687907709]:
Thanks for sharing this one if you can: * My relationship with Satoshi Nakomoto: a historical review https://open.substack.com/pub/4thgenerationcivilization/p/my-relationship-with-satoshi-nakomoto? An overview and discussion of the communication and relation between the Bitcoin founder, Satoshi Nakamoto, and the P2P Foundation’s founder, Michel Bauwens.
notes/quotes from michel’s sept 2025 substack:
This is a review of what I remember of the interaction between myself, Michel Bauwens, the founder of the P2P Foundation, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the ‘inventor’ of Bitcoin.
Before starting, it has to be acknowledged that though there are similarities of purpose between the P2P approach of Satoshi and that of the P2P Foundation, there are also quite significant differences, and therefore, the relationship between both was one marked by a critical reception on the part of myself and the P2P Foundation network. It was never and still isn’t, a love at first sight.
Nevertheless, it remains quite significant that Satoshi chose the P2P Foundation for this first public sharing of the White Paper, choosing to write to Michel Bauwens both publicly (on the Ning forum of the P2P Foundation) and privately (personal email). This indicates that Satoshi was not only aware of our work, but recognized it as important, and saw sufficient commonalities with his own.
Notice that Satoshi offered bitcoins in these exchanges, and in a personal email to me. And notice that though I replied, I did not react to his offer for Bitcoins. You could say that this was the start of a particular karmic relation between myself and Bitcoin <g>.
So how to understand these differences.
- Satoshi’s Bitcoin design is focused on creating a new type of market creation tool. Markets can be seen as ‘distorted’ peer to peer relations, to the degree that centralized gatekeepers create inequalities of access to the means of creating and obtaining value.
to me.. any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do does that
- But the P2P Foundation’s approach to P2P dynamics was essentially ‘social’, i.e. derived from the P2P structures of computing, in which every computer can link to any other computer directly and without gatekeepers, this also means that the people behind computers, can associate with any other person without central gatekeepers.
What the liberal or libertarian interpretations of ‘peer to peer’ miss, in our opinion, is that any competition for scarce goods inevitably involves a power law leading to oligarchy.
Think of it as ‘market P2P’ vs ‘civic P2P’; they are different aspects but of course they are also related and influence each other.
Satoshi’s thinking was rooted in game theory, Austrian economics and computer science, while Bauwens’ ideas are an expression of the ‘cooperative’ tradition in human affairs, focusing on the dynamics of civil society.
to me.. the problem here is that ‘civil society’ has to date all been same song of sea world.. need a different focus.. ie: the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
And this difference explains that while I considered Bitcoin to be an interesting experiment, I did not immediately express direct excitement for it, and in particular, my focus was not on the monetary value of Bitcoin.
The P2P Foundation’s methodology is essentially empirical. What this means is that we focus on the observation of what we call ‘seed forms’, which prefigure potential re-organizations of human society, especially in the context of a meta-crisis. This means that we are in a civilizational intercycle, in a context in which the efficiency and legitimacy of existing institutions are deteriorating. So Bitcoin was an interesting innovative concept, but I could not see yet that it would evolve in the way it would, and my attitude was one of wait and see.
However, what seemed clear to me from the beginning, was that it is not enough to ‘start’ any process of the accumulation of goods in a decentralized and egalitarian way, but that these dynamics must be maintained. The rule is simple: any free competition between agents for scarce goods leads inevitably to the eventual centralization of these resources, as more lucky, smarter or more efficient agents quickly obtain advantages in the next round. This insight seems generally lacking in libertarian thinking and practice. They are generally happy with formal legal equality, and let the market do the rest without any interference. So it was my view of Bitcoin, that despite the innovative design, it would not prevent centralization. ..Since it was designed ‘out of nothing’ through a digital protocol, without being backed up by a nation-state, it is ironically even more of a fiat currency itself.
None of that means though that it doesn’t have other advantages and that its invention is not an important historical pivot.
So my overall vision is NOT negative. The milestone and pivot of Bitcoin was for me that it was the ‘first socially sovereign scalable currency’, and it likely was successful because its design had a subtle equilibrium between the competitive and cooperative nature of human motivations. Bitcoin was open source, grounded in peer to peer based community dynamics, but also motivated its participants to accumulate more Bitcoin through self-interest. But most importantly, I saw Bitcoin as one of the first harbingers of emerging post-national structures that would go beyond the nation-state. The value of Bitcoin, cleverly aided by its deflationary design, was essentially a bet of the eventual failure of ‘fiat’ currencies, and investment in a certain type of future. So for me it’s rise in value was not entirely random, but reflected a belief structure in a certain type of potential future.
to me.. competitive/coop nature are same song
This article reflects the early more political vision of the P2P Foundation towards Bitcoin, see: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-political-evaluation-of-bitcoin/2014/09/09
notes/quotes from this michel’s sept 2014 article – A political evaluation of bitcoin:
Bitcoin is a complex phenomenom, and it is a landmark development, even a technological singularity, for good or ill. At the P2P Foundation, we also have complicated feelings about it.
The Positive Aspects of Bitcoin
Let us first summarize why Bitcoin is indeed such a singularity.
Bitcoin is the first globally scaleable, social-sovereign, post-Westphalian currency
makes no diff if supposed ‘first/scalable’ whatever.. if still any form of m\a\p ie: ‘currency’ (medium of exchange et al).. cancerous distraction
This is not trivial. Before the Treaty of Westphalia, local currencies where the norm, many with negative interest rates, and they bolstered local independence, but the scaling effects of the printing press, which led to a Europe-wide religious civil war, made necessary a re-organization of the political space around the emerging nation-states. These nation-states outlawed local currencies, destroyed local autonomy, and also relied on sovereign currency to establish their power. While local currencies have a periodic resurgence in times of crisis, none of the complementary currencies scaled. Local currencies can therefore never be the expression of global commons power, i.e. the power of global virtual communities. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, it is a hyper-fiat currency, i.e. it only exists because of the trust and political will of the international libertarian hacker segments of the population, in the particular algorithm.
again.. makes no diff .. if still any form of m\a\p then still perpetuating same song
Bitcoin is a weapon of last resort for activist communities.. for activist groups, it becomes their lifeline to funding outside of the control of the central authorities.
not a plus.. only a lifeline to sea world.. ie: weapon ness et al
The potential of the Bitcoin ledger as a tool for human self-organization..Apart from being a currency, the underlying universal ledger technology of Bitcoin has potential to usher in a new era of more easy self-organisation, by enabling the possibility of smart contracts and software-driven ‘distributed autonomous organisation, as expressed by initiatives like Ethereum, Common Accord, and the crypto-equity experiment of Swarm. Though these developments and possibilities are not without danger, and though most of the current enthusiasm is utopian and mostly based on hopes and just a few budding experiments, this technology is potentially a game changer by bringing down the transaction cost for self-organization.
ooof.. so many cancerous distractions (ie: smart contracts.. dao ness.. vitalik: an ethereum story.. et al) in this paragraph.. will just say.. if there is a ‘transaction cost for self org’.. not legit self org of free people.. not the dance
The Negative Aspects of Bitcoin
Notwithstanding the above, Bitcoin’s development comes with a potentially very high and anti-social price tag.
rather.. comes w a guarantee to perpetuate not-us ness.. to perpetuate myth of tragedy and lord ness.. to keep us from the dance
Bitcoin is not a true peer to peer currency but leads to more extreme inequality
again.. if currency ing.. not dance ing .. meaning.. won’t get to the root of problem.. because legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
It is sometimes asserted that Bitcoin is a peer to peer currency because any computer with mining software can create the currency, but not everyone has access to the same number of computers and not everyone has computers, hence, the design of Bitcoin, which favours early entrants and those with investing power, is an engine of inequality.
this is a huge point.. but even deeper.. if not sans any form of m\a\p.. not everyone has access.. gatekeeper ness is gatekeeper ness no matter the degree.. can’t be all
Bitcoin can’t lead on its own to a disintermediated society..First, *distributed technologies do not necessarily lead to distributed outcomes. We have seen this historically with the effect of the invention of printing, **which led to a democratisation of knowledge and literacy, ..***Technologies are always infused with human values, no programming or infrastructure is truly neutral in that respect.
*using history as indicator that won’t work is myth of tragedy and lord ness.. because we’ve not yet tried anything legit unconditional.. ie: **all three (any form: democratic admin; intellectness; literacy ness) are already cancerous distractions
***to me.. either 1\ perhaps until now.. ie: now have means for tech w/o judgment.. or 2\ perhaps until now.. ie: now have means for tech to undo our hierarchical listening.. to detox leap us.. so that ‘human values’ ness itself is not programmed (by ongoing whalespeak et al)
Bitcoin funds a dangerous ideology.. The design of Bitcoin is anarcho-capitalist, i.e. it is designed to favour the freedom of property owners, and the more you own, the freeer you are. ..
and again.. any form of m\a\p does that
In Conclusion
Despite all the drawbacks mentioned, Bitcoin remains a landmark and pivotal development, showing that globally scaleable currencies are technically feasible. It sets the stage for potential commons-based p2p-driven currency systems and the Bitcoin ledger **can become a tool for self-organizing communities.
*and again.. if still currency ing.. not landmark/pivotal.. will just perpetuate same song/same stage/whatever..
**for ‘self org’ (aka: voluntary complianced whales) in sea world.. but not for self org of legit free people.. need tech w/o judgment for that.. need nonjudgmental expo labeling as ‘ledger’ ness
back to 2025 article:
But our thinking has of course evolved since 2014, and *here I propose a timeline how the ‘invention’ of Bitcoin plays a role in the transformation of our civilization:
*oi.. can’t play a role in transform ness if any form of m\a\p.. will only perpetuate same song
- In the first wave of digital networking, the technology was of limited access, ..ushering in neoliberal globalization, a centrally controlled form of ‘decentralization’.
- But after..outside of the total control of Big Market and Big State.
- The blockchain has its own role to play, separate from Bitcoin as currency, which incidentally also launched the era of programmable, socially sovereign currencies, creating the potential of all kinds of new translocal economic streams of value. But the *blockchain is the first universal ledger in the history of humanity, transcending the ‘narcissist’ accounting that was our fate until now. Peer production communities, and now the crypto economic networks, have created new forms of **contributory accounting..
*but everything to date about blockchain has been **same song.. issue is that we need to ‘ledger’ different data.. ie: self-talk as data.. via nonjudgmental expo labeling
..I only survived the COVID years through Bitcoin donations. Crypto wallets are not a luxury for activists, but a vital survival tool!
again.. in sea world
hari rat park law et al.. because need to try/see something diff than perpetuating survival triage.. ie: life over survival ness
So Bitcoin and Blockchain should from now on be considered not just as *payment and accounting systems, but as infrastructures of social and personal autonomy, **weapons in defense of pluralism and freedom, and we all have a stake in their success.
* and ** are same song
We can also see how these new types of digital communities are creating ‘community’, are self-infrastructuring on a global scale, and creating *defenses against such repression, to preserve islands of freedom. . architectures of free expression and ***exchange, which today, have to be economic exchange systems just as much.
*aka: sea world if ** and ***
Finally, a few words about my ‘karmic’ relationship to Bitcoin. Over the years, the P2P Foundation received donations from the Bitcoin community. One day, I asked our treasurer based in Amsterdam, ‘how much do we have’, and ‘shouldn’t we start using them to expand our activities’. My friend and colleague answered: let’s wait, the price is going up. The next day, we lost everything, valued at $300k, in the Mt Gox theft, and we never recuperated it. You can imagine how much that stash of donations would have been worth today.
need to try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting/people telling other people what to do) as the planned obsolescence.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring..ie: sabbatical ish transition
Let me now focus on my ‘reconciliation’ with Bitcoin and Crypto, in the sense of moving from a critical to a constructive stance.
I’m sure you can imagine that the loss of funding, debanking, depaypalling, blacklisting and deplatforming had a huge economic effect on my ability to provide for my family as well as my capacity to continue my work. To a significant degree, I had to retreat from the public limelight. It would be very hard for me to go through the process of political funding again, whatever the side I would be choosing. *But the crypto community is different, while it has a strong libertarian bent, it is also pluralistic, it has degens and regens, crypto capitalists, but also the Crypto Commons Alliance, the Token Engineering Commons and even a Blockchain Socialist initiative.
*not legit diff if any form of m\a\p (so ie: regen network; michel on crypto; token ness; .. all cancerous distractions)
Whatever your politics, you can find a place in the broader ecosystem, as long as you are contributing to infrastructure building. This is what I discovered when I was invited to attend the Zuzalu Montenegro event, the first ever pop-up village experiment, supported by Vitalik Buterin, among others…And I discovered an ecosystem where people were interested and enthusiastic about the kind of ideas and practices we are promoting. I never looked back, and chose to associate myself with the movement.
vitalik buterin et al
But with a twist, at the P2P Foundation, we believe in cosmo-localism. This means that we want to converge the ‘Archipelago of Regenerative Initiatives’, i.e the millions of people who are rebuilding a life-respecting web of value, with the coordination and capitalizing capacities of the Web3 ecosystem.
cosmo local ness.. michel on cosmo localism.. et al
*This possibility was set in motion by the conceptual and technological inventions of Satoshi Nakamoto, and so we owe him a debt of gratitude, and I am honoured that he connected with us at the beginning of the world-changing invention.,
*yet possibility of the dance was/is cancerously distracted.. not world changing unless sans any form of m\a\p
____
via tweet a few hours later [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/1962495216012972447]:
A comment by
@robdelaet on our latest ‘Satoshi review’ article: “Such fundamental work on the architecture of a new civilization, but we are clearly running out of time. Have you thought how to scale and accelerate the impact to avert mega collapse? Societies around the world are clearly getting more brittle and degraded and these are not linear processes.” https://4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com/p/my-relationship-with-satoshi-nakomoto/
and here is my (michel’s) reply: You are right that these are not linear processes, and therefore, *we must take into account accelerations. But, I do not believe ‘collapse’ will be avoided. **In every other civilizational transition, the collapse occurred, but ***as the collapse occurs, a sufficient amount of alternatives must already exist, and be interconnected, to smooth and accelerate that transition. The good news is that we do have a huge amount of accelerating capacities for collective learning and for coordinating joint action. One of the questions is what kind of set of ideas can sufficiently unite these efforts, but I think this is still an open question.
*acceleration ness we need: nonjudgmental exponential labeling.. to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap.. otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness
**because nothing yet to date sans any form of m\a\p
***yeah.. to me.. 1\ won’t have a collapse if we facil something every soul already craves via detox leap 2\ ‘sufficient amt of alts’ might (at least seem to) accelerate things.. but won’t accel a legit transition.. humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync.. the dance
___
____
____
____
___
____
_____
be you. 