A common refrain has emerged in the Bitcoin community: fix the money, fix the world. While there is every reason to be optimistic about Bitcoin’s impact on society it is not enough to rely on lines of code to fix our world. Rather, I will argue in The Ethics of Immutability that fixing oneself is the true revolution and in turn, collectively, as actors in this global network, we are the revolution of change.
Bitcoin was designed to be decentralized, censorship-resistant, open-source, and nonconfiscatable, qualities that set it apart from traditional banking and financial infrastructure. Bitcoin’s architecture means that no central authority can arbitrarily seize funds or block transactions on the network. The transparent, permissionless nature of its code allows anyone to participate without needing approval from intermediaries or gatekeepers. It empowers individuals to transact and store value beyond the reach of censorship, monetary debasement, and financial repression by governments and banks. These attributes have led many to view Bitcoin not just as a new form of money, but as an instrument of freedom in the digital age. In On Revolution, Hannah Arendt states “the life of a free man needed the presence of others. Freedom itself needed therefore a place where people could come together.” It is my hope that the coming together just might be a global, decentralized monetary network.
The framework and means by which we can serve as the instantiation of digital freedom has already been given to us–the actions of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s creator. As Bitcoiner’s we often ask ourselves,”what does it mean to be a Bitcoiner?” Generally, responses include simply holding bitcoin, sending transactions, believing in the value of sound money, running a node or any combination thereof. Of course, these are necessary but insufficient, I argue, to be a Bitcoiner. One is not a Christian, simply because you own a Bible. Beliefs and more importantly one’s actions are necessary to uphold the ethos of Bitcoin. The community has not given enough credence to the fact that Satoshi gave up exorbitant wealth and fame so that we could freely take part in this network. It is this legacy and what it means for the users of Bitcoin that I explore in this paper. We must carry on this Spirit of Satoshi by respecting and promoting the freedom of others, if we are to truly fix the world.
Satoshi Nakamoto’s Legacy
The anonymous creator of Bitcoin remains unidentified, symbolizing the project’s focus on ideas rather than identities. When discussing Bitcoin and freedom, it is natural to begin with the ethos and choices of its creator, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi’s personal legacy is remarkable not only for what he (Satoshi used the pronoun he) created, but also for what he deliberately gave up. After publishing the Bitcoin white paper in 2008 and launching the network in 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto remained involved in the project’s development only until late 2010. Then, in an email to a developer in April 2011, Satoshi unceremoniously announced: “I’ve moved on to other things. It’s in good hands with Gavin [Andresen] and everyone.” With that brief message, Bitcoin’s founder stepped away. This voluntary exit ensured that no single individual (not even its inventor) would be seen as controlling or leading Bitcoin.
By walking away, Satoshi embodied the principle that Bitcoin was meant to belong to its community, not to its creator or a central authority. Equally striking is Satoshi Nakamoto’s decision to remain anonymous. To this day, the true identity of Satoshi is unknown, and the creator’s forum posts and emails never revealed personal details. This anonymity was very much in line with the cypherpunk ethos that influenced Bitcoin’s development, a culture that values privacy and letting ideas speak for themselves rather than relying on authority. Satoshi himself was explicit about avoiding any cult of personality. When a media frenzy in 2014 led to the mistaken “doxxing” of a Californian man (Dorian Nakamoto) as Bitcoin’s founder, the real Satoshi briefly resurfaced online just to post the message, “I am not Dorian Nakamoto.” Beyond that clarification, the inventor never sought fame or credit.
Anonymity also protected Satoshi from legal and personal risks, given that creating a new currency outside government control could attract unwanted attention from authorities. Satoshi’s silence and invisibility were a strategic choice to keep the focus on Bitcoin’s principles rather than on any one individual. This has fostered a kind of mythos around Bitcoin, a project guided by an almost selfless founder who never took public credit for his creation.
One of the most powerful symbols of Satoshi Nakamoto’s legacy is the fact that he never cashed in his bitcoin holdings. It is estimated that Satoshi mined roughly 1 million BTC (bitcoin) in the early days of the network. Remarkably, none of those coins have ever been moved or spent–they remain sitting untouched on the blockchain. At today’s market value, that stash would make Satoshi one of the wealthiest individuals on the planet. Yet the creator chose to leave that fortune alone. We do not know for certain why Satoshi never spent his coins (various theories range from strong ideological principles to concerns about deanonymization, or even the possibility that Satoshi lost access to the private keys). But the effect of this abstention has been profound. By not profiting from his invention, Satoshi demonstrated integrity and belief in the project’s long-term vision. He avoided any disruption to the bitcoin market (a sudden sale of Satoshi’s hoard could have crashed the price or sown distrust). And symbolically, those unspent coins have become “a reminder of his contribution,” almost like a relic or monument on the blockchain, proving that the founder did not seek personal enrichment.
In the Bitcoin community, this fact is often cited to underline the purity of Bitcoin’s origins. The monetary system Satoshi created was decentralized and fair, giving early adopters an opportunity by not allowing the creator to abuse any special advantage. Satoshi actively gave up certain freedoms (like the freedom to cash out riches or the freedom to bask in fame) for the sake of Bitcoin’s success and credibility. This personal sacrifice set a powerful ethical example and established many of the values the Bitcoin community still holds dear: decentralization, open participation, neutrality, and the idea that principles matter more than individual gain. Satoshi’s coins, sitting untouched on the ledger, are an immutable timestamp of those values, reminding us that the founder’s commitment to freedom was not just in words but in deeds. This legacy invites us to reflect on the kind of community Bitcoin was meant to foster, and it provides a real world segue into broader philosophical questions about freedom and responsibility which as Bitcoiners, we must consider as the instantiation of Bitcoin’s embodiment of freedom.
Bitcoin and the Concept of Freedom
What do we mean by “freedom,” especially in a social context? Philosophers have grappled with this question for centuries. One particularly illuminating perspective comes from the 20th-century existentialist Simone de Beauvoir, whose work The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947) explores the nature of freedom and the ethical responsibilities it entails. Beauvoir’s insights can help us draw parallels between Bitcoin’s ethos and a broader philosophy of reciprocal freedom and autonomy.
A key idea in Beauvoir’s ethics is that freedom is a shared, interdependent condition. She rejects the notion that freedom is simply the ability for an isolated individual to do anything they please. Instead, true freedom is “a positive and constructive process” that inevitably involves other human beings. One person’s freedom is enhanced by the freedom of others, and curtailed when others are oppressed. I cannot be truly free, she argues, if I live in a world where others are enslaved or silenced, because I exist in a human world of relationships and my own possibilities are intertwined with those of my fellow human beings. The authors of Resistance Money proclaim this ethos in their words:
Cypherpunk code empowers individuals. But, with money, writing code is not enough. For money is, as we’ve seen, a network good. Bitcoin isn’t DIY money – do it yourself. It is, DIT – do it together. Using bitcoin means joining users in supporting resistance money for those who need it, with or without permission or cooperation of authorities.
This logic of reciprocity means that we each have a responsibility to strive for the freedom of all, not just our own personal freedom. Beauvoir famously writes that the freedom of others must be respected and they must be helped to free themselves; how one might be freed by the ability to use a censorship resistant monetary network, for example. It is not enough to refrain from coercing others; an authentic ethics calls us to actively support and expand the freedom of those around us. This could mean educating those who lack knowledge, fighting against unjust political structures that oppress people, or working to alleviate poverty and other conditions that limit an individual’s opportunities. Freedom, in Beauvoir’s conception, is inherently social and cooperative.
This philosophy resonates strongly with the ethos of open-source, decentralized networks like Bitcoin. Bitcoin’s value proposition is not just that “I individually control my money,” but also that everyone can participate as equals under the same rules (contrast that structure with the Cantillon status quo whose default is to embrace moral hazard). The Bitcoin network becomes more secure and useful as more people use it (more nodes, more miners, more liquidity), which is an illustration of freedom being mutually reinforcing. Rather than viewing freedom as a zero-sum game, modern thinkers like Beauvoir see it as inherently social and mutually enhancing, an insight that can apply to a monetary network as well. A decentralized currency works precisely because it is open and accessible to all; my financial freedom is bolstered by others joining and expanding the network effects. As more users adopt bitcoin, it becomes harder for any one authority to censor transactions for anyone–network decentralization is a form of reciprocal empowerment for its users. This reflects Beauvoir’s point that one’s freedom can extend itself only by means of the freedom of others.
True freedom is therefore reciprocal and we can see an analogue in Bitcoin’s philosophy: if a participant in the network (say a miner or node) tries to censor or cheat others, they undermine the very system that guarantees their own financial autonomy. Indeed, Bitcoin’s consensus rules make it so that acting to censor or double-spend will only harm the attacker–honest nodes will reject invalid blocks, and the attacker wastes resources. The network is structured to reward cooperation (following the rules) and make interference futile. While Beauvoir was talking about human rights and ethical relations, the parallel is that freedom to transact, like freedom of speech, works best when universally upheld. No one is truly “free” in a monetary sense if a central authority can freeze their account on a whim. Importantly, preventing others from transacting (for example, lobbying to censor certain addresses or users) would eventually jeopardize one’s own security and freedom on the network. In Beauvoir’s terms, “I am oppressed if I am thrown into prison, but not if I am kept from throwing my neighbor into prison.” That paradoxical line means that being stopped from violating someone else’s freedom is not a violation of my freedom; it is actually the condition that makes a free society possible. By analogy, Bitcoin’s protocol “stops” any participant from locking up someone else’s coins or reversing their transactions, but this is precisely what guarantees everyone’s freedom from interference. The rules that prevent oppression are experienced not as oppression but as stability and fairness.
Additionally, Beauvoir emphasizes that it is wrong to restrict another person’s freedom, and doing so ultimately injures the oppressor as well as the oppressed. She writes that if I attempt to dominate or control others, I am embracing a kind of self-defeating posture. To enslave another is to become a slave to that role; by denying others the ability to transcend their situation, I deny myself the moral growth and creativity that comes from existing among free equals. As Beauvoir puts it, an oppressor lives in “bad faith” and fails to recognize that “to will oneself free is also to will others free.”
At this time it is important to acknowledge my words have not been written in the years following WWII, that despite the current tumult, American life is not likely to see a full scale kinetic war as we did in the past century. We must then ask ourselves, what does revolution look like when there is no oppressor? And what does reciprocal freedom mean in 21st century American life? While one could argue, like Arendt, that we live under an oligarchy, fiat as an economic system has no King or dictator to overthrow. A contemporary view of freedom warrants a dynamic approach to answering this question. Challenging oppression when there is no King is akin to technological creative destruction–a process not necessitating brute force but replacing the system from without. American life is dominated by systems of oppression that tacitly affect our freedoms. It is futile to contrast the year 2025 to a century ago where a question of freedoms could more easily break down into simple positive and negative binaries. Rather, the restrictions to one’s freedoms in contemporary American life become more nebulous. Again, rendering questions such as: what freedoms are restricted when paid advertising affects our purchasing habits, social media controls the algorithms, processed foods affect our cognition, Citizens United lessens our influence in our democracy, or for our current purposes when a financial and economic system decreases purchasing power and concentrates wealth by design?
An analysis of systemic criminality from John Braithwaite, gives us a better understanding of this paradigm. He argues that society has ineffectively focused on the individual as the origin of crime and diminished the analysis of the systems that have led to crime. In addition, he emphasizes the selective enforcement of laws that target the most vulnerable while ignoring institutional white collar crimes, such as the global financial crisis and the pharmaceutical industry’s involvement in the opioid epidemic. In this framework, freedom is lost when ordinary people are subject to market decisions and institutional behaviors they cannot contest or escape—this is domination by the unaccountable. Thus, freedom is undermined when individuals or communities cannot effectively resist or influence the economic forces that determine the conditions of their lives. It is much harder for the average person to see these economic forces; large scale areas of poverty or crime are effectively absent from American life making this type of oppression invisible, and subsequently not the raison d’être one is willing to revolt against.
We live at a time of tremendous abundance and security, so it is easy to slip into passive engagement with community and political life; it is easy to slip into a serious man (Beauvoir’s archetype of a person who avoids the responsibility of reciprocal freedom by following strict values as if they were fixed truths making them prone to justifying harmful actions in the name of their “sacred” cause) way of being. So Simone de Beauvoir’s also introduces a moral imperative: solidarity in the pursuit of freedom. It’s not enough to avoid doing harm; we are called to get involved and work to change conditions that deny others their freedom. She observed that authentic ethics entails helping others expand their scope of action and choice. This could be read (in our context) as a call to support technologies or movements that empower people who have been excluded from traditional systems. Consider how Bitcoin has been used by dissidents, journalists, or citizens in countries with capital controls and hyperinflation. Because Bitcoin is censorship-resistant and borderless, it allowed, for example, WikiLeaks to receive donations in 2010 when PayPal and banks (under government pressure) blocked funds. It has helped people in Venezuela or Zimbabwe bypass destructive monetary policies and hold savings in a currency that their rulers cannot debase. During the Russian-Ukraine war in 2022, Bitcoin donations were sent directly to Ukraine when traditional channels were constrained, a demonstration of the network’s neutrality and availability. It has also provided a way for migrant workers and refugees to carry and send assets when the banking system shuts them out.
All these cases reflect individuals reclaiming freedom in the face of oppression or hardship, aided by a global community of Bitcoin users and developers who maintain the network. To draw a parallel to Beauvoir: those who contribute to Bitcoin’s development or adoption in repressive environments are, in a sense, helping others to free themselves. They are engaging in a form of solidarity that aligns with the ethical vision Beauvoir puts forth–a “concrete commitment to the freedom of our fellow men,” as she described it, which means actively standing against structures that limit others’ autonomy. Viewing Bitcoin through Beauvoir’s existentialist lens highlights the idea of reciprocal freedom. Bitcoin works as a system of augmented freedom not because it lets an individual escape society, but because it creates a new kind of society, one built on voluntary participation, equal rules, and mutual empowerment rather than top-down control. It exemplifies the principle that my financial freedom is inextricable from yours. It challenges the community to uphold not only their own rights, but the rights of others, keeping the network open and accessible. As Beauvoir insisted, freedom gains meaning only when we devote ourselves to defending and enlarging the freedom of all.
Beauvoir’s sentiment is echoed in José Ortega y Gasset’s, The Revolt of the Masses, who calls us to understand that “every destiny is dramatic, tragic in its deepest meaning. Whoever has not felt the danger of our times palpitating under his hand, has not really penetrated to the vitals of destiny, he has merely pricked its surface.” While Ortega y Gasset, applies this sentiment to the perceived treachery of his mass man it is nonetheless a statement of considerable importance. Beauvoir asks us to will ourselves free, in order to free others. The possibility of doing so is only met when the will seeks an understanding of the destiny of others, including the mass man. We understand the ambiguity of our own nature and destiny but freedom lies in the taking-on of the ambiguity of others.
The uncertainty of our nature is further illuminated by Craig Warmke, in his paper, Bitcoin Behind the Veil, where he examines Bitcoin through John Harsanyi’s “veil” analysis. Warmke asks the question: “If you could not choose, [and were born again], in which kind of world would you prefer to live, a world with bitcoin, like our own, or a world without bitcoin, one like ours but where bitcoin had never been invented?” In our world where over half of the population lives under an authoritarian regime your chances of Western abundance and freedom is the flip of a coin, so the logical answer to his question is, “yes,” I would prefer to live in a world with bitcoin. But his argument is not simply a thought experiment, it is a call to action when we see the destiny of others, by mere chance, was not our own. We must then ask, what, if any, responsibility we, as Bitcoiners bear, to offset chance, and what does that mean for our lives–our immutability?
The Ethics of Immutability
One of Bitcoin’s defining technical features is the immutability of its blockchain ledger. Once a block of transactions is confirmed and added to the chain, it becomes effectively tamper-proof; the record is permanent. This idea of an unchangeable record of actions provides a rich metaphor for thinking about life, legacy, and moral responsibility–a responsibility toward upholding and empowering the freedom of others. We might ask: if your life’s choices were encoded like transactions in an immutable ledger, would you be proud of the record? Are our actions, in a sense, etched in time as part of our legacy, and how does that influence the way we choose to live?
The notion of an “immutable essence” versus the possibility of a dynamic being has long been debated. Existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre argued that for human beings, “existence precedes essence.” By this, Sartre meant there is no predefined, unchanging soul or nature that determines what we are; rather, we continuously create ourselves through our choices and actions. We are, in Sartre’s words, “condemned to be free,” wholly responsible for shaping our identity and values in the absence of any fixed template given by God or nature. We define ourselves through our choices and actions. This emphasis on freedom and authenticity means that moral commitment is something we choose and enact, not something imposed by an immutable essence or fate. Every action contributes to the “ledger” of who we are. Sartre even suggested that in choosing for oneself, one should consider that they are, in a way, choosing an example for all humanity, a bit like every transaction you broadcast to the blockchain becomes part of a public history that others can see.
The existentialist ethic is one of radical responsibility: since nothing about us is pre-written, we alone are answerable for what we become. If your life were an op_return or a transaction recorded forever, you would want to be sure it’s truly your will and values that it reflects–you are a part of an immutable ledger where every transaction is paired with another human being as long as the Bitcoin blockchain exists.
Now, contrast this with other philosophical or religious views that do posit an immutable core to the self. In Plato’s philosophy and in many spiritual traditions, there is the idea of a soul, something fundamentally stable and divine in a person that persists through change. Plato, for instance, considered the soul immortal and unchanging in its essence. Some religious perspectives hold that salvation or enlightenment is about realizing one’s eternal, unchanging true nature (for example, the Hindu concept of ātman as the unchanging self that is one with Brahman, or the notion in certain Christian theology that one’s soul must reconnect with its God-given essence). In such views, moral improvement might be seen as uncovering or manifesting an already-existing goodness (becoming who you “truly are” deep down). On the other hand, there are also views that stress transformation, the idea that one must become something different (e.g., the Christian idea of being “born again” as a new self, or the concept of personal growth as a real change in character).
Finally, at the opposite extreme, philosophies like Buddhism and David Hume’s empiricism deny any fixed self at all: they argue that the self is an illusion, a series of fleeting states with no enduring essence. Buddhism teaches anātman, “no-soul” that clinging to the notion of an immutable identity is a source of suffering, and liberation comes from recognizing the impermanence of all components of the self. Why do these abstract views matter in our context? Because they frame an ethical question: How should we live and engage with the world around us? If you believe you have an immutable soul, perhaps you strive to keep it pure and untarnished–you might act in ways that “timestamp” only what you would want eternally associated with you. (Think of a virtuous person wanting to leave a legacy as pristine as Satoshi’s untouched coins on the blockchain). If instead you believe that identity is something you create, then every choice is like mining a new block–an opportunity to add to the chain of your life in a meaningful way. And if you believe there is no permanent self, you might focus on the present consequences of actions rather than any lasting record, or you might find meaning in contributing to something larger (like how in Bitcoin, individual nodes come and go, but the ledger persists, similarly one might say individual lives are transient, but good deeds can have enduring effects beyond the self).
The concept of blockchain immutability prompts a thought experiment: what if our deeds truly could not be erased or forgotten? In reality, of course, human memory and history are fallible. But increasingly, in the digital age, we do have a kind of permanent memory (the internet never forgets, and the Bitcoin blockchain literally never forgets transactions). This imposes a new kind of moral transparency. It recalls the philosopher John Locke’s discussion of personal identity: Locke argued that it is continuous consciousness (memory of one’s actions) that constitutes personal identity even if the substance (the soul or body) changes, as long as consciousness of past actions persists, the person remains the same. He gave a famous scenario: if consciousness could be transferred from one soul to another, the person would go with the consciousness, not with the soul. “If consciousness can actually be transferred from one soul to another, then a person can persist, despite a change in the soul to which her consciousness is annexed.” In other words, for Locke the moral self is essentially the record of what you’ve thought and done–your “ledger” of consciousness. This idea dovetails intriguingly with the blockchain metaphor: personal identity might be seen as a chain of memories and actions, an ongoing accumulation of “blocks” (experiences) linked by the awareness of them. An immutable ledger of one’s transactions is an externalization of memory; a permanent consciousness of certain actions. Thus, one could say that morally, we are (or ought to be) the sum of our remembered deeds. If we imagine those deeds are unalterable and public, it could encourage living in such a way that you don’t have to hide or erase anything.
Existentialist ethics holds that since we cannot rely on a fixed essence or destiny, we must give our own lives meaning through authentic and responsible choices. Sartre wrote that each person, in choosing their actions, is responsible for themselves and “for all men,” meaning one should act as if setting an example or a universal law by what one does. If every action were indelibly recorded (metaphorically by conscience or literally on a blockchain), would we act differently? Perhaps we would be more mindful of our legacy. Bitcoin’s blockchain has been described as “time-stamping” the truth of transactions. It challenges us to act in a way that we would be comfortable being time-stamped into history. If your life were a series of blockchain transactions, would you be content with all of them being public and permanent? This doesn’t mean a person can’t change or redeem themselves. On the blockchain you cannot delete a bad transaction, but you can create new transactions that rectify a situation (e.g. returning stolen funds in a new transaction, though the theft record remains). Similarly, in life we cannot undo past wrongs, but we can take future actions to make amends.
The concept of immutability calls us to an ethics of accountability as well. It suggests that integrity is about owning one’s past and working to build on it rather than cover it up. The idea of immutability relates to how we consider legacy and mortality. Ernest Becker, in The Denial of Death, spoke of people’s desire to achieve something that outlasts them, a “heroic” quest to create an immortal legacy in the face of our mortal lives. In a poetic sense, Bitcoin’s ledger gives everyone the chance to have a tiny immortal legacy: an address with some coins that might live on forever in the chain, or an inscription in a transaction (some have even embedded messages in Bitcoin’s blockchain). Of course, those are just data. But it raises a question of what kind of immortality really matters. The existentialist view would say the only immortality we can genuinely attain is to have our actions positively influence others and become part of the human story. To paraphrase, the only justification for our existence is whatever significance our actions have on the lives of others. Or as one contemporary actor puts it, “if you are not making someone else’ s life better, you are wasting your time.”
An immutable record by itself is meaningless unless what is recorded has value. So, while the Bitcoin network ensures that a transaction is remembered, it does not tell us what those transactions ought to be. That remains an ethical choice. The “ethics of immutability” might then mean: live in such a way that if your deeds were permanently recorded for all to see, they would represent the person you truly want to be. Live so that the “timestamp” of your life’s work has integrity and in the spirit of Satoshi, is in service to others. Recognize that, unlike a blockchain, a human life is finite, which lends urgency to acting authentically and courageously now, rather than assuming one can always rewrite or delay. There is no editing the chain after the fact. Reflecting on immutability connects to questions of personal identity and moral responsibility. Bitcoin’s unalterable ledger is a technological mirror of the philosophical idea that our actions, once done, become part of the tapestry of history and of who we are. Whether one leans more toward the view of a fixed inner soul or a self that is continuously created, in both cases one must confront the consequences of choices. The blockchain model tilts toward Locke and Sartre: you are your record (because there’s no secret essence, only evidence of what you’ve done). That perspective can inspire an ethic of honesty, transparency, and consistency. It calls us to make each decision count, to uphold principles even when no one is watching, because on the Bitcoin network, in a sense everyone is always watching. It challenges us to leave behind a legacy that, like Bitcoin’s genesis block with its famous timestamp (“Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”), captures a principled stand for others to remember. The immutability of Bitcoin’s blockchain, metaphorically applied, invites us to strive for an immutable core of values, not in the sense that our character never changes, but that our commitment to certain ethical principles remains unwavering and is evident in our actions.
Antinomies of Action and Bitcoin
Exploring the philosophy behind Bitcoin and freedom is not a mere intellectual exercise; it has practical implications for how Bitcoiners choose to act. The convergence of ideas we have discussed: Satoshi’s legacy of selflessness and Beauvoir’s ethic of helping others to be free, and the metaphor of living transparently and intentionally, all point toward a modern call to action: to live in alignment with principles of freedom, authenticity, and solidarity.
Protecting and promoting freedom for others: If we take to heart Beauvoir’s dictum that “the freedom of other men must be respected and they must be helped to free themselves,” then a clear implication is to support systems and policies that expand people’s autonomy. In the context of finance and technology, this could mean contributing to open-source projects, like Bitcoin, that give individuals more control over their own information and money. It could mean standing against censorship, not only in money but in speech and access to information. For example, technologists might develop censorship-resistant communication tools like Nostr inspired by the same spirit as Bitcoin. Advocates might push for legal protections for encryption and against financial surveillance that disproportionately harms dissidents or marginalized groups. Educators and community leaders can work to demystify technologies like Bitcoin for the general public, since knowledge is power, helping people understand how to use these tools is a way of freeing them from reliance on authorities. In short, actively helping others achieve greater freedom could involve anything from teaching a neighbor how to secure their digital privacy, to supporting human rights organizations that use Bitcoin to aid activists under authoritarian regimes. The key is the mindset of solidarity: recognizing, as Beauvoir did, that my freedom flourishes when I devote myself to the freedom of all. Bitcoin’s community, at its best, has exemplified this through global outreach, establishing Bitcoin circular economies, translations of educational material, and donations in crises.
Ethical self-governance and integrity: The responsibility that comes with freedom is a major theme in existentialism and is inherent in Bitcoin’s use as well. With Bitcoin, individuals become their own bank, holding their private keys, securing their funds, making irreversible transactions. This is empowering, but it is also a serious responsibility. There is no customer support hotline if you lose your keys; no court to reverse a mistaken transaction. In a broader sense, this teaches self-reliance and caution. Living by an ethic of freedom means cultivating the virtues that make freedom sustainable: rationality, foresight, and moral consistency. Jean-Paul Sartre would say that without any external essence or authority to guide us, we must be self-governing. In practice, a Bitcoiner learns to double-check addresses, to back up seed phrases, to perhaps even help secure the network by running a node. These are mundane tasks, but they reflect taking ownership of one’s actions. Ethically, one might extrapolate this to other areas: taking ownership of one’s opinions (seeking truth, not outsourcing one’s thinking blindly to social media or an in-group), and taking ownership of one’s impact on others. The immutability metaphor reminds us that our actions leave traces in the lives of others. Thus, a person committed to freedom should also commit to accountability. In communities, this could mean promoting transparency and fairness, for instance, insisting on clear rules in governance (much as Bitcoin has clear consensus rules), and calling out corruption or injustice when we see it. It also means being willing to “show your work,” just as open-source code invites scrutiny, living with integrity invites you to be able to defend your choices under the light of day. We might ask ourselves before any significant action: “Would I be willing to have this recorded permanently? Would I stand by it if others knew?” That question can be a moral compass.
Building legacy through action: While the Bitcoin blockchain is immutable, our lives are not, which is a good thing. We can change, improve, and adapt. The ethics outlined here encourages authentic transformation rather than complacency. Beauvoir admired those who remained passionate and engaged with improving the human condition rather than those who sunk into cynicism and apathy. In the Bitcoin world, this is analogous to the builders and educators who are constantly trying to make the ecosystem better and more accessible, versus speculators who might treat it as a mere get-rich scheme. The call to action is to be the former. Simone de Beauvoir wrote that authentic ethics demands “a concrete commitment” to others and to values, and that one should stand against conditions that oppress or hinder other people, and work to change those conditions. As Bitcoiners, “opting out” simply masquerades as action, but Bitcoin is only revealed through action with and for others.
In our context, action could include political activism for civil liberties, economic activism like promoting financial literacy or inclusion, or technological activism such as contributing to decentralized protocols that counter monopolies. For instance, individuals inspired by Bitcoin’s success might support other open-source efforts in secure communication, or advocate against laws that seek to weaken encryption. They might join local initiatives to support people unbanked or underbanked, showing them alternatives like Bitcoin or simply helping them gain access to any banking since the goal is expanding choice. It is worth noting the Bitcoiners who are fulfilling this call to action already: Anita Posch who is educating thousands in Africa about Bitcoin, Hermann Vivier and Luthando Ndabambi who have created a Bitcoin circular economy in their small South African community, @L0la33tz’s privacy advocacy, Andreas Antonopoulos whose early Bitcoin advocacy was vital to Bitcoin adoption, Alex Gladstein’s tireless efforts with the Human Rights Foundation, among so many more.
Being part of the Bitcoin community can itself be seen as an ongoing project of ensuring the network remains a tool for freedom: this involves vigilance (resisting changes that would centralize control or introduce censorship at the protocol level), and creativity (finding solutions to scalability or energy issues in ways that uphold the core principles of the system).
Getting involved: No HODLing is not enough. Ultimately, Beauvoir’s ethic and Satoshi’s example converge on the notion of involvement. Satoshi did not merely theorize about digital cash; he rolled up his sleeves and wrote the code. He “got involved” and then, importantly, allowed others to get involved by making Bitcoin open-source and permissionless. Beauvoir urges us not to sit on the sidelines of life (“certain intellectuals sought to keep aloof from the fray…they were playing the occupier’s game” she warned in reference to WWII). To find meaning, one must engage in projects that uplift freedom. This might be uncomfortable or risky at times, but Beauvoir would argue that ethical meaning is found in that very engagement. Whether one’s arena is technology, politics, art, or community service, the task is to identify where freedom is lacking or threatened and then to devote one’s energy and talent to that front. In practice, it could be as straightforward as helping a friend in an oppressive country set up a bitcoin wallet to escape economic control, or as grand as founding a new organization devoted to digital rights. It could be working on improving user-friendly interfaces for encryption so that more people actually use it, or volunteering legal expertise to defend open-source developers from unjust regulations. The specifics will vary by person and context, but the common thread is active commitment.
Giving a Damn: Satoshi’s legacy and Bitcoin are a call to action to fix ourselves. It was not only the benevolent acts of Bitcoin’s creator that placed this duty upon us but also the understanding that just as the architecture of money has now undergone an upgrade we too can seek this for ourselves. While I commend and am excited to have witnessed what this has meant for many Bitcoiners over the years, who have sought ways of improving their lives through health and financial security, as Beauvoir and others have shown us, betterment must not stop there. Yes, one may be seeking perfection of mind and body but without action we risk being buoys on the waves. While foundational, not going beyond one’s betterment, is no more impactful on society than the isolated and solitary monk seeking nirvana.
The only way to gain true freedom; to not be subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing), is to not have to rely on a third party in the first place. If freedom means a lack of outside influence on your autonomy, then by default there is an increase in personal responsibility for your choices. Individual rights should not be inversely related to individual responsibility. So it is, in fact, the duty of reciprocal freedom we have to each other and to our communities. We must look toward a new version of ourselves if we are to seek a new version of economy and society, for we are the actors in this new paradigm. Bitcoin invites us to look at discarding traditional ways of thinking and analyzing our world. If we can imagine a new form of money, we can also imagine a new body politic; the absence of Right versus Left. We can imagine what giving, compassion, and philanthropy means through the lens of Bitcoin–”free and ready to stretch out toward a new future.” Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, so too is revolution always and everywhere a human phenomenon–not simply a technology.
The journey we have taken, from Bitcoin’s technical attributes to existentialist philosophy, reveals a unifying vision: freedom linked with responsibility. Bitcoin provides a toolkit and a case study in how freedom can be implemented in a system. Philosophy provides a framework for understanding why freedom matters and how it can be sustained ethically. We are now called to join the two: to use tools like Bitcoin responsibly in service of human freedom. That means not only safeguarding one’s own rights but actively enabling others to enjoy theirs. It means shaping one’s life as if it were an example because in the age of immutable digital records, perhaps it will be an example for others. This mindset can help steer the development of emerging technologies toward human-centric goals, ensuring they empower rather than enslave. It can also nurture a culture within tech communities that values openness, truth, and mutual aid (echoing the best of the cypherpunk tradition). In a world where trust in institutions is fraying, the ethos of Bitcoin and the ethics of Beauvoir and Sartre together offer a potent antidote: trust in people, empowered by technology, guided by ethical commitment.
We are reminded that freedom is not a given, nor is the promise of Bitcoin–”a freedom can not will itself without willing itself as an indefinite movement.” It must be continually defended and expanded through our choices. Each of us, like a node in a decentralized network, has a role to play in upholding the freedom of the whole. By remaining anonymous and not cashing out, Satoshi asked to not be placed on a pedestal; instead, it is up to us, the users, to carry the mission forward. And as Beauvoir would insist, that mission is meaningless unless it is done for everyone’s benefit. The authenticity of our cause will be judged by whether we indeed make life freer for others, especially the least free. A retort I have seen on social media in reply, primarily to established academics and journalists, when speaking negatively about Bitcoin is: no one will remember your name. Indeed, nor will they yours if you do not give society a reason to. Our words and actions can live on as an immutable ledger in the minds of others, an obvious conclusion, but one whose full weight and impact is not understood until you consider your own legacy. In other words, the ledger that embodies action is the ledger that lives in the memories’ of others forever.
In practice, let this translate into everyday actions: supporting policies that enhance privacy rights, teaching someone about personal financial sovereignty, resisting the temptation to engage in censorship or discrimination, and building technologies that resist coercion. As we do so, we should keep asking ourselves the hard questions Beauvoir posed: “Am I really working for the liberation of men? Isn’t this end contested by the means I use to attain it?” This reflective attitude guards against fanaticism and ensures that freedom as an ideal is not used to justify new forms of oppression. In Bitcoin’s context, it means balancing idealism with humility and constant re-examination of our own aims, a balance that can be struck through pause and reflection. The majority of us are not entrepreneurs or developers, but we can will others free by giving them a voice to be heard–not stifled or contested in the moment. To validate someone else’s lived experience is to give the freedom of consciousness–of identity, upon which all other positive freedoms must build.
Bitcoin’s creation, by an anonymous person who never sought wealth or power, is a profound gesture toward freedom. Our community, if we resist ossifying into dogma or tribalism, can continue that gesture. But if it becomes a tool for exclusion, greed, or ideological purity, it betrays its promise to be infinitely more than what it would be if it were reduced to being what it is. Bitcoin is ethically meaningful only when it serves as a movement toward freedom, especially for those previously denied it. Our conclusion is to see Bitcoin not simply as a financial asset or a mere technical development, but as part of a broader ethical project: building a world where individuals can transact, speak, create, and live ac cording to their own will and conscience, limited only by the equal freedom of others. Achieving this will require intentional living, courageous action, and an unyielding commitment to both innovation and freedom. The tools are in our hands; the ledger is before us. The next blocks, the next pages of our own history and Bitcoin’s, will be written by what we choose to do now.
Beauvoir, Simone de. The Ethics of Ambiguity. 1947
Ortega y Gasset, Jose. The Revolt of the Masses. 1930
Arendt, Hanna. On Revolution. 1963
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism. 1946
Bailey, Andrew, Bradley Rettler, and Craig Warmke. Resistance Money. A Philosophical Case for Bitcoin. 2024
Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death. 1973
Browser, Farnam Street. “Simone de Beauvoir on The Ethics of Freedom.” Farnam Street, 2025
Warmke, Craig. Bitcoin Behind the Veil. Bitcoin Times. 2022
Braithwaite, John. Macrocriminology and Freedom. 2022
“Satoshi Nakamoto.” Wikipedia, last modified July 2025
Nakamoto, Satoshi. Email to Mike Hearn, 23 April 2011. Published in Hearn’s thread “Holding coins in an unspendable state…”
Nakamoto, Satoshi. Forum Post, 11 Dec 2010. Bitcointalk, on Wikileaks and attention
Carroll, Rory. “Satoshi Nakamoto denies being bitcoin inventor.” The Guardian, 7 Mar 2014
Binance Research. “Why Satoshi Nakamoto Remains Anonymous.” Binance Square, Oct 24, 2023
Ju, Ki Young. CryptoQuant CEO statement on Satoshi’s coins, Oct 2024
Investopedia, Adam Hayes. “Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto?” Updated Oct 03, 2024
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Simone de Beauvoir”, section on Ethics of Ambiguity (2018)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Locke on Personal Identity” (2020)
D-Central Technologies. “Bitcoin as an Instrument of Freedom in Today’s World.” D-Central Tech Blog, 2023
Ledger Academy. “Why Censorship-Resistant Money Like Bitcoin Matters.” Ledger.com, May 8, 2025
Human Rights Foundation. “Empowering Human Rights Through Bitcoin.” Forbes, 17 Mar 2024
WikiLeaks. Public statements on Bitcoin donations (2010)
Narada Thera. Buddhism in a Nutshell – Anatta
