By Adam Hayes and Patrik Hummel

Philosophy deals, among other things, with the causes of phenomena and attempts to trace them back to their origins. Bitcoin and its pseudonymous inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, are particularly interesting in this regard for at least two reasons.

First, early blockchain development was shaped by philosophical convictions that contributed significantly to the creation of Bitcoin. While Nakamoto’s real identity remains a mystery until today, they were very likely aware of or actively participating in the Cypherpunk mailing lists in the 1990s, which yielded several ideas and concepts that ultimately made their way into Bitcoin. The development of digital money was shaped by concerns about privacy and freedom, as well as by a deep mistrust of centralised institutions.

The mystery of the first block

Second, Nakamoto's invention highlights a fundamental challenge for blockchains: the question of starting points, such as Bitcoin's first block – the so-called Genesis block. Blockchains are based on the chaining of data blocks, where each block refers to the one preceding it. Cryptographic methods ensure that this chaining makes it possible to detect whether anyone has altered the ledger – for example, by appropriating bitcoins that actually belong to someone else. These mechanisms ensure resistance to manipulation without requiring a central authority that must be trusted. Nevertheless, one problem remains: if every block refers to a previous one, what then applies to the very first block in the chain?

Nakamoto's answer was also a philosophical statement. In a hidden layer of the code for the Genesis block, recorded on 3 January 2009, Nakamoto embedded a message: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.” This was the front-page headline of The Times that day, referring to the assembly of a government rescue package for banks. In embedding it, Nakamoto demonstrated that the Genesis block could not have been created any earlier, and that no bitcoin had been secretly generated beforehand. At the same time, the message was widely understood as a critique of the existing financial and monetary system, and as a signal of the motive behind creating a decentralised currency.

A shift in trust

While philosophy asks about origins, purpose and evaluative assumptions, sociology examines how such concepts take effect in society. Blockchain addresses an age-old human problem: how can strangers interact, reach agreements and exchange reliable information without having to trust one another – and without relying on a central authority?

In the past, trust was directed primarily towards people and institutions. With blockchain, it is instead directed towards protocols, networks and incentive systems. The real sociological question is therefore not whether trust is disappearing, but what kind of society is necessary for people to place their trust in computer code.

One need only consider how much social infrastructure a blockchain requires in order to function at all: legal systems that recognise digital property; exchanges that convert tokens into national currencies; communities that enforce rules for handling wallets and keys; developers who maintain and update the software - and much more besides. Blockchain advocates often speak as though programme code could replace institutions. What is observable, on the contrary, is the emergence of new forms of institutional formation.

From this perspective, the Genesis block becomes interesting once again. Sociologically, it shows that every society needs not only procedures and rules, but also a narrative explaining why those rules deserve support in the first place.

Technology and values

Nakamoto's message reads like a founding act: it framed a grievance, named an adversary, and turned a technical object into the seed of a moral commitment. This also helps explain why disputes within blockchain communities are often so heated – because far more than technology is at stake. The fact that the blockchain is considered immutable is not a property of the technology alone; what is crucial is that participants agree on which version of, say, Bitcoin should be the valid one.

This is precisely why blockchain is so fascinating: as a social experiment that compels us to consider important questions from multiple perspectives at once. It demonstrates how technology, values and social reality interact. Almost two decades after the launch of Bitcoin, there is much to suggest that blockchain is neither the revolution its proponents portray it as, nor the straightforward fraud its critics dismiss it as. It is something more interesting: a mirror held up to modern societies, reflecting their own assumptions about trust, authority and cooperation among strangers.

Philosophy and sociology show us that these questions are never purely technical in nature – they are, at every level, imbued with values.

The original article was published in German in the magazine Cogito.