# We've Turned A Generation Of Bitcoiners Into Digital Goldbugs Source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/featured/weve-turned-a-generation-of-bitcoiners-into-digital-goldbugs ## Summary Shinobi argues that Bitcoin is a human-designed technology, not a natural force, and that treating it as "digital gold" leads people to ignore the risks that come with running it as software. He contrasts gold, which needs no patches and faces no denial-of-service attacks, with a decentralized network that must be maintained and can fail or be co-opted. He argues that Bitcoin's value as censorship-resistant money depends entirely on its decentralization, which must be actively defended, and that the current generation of Bitcoiners does not understand this. ## Article Bitcoin is a technology. It is not some force of the universe, some natural element or mineral that was “discovered” floating out in the ether. It is a technology. Technologies are created by human beings, not discovered. They are designed. That design has intent, elements of it are made specifically in a way to facilitate that intent. The tolerances of what a technology can or cannot handle are a result of those design decisions, which are in turn a result of the intent. New Bitcoiners are being brought into the world of Bitcoin through a lens that obscures and distorts the realities of Bitcoin as a technology and what that entails, and tries to pack it into the box of “digital gold.” Bitcoiners are becoming goldbugs. People who think Bitcoin is some magic thing that is decentralized “just cause,” whose future success is preordained and an absolute certainty. This is a disastrous way for people to conceptualize Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a decentralized computer network. The conditions of a network are not a static thing. Environments change, network loads change, behavior of network users change. All of these things can have impacts on the viability and functioning of the network itself. Gold doesn’t need patches for vulnerabilities. Gold doesn’t have to overhaul major subsystems because a change in user behavior overloaded them to the point of not functioning correctly or efficiently. Gold doesn’t need to worry about Denial of Service attack vectors that could disrupt, or worst case bring down, the entire “gold network.” Bitcoin does. Bitcoin is not “digital gold,” it is a decentralized network made of software individuals actually have to run and maintain. The Bitcoin goldbugs have completely lost connection with this reality, at least when it comes to rationally assessing risks to Bitcoin, or ways it genuinely could fail or be co-opted. Bitcoin is going to have problems it needs to solve, at a fundamental technical level. It already does, and it will have more. This is how technology works, it is an inherent part of it. Bitcoin’s value stems from its use as a censorship resistant network, a freedom money no one can stop you from using. That is its core valuable characteristic. That characteristic hinges entirely on its decentralized nature. If people do not work to defend that decentralized nature, to interact with Bitcoin in a decentralized fashion, to improve and fix it as needed to counteract limitations or pressures encouraging centralization, then it will not remain decentralized. We are going to very soon regret the consequences of focusing so much outreach the last few cycles purely on spreading this “digital gold” narrative. This entire generation of Bitcoiners does not fundamentally understand that decentralization isn’t a static unchanging characteristic set in stone forever. It needs to be maintained. This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine. Shinobi Shinobi is an pseudonymous self taught educator in the Bitcoin space. He was the co-host of Block Digest, a news/tech oriented Bitcoin podcast, as well as What Bitcoin Did Tech Show with Peter McCormack which centered around explaining technical concepts to non-technical users. That is all he will tell us about himself. ## Comments **rvolz.eth**: The other side of the "ETH as value" discussion: > Bitcoiners are becoming goldbugs. People who think Bitcoin is some magic thing that is decentralized “just cause,” whose future success is preordained and an absolute certainty. This is a disastrous way for people to conceptualize Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a decentralized computer network. **rvolz.eth**: See https://news.kiwistand.com/stories/Ethereum-Must-Choose:-Asset-or-Platform-Says-EY's-Paul-Brody?index=0x67dc911e073cbafc865a494874d063e98d241f3c934d0664c4de3c8ace3a1492201e446c **macbudkowski.eth**: Very good essay, I have the same impression. Like the "There will never be more than 21M Bitcoins" meme that is being repeated at nauseam is just not true. There COULD be more Bitcoins, it's not set in stone and bound by laws of physics. And the higher their marketcap, the more need is there for having a strong security budget, which in turn might lead to emitting more Bitcoins. This is btw why I decided to not buy BTC - I thought most people understand it, but apparently they do not. **_rorschach.eth**: @macbudkowski.eth that's a crazy reason to not buy BTC, it would be incredibly difficult to actually increase emissions and have miners agree on it, not to mention undermine one of the core reasons that anyone owns BTC increasing the total supply wouldn't benefit anyone, and there's no reason to even wilder take if you're invested in other crypto where it's quite easy to increase total supply and it happens all the time **macbudkowski.eth**: hey @0xef... Yes, I invested in other crypto, and I'm fully aware everyone can increase the total supply. In ETH it's even been an important debate (see: https://ethresear.ch/t/faq-ethereum-issuance-reduction/19675). But crypto I invest in don't build their whole value proposition around claims like "There will be only 120,657,000 ETH". For Bitcoin the claim that "There will only be 21M BTC" is the key driver of its value and price. So do I think that they will change the supply today, tomorrow or in 2025? No. I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon. But to me, the fact that the security budget goes lower (via halving) and the market cap goes higher means that the incentive to attack the network is getting bigger. And if the nation states invest in BTC, then other nation states (like e.g., China or Russia), might use these attacks as a part of a modern hybrid warfare. And since Bitcoin community is known for its reluctance to changes (see: https://blog.lopp.net/on-ossification/), they might not prepare for the evolving situation fast enough. So the trajectory here is not positive IMO, and to me it didn't matter if problems are going to start in 2028, 2032 or 2040. But I was wrong - the market doesn't care about such time horizons, so I missed a great trade.