No, not really. The entire purpose of bitcoin network's design is to reduce or completely remove the need for trust amongst participants. It was designed so that it operates in the same fashion regardless of the moral, political and regulatory climate surrounding it. That is not philosophy, but fact.
Philosophical inquiry doesn't necessitate an adjudication on morality, politics or regulatory climate. It can simply be a formalization of concepts observed in a system.
Bitcoin doesn't exist without human input, it requires active agents to engage it. So even if the rules are set in the code there is an element of humanity embedded in the protocol. Just look at the core developers. I can guarantee you they have a philosophy on what should and should not be done during maintenance and major upgrades to the protocol.
But if you want to reduce the definition of philosophy to those things you mentioned, I'm happy to rephrase: the philosophy of Bitcoin is thus that there is no philosophy. Think of it this way: if you have a rule that says you have no rules, you still have one rule that there are no rules.
And fiat-BTC exchanges aren't part of the spec, so regulation can be helpful. I seriously question the necessity or utility of centralized wallets, but regulated exchanges make perfect sense.
colordrops|11 years ago
jedunnigan|11 years ago
Bitcoin doesn't exist without human input, it requires active agents to engage it. So even if the rules are set in the code there is an element of humanity embedded in the protocol. Just look at the core developers. I can guarantee you they have a philosophy on what should and should not be done during maintenance and major upgrades to the protocol.
But if you want to reduce the definition of philosophy to those things you mentioned, I'm happy to rephrase: the philosophy of Bitcoin is thus that there is no philosophy. Think of it this way: if you have a rule that says you have no rules, you still have one rule that there are no rules.
logn|11 years ago