Why Everything You Heard About Bitcoin is Stupid
Lately, I've written a couple of posts on Reddit about Bitcoin, and, as expected, the comment responses follow the same tired patterns. Bitcoin defenders tend to regurgitate the same old talking points that all boil down to circular reasoning. From Nakamoto’s whitepaper to media articles and social media posts, the narrative surrounding Bitcoin is built on self-referential logic. Every justification for Bitcoin turns out to be not only hollow but outright stupid.
Take the claim that Bitcoin provides freedom from government control. This is a cornerstone argument, but it’s entirely circular. Anything outside government oversight offers "freedom from government." You could use dust, marbles, or even random numbers, and it would achieve the same supposed "freedom." Bitcoin doesn’t offer a unique way to escape government control; it’s just another thing governments don’t control. Claiming this as a defining feature of Bitcoin is as meaningless as saying dust provides freedom.
Then there’s decentralization, often paraded as Bitcoin’s great innovation. But decentralization isn’t inherently valuable. It’s a design choice, not a goal. You can decentralize anything, store your date of birth across multiple computers worldwide, for instance. Does that make that data important or useful? Of course not. Decentralization of Bitcoin tokens isn’t solving a problem. It’s decentralization for the sake of decentralization, a circular argument that leads nowhere.
Proof of work, the mechanism that secures Bitcoin’s network, is another example of this absurd circularity. It’s an expensive process that requires miners to expend energy solving mathematical puzzles to validate transactions. But why? The reward for this work is Bitcoin itself, a token that exists solely because to be transacted with. You could create a similar system where people mine random numbers or even poop, and it would be just as valid, or as pointless. Bitcoin’s proof of work is work for the sake of work, a self-referential loop that burns resources to keep itself running.
Scarcity is another so-called feature of Bitcoin. Its capped supply of 21 million tokens is presented as a guarantee of value, but scarcity alone doesn’t create utility. You can artificially limit anything: rocks, grains of sand, or marbles - and make it artificially scarce. Scarcity only matters if what’s scarce has intrinsic value or practical use, and Bitcoin token has neither. The argument boils down to Bitcoin being valuable because it’s scarce and scarce because it’s capped. It’s another circular point.
The claim that Bitcoin is secure follows the same flawed logic. Yes, Bitcoin’s blockchain is difficult to hack, but security without utility is meaningless. You could lock up a pile of poop in an impenetrable vault, and it would be secure. Does that make the poop valuable? Obviously not. Bitcoin’s security exists solely to protect its own useless digital token, making it security for the sake of security, another pointless exercise in circularity.
The idea that Bitcoin is a store of value is yet another circular fallacy. Bitcoin is considered valuable because people use it as a store of value, but its status as a store of value is justified by the belief that it’s valuable. This tautology explains nothing. A store of value requires value in the first place, with value being utility outside of trade. Gold has industrial uses, while fiat money, as debt, is used to settle that debt. Bitcoin token lacks any underlying utility or unique function outside of being traded, making its supposed status as a store of value an empty concept.
Transparency is also touted as a major advantage of Bitcoin. Its blockchain allows anyone to view transactions, but what’s the point of transparency if it doesn’t solve a real-world problem? You could create a transparent ledger for random numbers or meaningless data, and it would achieve the same level of transparency. Transparency alone doesn’t make a system useful; it’s just a feature that Bitcoin defenders inflate into an empty talking point.
Bitcoin’s global accessibility is similarly overhyped. The idea that anyone, anywhere, can transact with Bitcoin without intermediaries isn’t unique. Any digital token, no matter how arbitrary or useless, can be made globally accessible. You could invent "DustCoin" tomorrow, and it would function the same way. Accessibility is meaningless if what’s being accessed has no inherent value or practical application.
Finally, the claim that Bitcoin is trustless, that it eliminates the need for intermediaries, is another example of circular reasoning. Yes, Bitcoin doesn’t rely on banks or governments, but trustlessness isn’t inherently valuable. You can create a trustless system for recording meaningless data or random numbers, and it would be just as useless. In many cases, intermediaries exist because they provide efficiency, accountability, and problem resolution, none of which Bitcoin inherently replaces.
When you put it all together, Bitcoin is a system that exists purely to sustain itself. Its defenders argue for freedom, decentralization, proof of work, scarcity, security, etc., but all of these features are self-referential. They don’t solve real-world problems or offer anything unique that can’t be replicated by infinite other digital tokens, random numbers, or even dust. Bitcoin’s entire ecosystem is built on circular arguments that make its existence not only redundant but outright absurd.
That’s why everything you hear about Bitcoin isn’t just wrong, it’s stupid.