“`html
A few years back, I placed an unexpected wager: to cultivate a Bitcoin circular economy in the midst of a fishing community in Brazil’s Northeast. No venture financiers, no “crypto,” no hollow assurances. Merely nodes, satoshis, face-to-face instruction, and numerous sidewalk discussions.
This is the origin of Praia Bitcoin Jericoacoara: a bold experiment in financial autonomy crafted with open-source resources and feet in the sand.
Over four years at Praia Bitcoin Jericoacoara, we transformed a beach locale into a live Bitcoin educational hub: We integrated families, shop owners, and street hawkers; taught self-management in small cohorts; established dependable Lightning channels and transaction tools; executed social initiatives compensated in sats; and organized gatherings that integrated Bitcoin into everyday existence.
Living under the Bitcoin standard, I started to perceive what is genuinely unfolding at the technological forefront.
In August 2025, I released four brief articles on X. Varied in style and tone, they converged on a single inquiry: What position should Bitcoin assume, and what role ought we fulfill in its development? They were published in sets of four:
- a field analysis of our collaboration with the Bitcoin Community Bank in Jericoacoara
- a critique of the rigidity of bitcoin maximalism
- a diplomatic correspondence inviting Bhutan’s prime minister to consider the satoshi as a unit of measurement, and
- a public request to maintain Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer cash system.
What unites them is the aim to synchronize practice, theory, and a forward-looking outlook.
In the first article, I conveyed the challenges and insights from a genuine experiment: establishing a Bitcoin-based circular economy in Northeast Brazil. Motivated by Bitcoin Beach in El Salvador, we founded the Jericoacoara initiative on education, inclusion, and local infrastructure. We set up servers, brought in merchants and neighbors, developed social programs, and pursued formal acknowledgment as a Community Bitcoin Bank.
We were denied by local authorities. Despite the state’s legal and political unpreparedness, we pressed onward with determination. We believe that when Bitcoin is anchored in local contexts, it can transcend mere currency; it can become an instrument for community transformation. However, authorities found it difficult to grasp this concept, leading to the rejection of our proposal to register what would have been the first Bitcoin community bank.
In the second article, I addressed an ideological friction within the community itself. Maximalist discourse, which regards Bitcoin as the solitary legitimate initiative and views the rest of “crypto” as fraudulent, once played a vital role. It helped safeguard the ecosystem’s integrity, exposed scams, and hastened market maturity. But does it still fulfill the aim of widespread adoption? Does it assist in communicating Bitcoin’s value to newcomers? I found myself dismissing pertinent technological advancements simply because they were outside the maximalist sphere.
Upon revisiting this discussion and considering every response and reference, my conclusion was that other projects ultimately function as funnels, testing grounds, or distribution networks that lead individuals toward genuine Bitcoin adoption. Stablecoins, altcoins, memecoins, and centralized cryptocurrencies are gravitating toward Bitcoin, absorbing inflation, and even contributing to the price establishment of other commodities. Perhaps it’s time for a refreshed stance: not leaving behind principles, but welcoming a Bitcoin that prioritizes its core essence while remaining open to engaging with a continuously evolving world, with skepticism and receptiveness; by enlightening regulators that Bitcoin represents decentralized cryptocurrency while all alternative projects are centralized cryptocurrencies.
In the third article, I took this vision into the diplomatic sphere. I drafted an open letter to Bhutan’s prime minister, proposing that the nation consider adopting the satoshi as its national unit of reference.
The recommendation, largely symbolic rather than technical, bore a clear objective: to envision how Bitcoin can interact with alternative development frameworks that do not rely on the IMF or the dollar while respecting local culture and independence. The responses to the letter underscored a significant observation: even within the Bitcoin ecosystem, there are ideological lanes: conservatives, centrists, and progressives, each striving to interpret the protocol through their unique worldviews.
This article thus serves as a point of convergence. It unites those three experiences (practical, ideological, and diplomatic) to suggest a renewed perspective on what we are genuinely striving to create. Rather than endlessly reiterating dogmas, this moment demands discernment. More than merely discussing freedom, it is time to enact it where it is most crucial — on the ground, in our vernacular, within our institutions, and in our connections.
In the fourth article, I distilled my open communication to Bitcoin Core into a straightforward assertion: preserve Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer cash system, not a generic data host.
I contended that loosening default data-carrying configurations invites bloat, legal risk, and reputational
“““html
damage, and urged developers to consider centuries, rather than release cycles. I also observed that recent Core updates, v29 and v30, reassessed how much additional information transactions may carry by default. That exists at the technical fringe of the protocol — software defaults, not the financial regulations. Bitcoin is currency. Similar to a banknote you can annotate but not use to publish a book, transactions can encompass brief notes but should not be appropriated for unrelated content.
This situation prompted a broader inquiry: What do we envision Bitcoin to become? The exchange clarified the fault lines: various groups admire Bitcoin for differing motives and accept various compromises. In the next section, I will identify those pathways and demonstrate how they interconnect.
Observing Bitcoin Knots gaining prominence in relation to Bitcoin Core, and hearing developers express dissatisfaction regarding its pull-request process, reminded me of the First Follower principle. Knots is predominantly upheld by a sole developer.
Movements do not expand merely due to a solitary leader’s brilliance. They grow when early supporters make participation visible and straightforward, reducing social risk and demonstrating to others precisely how to engage.
From within the sector, spending numerous hours analyzing geopolitics and emerging trends, I began to categorize Bitcoiners into four primary groups, with the extremes on each side distinctly defined, so let’s break them down.
The Four Archetypes of Bitcoin
Bitcoin Database, Coordination Builders
Core belief: Bitcoin serves as a neutral public ledger. It can synchronize individuals and software. Currency is one potent application, not the sole one.
What they emphasize: Time-stamps and verifications; public ledgers; identity confirmations; new media on Bitcoin; social frameworks like Nostr; constructing most functions on upper layers to maintain L1 stability.
What they achieve: They draw creators and new participants with innovative ideas and access points. More experiments yield more opportunities to discover persistent utility.
Risks and blind spots: The focus may shift away from currency. Excessive non-currency data can squander block space and provoke disputes. New frameworks may sometimes reintroduce trusted intermediaries.
Approach to Lightning: Open, when it aids applications in feeling instantaneous. Also investigate alternative paths. Keep L1 uncomplicated.
Guiding checks: Functional applications with actual users; engaged developers; minimal, respectful impact on L1.
Notable examples: Casey Rodarmor and Ordinals; Muneeb Ali and Stacks; Burak and Ark research; Maxim Orlovsky and RGB; fiatjaf and Nostr; OpenTimestamps. (Note: this is illustrative, not endorsements.)
Tagline: “Bitcoin is a ledger.”
Bitcoin Central, Market Pragmatists
Core belief: Bitcoin is currency and an asset. Pricing and liquidity drive widespread adoption and help finance security and growth.
What they emphasize: ETFs and treasuries; compliant access points; robust, healthy markets; education for investors and institutions.
What they achieve: Liquidity brings the next group of users and funds creators, mining, and education.
Risks and blind spots: Convenient custody and short-term thinking. Distribution may concentrate in a few significant hands.
Approach to Lightning: Practical. Employ it when it facilitates reaching a larger audience.
Guiding checks: Market depth and volumes; security budget from hashrate; ETF and retail participation.
Notable examples: Michael Saylor; iShares and Fidelity Bitcoin ETFs; market makers; on-chain analysts. Edge Case: High leverage and excessive dependence on corporate treasuries.
Tagline: “We focus on price.”
Bitcoin Conservatives, Monetary Purists
Core belief: Bitcoin is currency. Safeguard the base layer. Scarcity, neutrality and self-custody are essential. Save first, then spend (e.g., within a circular economy).
What they prioritize: Clear, stable rules on L1; operate your own node; education on keys, UTXOs, and fees; diversity among miners and clients; extended time horizons.
What they get right: Transparent incentives and a strong culture. If currency becomes flawed, every price in the economy is incorrect. Repair the currency first.
Risks and blind spots: User experience and payment mechanisms can lag. New participants may feel excluded. Adoption may slow if everyday usage is overlooked.
Approach to Lightning: Frequently skeptical. Favor on-chain finality and caution against complexity and custodial drift.
Guiding checks: More coins under self-custody; healthy node count; decentralized mining; increasing long-term holder supply.
Notable examples: Saifedean Ammous; Pierre Rochard; proof-of-keys style campaigns; full-node culture and cold storage. Edge Case: Never sell. View every altcoin as a scam.
Tagline: “Bitcoin is digital gold.”
Bitcoin Minimalists: Digital Gold and Digital Cash, Tool for Social Transformation
Core belief: Bitcoin ought to serve as digital gold for savings and digital cash for expenditures, with the minimal possible trust surface.
What they prioritize: Save on-chain with final settlement; spend via noncustodial Lightning when feasible; utilize e-cash mints like Cashu for privacy with straightforward exit to keys; merchant flows that settle to self-custody.
What they achieve: Align savings and daily usage without sacrificing sovereignty.
Risks and blind spots: Friction and slower dissemination; hesitation to embrace user experience abstractions; fragmentation across minimalist stacks.
Approach to Lightning: Yes, but strict. Prefer noncustodial or minimally trusted setups. Exercise caution with large custodial hubs.
Guiding checks: Users who both save on-chain and spend via non-custodial L2; easy withdrawals to keys; high payment success without custodians.
Tagline: “Acquire, spend, replace.”
Conclusion
Bitcoin’s culture encompasses four genuine defaults that often communicate past one another. Builders widen the surface area, market pragmatists validate everyday utility, monetary purists amplify distribution, and minimalists safeguard the foundation.
Together, they generate a constructive tension that maintains Bitcoin useful and robust for actual people.
After years working in a circular economy and publicly addressing these discussions, my perspective is straightforward. Bitcoin is currency. Maintain the base layer uncomplicated. Save in bitcoin on-chain. Spend in sats when it benefits individuals, as it does in a circular economy. Support Lightning only when the exit to your own keys remains clear and straightforward. I do not endorse the “Bitcoin as Database” approach, as turning Bitcoin into a general data host distracts from its financial mission and invites waste, confusion, and reputational damage.
The path forward is practical and principled. Evaluate concepts by whether they enhance self-custody, ensure reliable payments without custodians, deepen liquidity that funds security and education, and respect the constraints of the base layer. If we adhere to that standard, the pathways can support each other and more individuals will benefit from a free, neutral, and credibly decentralized currency.
BM Big Reads are weekly, comprehensive articles on some current topic relevant to Bitcoin and Bitcoin enthusiasts. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine. If you have a submission you think aligns with the model, feel free to reach out at editor[at]bitcoinmagazine.com.
Source link
“`
