1/n Thread on the social dimension inherent to #Bitcoin , through the prism of crises (bugs specifically here) Beware, here it is not a question of criticizing Bitcoin philosophy, monetary choices, etc... https://twitter.com/elmalandr0/status/1246135213564010497

2/n but of of critically and scientifically objectifying certain socio-political processes at work.

Prelude 1: This thread is the augmented translation of a response I made to a rather harsh criticism of a work in progress.

3/n This criticism states in abeyance: "Don't trust; verify. There is no question of trust in #Bitcoin .
"The promise of #Bitcoin is:
- A fixed money supply ==> "get tx outset info"
- Fight against double spend ==>Fixed malleability bug with SegWit"

4/n Such criticism corresponds to certain views within the Bitcoin community that deny the social & political dimensions of Bitcoin. This seems problematic to me for many reasons: (i)Already, as @Narodism has pointed out - in a harsh way - it basically... https://bit.ly/3aIA8ll 

5/n... corresponds to the will of hiding some particular political agenda, even though, for cypherpunk and crypto-anarchists, this political dimension has always been clear.
See T.May; D.Chaum, SN Himself, etc.

6/n (ii) Because, in my opinion, and as I have been told in interviews by some actors, leaving these dimensions implicit does not allow the community to objectify either a/ the potential risks and b/the possibilities of improving the resilience of the system.

7/n My analysis, based on ethnographic approch, can be a means for actors to objectify the processes at work in their fields and to feed back on them. This is at least my modest scientific will. Don't blame me.

8/n Prelude 2: Definitional starting point to avoid mesinterpretation - For us Bitcoin is money: we reject the instrumental analysis of currency that is common in mainstream economics and we oppose to it a more pragmatist & relational one : following institutionalist economics...

9/n... seconded by Sciences and Technique Sociology (the object of the thread is not there, so it's a starting axiom, if you are interested in it, let me know, I'll make a dedicated thread). Trust is at the heart of money, which monetary institutionalism has decomposed...

10/n into three distinct types of trust (Cartelier, 1999, Aglieta & Cartellier 1998). Theses analysis was constructed for Fiat money and have to be "translated' for Bitcoin. These three levels are : (i) methodical trust; (ii) hierarchical trust; and (iii) ethical trust;

11/n a particular articulation of these three elements can be found in Bitcoin. A methodical trust, corresponding to the mimicry of individual behaviour, of the order of a routine, a belief in the collective acceptance of this medium and the effectivness of it's use...

12/n...(quality/security of wallet, on/off ramp, merchants acceptances, etc...) ; (ii) hierarchical trust, based on a relationship of subordination to a higher authority (State, Central Bank) which establishes the rules for the use of money, guarantees the means of payment and...

13/n...protects the users = here it is rather a hierarchy of rules within the protocol (ranging from mandatory consensus rules to options compatible one (RBF, CPFP, BIP39 , etc.) & off the protocol in some sub-systems (Existence of hierarchies between members (formal: through ...

14/n...exclusive administrative roles, we will come back to this; or informal: referring to different levels of reputation, skills) ; (iii) an ethical trust, setting in motion the authority of the normative system (norms and values) carried by the "monetary authorities" -

15/n here the protocol and the payment community values they have to enforced - the minimum ethos shared by the members of the community.
We start from the Weberian distinction between (i) Power = as the possibility of imposing one's will against all ...

16/n resistance and (ii) Authority, as the possibility of imposing a decision thanks to the recognition of its legitimacy by those who obey. If relative powers exists in this sense, it is only at some sub-systems levels (moderators on the forums, exclusive activity of some ...

17/n ...administrators on the software repo, etc...) but at the global system level there IS NO POWER : it is necessary to reach a broad consensus and nobody can impose his will on others (which is confirmed by history - Segwit2X; Changes of Core dev : some actors, even...

18/n ... Bitcoin Core dev, have already express that on blog posts or directly to us). But then, we find a lot of authority - through the role of some key players in the ecosystem: software repo administrators and developers, transaction processing operators/ miners,...

19/n ... gateways/services, etc. - is required. But no one is totally deprived of this, as everyone retains a "veto" right (see De Filippi & Loveluck, 2016; Rolland & Slim, 2017) by choosing which implementation of the software they chooses to run.

20/n Calm down! Authority is not given once and for all but can very quickly be withdrawn and an actor's reputation could collapses after taking positions contrary to the consensual ethos in the community (again the socio-history of Bitcoin is really instructive).

21/n We have already tried to rough out the subject here (in french): https://journals.openedition.org/ei/6023 
On institutions & regulations : I know that in the Anglo-Saxon world these terms often refers to the state and administrations. But in Francophone ...

22/n ...institutionalism, this is not the case! An institution is a constraint and a framework for action, but also ressources which, by limiting uncertainty and interpretative dimensions, makes coordination and even cooperation easier and more efficient. They can be...

23/n formal (written, like a computer code - see L. Lessig, 2000) or informal, referring here to conventions, norms or even - at the individual level - routines. Finally, for us, governance is not government (why else would we use two words?); for us, governance is the set...

24/n of actors - human or not -, devices, institutions and other processes that contribute in a more or less autonomous way (i.e. with or without cooperation) to a form of coherence and coordination of a set of actions, allowing the achievement of results deemed acceptable...

25/n... by the actors themselves.
The French thread translated below was in response to the rejection of trust and the importance of social relationships in Bitcoin.Thus, its consensual characteristics would have been given once and for all & would've never been "worked"socially