Vickie Vainionpää, Soft Body Dynamics 47, 2021. Painting, Oil on canvas. Courtesy of GR Gallery.

Chain of thought: Exploring blockchain through the lens of philosophy

This paper delves into the philosophical implications of blockchain technology and attempts to draw parallels between blockchain concepts and ones in the history of thought and modern theories such as posthumanism, transhumanism, accelerationism, critical theory, and speculative realism. We aim to conceptualize the philosophical core of blockchain, which encompasses cyberpunk, solarpunk, crypto-anarchism, and technolibertarianism among others. Additionally, we identify the thirteen philosophical pillars of blockchain. We argue that this technology challenges traditional notions of identity and trust while enabling greater autonomy and agency. Furthermore, we suggest that blockchain has the potential to bring about significant societal transformations, including the emergence of new forms of governance and the expansion of human capabilities. Finally, we consider some of the critiques and challenges facing blockchain and reflect on its potential role in shaping the future of society and philosophy alike. We conclude by emphasizing the need for further research in this area.

* It is important to note that philosophy primarily deals with metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological questions, while blockchain is a technological tool. Many philosophical concepts and theories analyzed in this paper have been simplified while linked with blockchain concepts. Furthermore, the majority of philosophers mentioned in this paper do not explicitly discuss blockchain in their works, and any connection between their philosophy and blockchain should be considered as an interpretive exercise.

Table of contents

Introduction

Part I. Sketching the fundamentals: An overview of blockchain technology

• Definition and history
• Key components and features
• Challenges and limitations
• Main use cases

Part II. Philosophical implications of blockchain technology

• Ethical implications of blockchain: An analysis of trust, transparency, and responsibility
• Epistemological implications of blockchain: An exploration of knowledge creation, validation, and trust in the age of Web3
• Ontological implications of blockchain: Redefining reality
• Social and political implications of blockchain: Understanding the potential for decentralization and power redistribution
• Aesthetic implications of blockchain: Exploring new forms of creativity, ownership, and community

Part III. Blockchain in terms of philosophy: chronologically

• Ancient philosophy
• Medieval philosophy
• Renaissance philosophy
• Modern philosophy
• Libertarian socialism
• Marxism
• Anarchism
• Existentialism
• Phenomenology
• Pragmatism
• Analytic philosophy
• Post-structuralism

Part IV. Blockchain in the context of contemporary philosophical theories

• Transhumanism
• Posthumanism
• Accelerationism
• Critical theory
• Speculative realism

— Speculative materialism

— Object-oriented ontology (OOO)

— Transcendental materialism

— Transcendental nihilism

Part V. Beyond technology: Blockchain as the philosophy

• The hypothetical philosophical heart of blockchain: From cyberpunk and solarpunk to crypto-anarchism and technolibertarianism
• The thirteen philosophical pillars of blockchain

Discussion: Blockchain challenges and potential role in shaping the future of society

Conclusion

References

Introduction

“The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them.”

– Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

In recent years, several philosophical movements have emerged that seek to challenge traditional ways of thinking about the world and our place within it. These movements include transhumanism, accelerationism, critical theory, solarpunk, and crypto-anarchism among others. At the same time, advances in technology have given rise to new forms of social and economic organization that are transforming the way we live, work, and relate to one another. One such technology that has garnered significant attention in recent years is blockchain.

Blockchain is a decentralized, digital ledger that allows for the secure and transparent storage and transfer of information. Its potential applications are vast, ranging from financial transactions to supply chain management, governance systems (e.g. through Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, DAOs), and even digital identity and intellectual property and benefits for artists and scientists through non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and soulbound tokens (SBTs). However, as with any new technology, blockchain raises a host of philosophical questions and challenges that require careful consideration and analysis.

This research paper seeks to explore the implications of blockchain in the context of classical and contemporary philosophical theories, with a particular focus on posthumanism, transhumanism, accelerationism, critical theory, speculative realism and cyberpunk, solarpunk, crypto-anarchism, and technolibertarianism movements. We aim to address questions such as:

• What ethical, epistemological, ontological, aesthetic, social, and political implications does blockchain have?
• How does blockchain fit within the broader philosophical frameworks?
• How is blockchain viewed by contemporary philosophical theories?
• What theories form the philosophical core of blockchain?
• How to conceptualize blockchain as a philosophy?

To address these questions, we will first provide an overview of blockchain technology, including its key components, features, main use cases, and limitations. We will then examine the philosophical implications of blockchain, and see it through the lenses of classical and modern philosophical theories. Then we will conceptualize a so-called hypothetical philosophical heart of blockchain that embraces concepts from cyberpunk and solarpunk to crypto-anarchism and technolibertarianism; and distinguish the thirteen philosophical pillars of blockchain. Finally, we will consider some of the critiques and challenges facing blockchain, and reflect on its potential role in shaping the future of society and philosophy alike.

Through this analysis, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of the philosophical implications of blockchain and to open up new avenues for philosophical inquiry and debate.

Part I. Sketching the fundamentals: An overview of blockchain technology

“Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.”

– Galileo Galilei

Blockchain technology is a revolutionary innovation that has the potential to transform the future by offering secure, transparent, and decentralized solutions to complex problems. This part provides a comprehensive overview of blockchain, its components, features, types, use cases, and challenges.

Definition and history

Blockchain is a decentralized, distributed ledger that enables secure, transparent, and tamper-proof transactions without the need for intermediaries. According to Tapscott and Tapscott (2016), “the blockchain is an incorruptible digital ledger of economic transactions that can be programmed to record not just financial transactions but virtually everything of value”. The technology uses cryptography to ensure the integrity of the data and prevent unauthorized access or modification.

Blockchain was first introduced in 2008 with the publication of a white paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” by an unknown individual or group using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. The paper describes a new electronic payment system that uses a decentralized ledger to track and verify transactions. As Swan (2015) notes, “The fundamental innovation of Bitcoin was the creation of a decentralized consensus mechanism through the proof-of-work algorithm, which enables network participants to agree on a single version of the transaction history”.

Since the introduction of Bitcoin, blockchain technology has evolved to include a range of applications beyond cryptocurrency and finance. Today, blockchain technology is being explored for applications in industries such as healthcare, supply chain management, creative industries, voting systems, digital identity verification, and more.

Key components and features

In a nutshell, at its core, blockchain consists of a series of interconnected blocks that contain encrypted data and a unique cryptographic signature, or hash, that links them to the previous block in the chain. The components of blockchain can vary depending on the specific implementation but generally include the following:

• Distributed ledger: The distributed ledger is the database that records all transactions in a decentralized manner. Each node in the network maintains a copy of the ledger and updates it in real time. As noted by Crosby et al. (2016), “A blockchain is essentially a decentralized database that maintains a continuously growing list of data records secured from tampering and revision”.
• Blocks: The ledger is composed of blocks, which contain a set of verified transactions. Each block includes a unique identifier, a timestamp, and a reference to the previous block in the chain. According to Swan (2015), “Transactions are grouped into blocks, which are linked together to form a chain of blocks or blockchain”.
• Cryptography: Cryptography is used to secure the blockchain network and ensure the integrity of the data. This includes techniques such as public-key cryptography, digital signatures, and hash functions. As noted by Antonopoulos (2014), “Cryptography is used in the blockchain to prove ownership of assets, establish the authenticity of transactions, and ensure the integrity of the data”.
• Consensus mechanism: A consensus mechanism is used to ensure that all nodes in the network agree on the current state of the ledger. This is typically achieved through Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake, or other consensus algorithms. According to Nakamoto (2008), “Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash”.
• Smart contracts: Smart contracts are self-executing programs that run on the blockchain and can automate the execution of complex transactions or agreements. As noted by Swan (2015), “Smart contracts can encode complex transactions and automate their execution, without the need for intermediaries or third parties”.
• Nodes: Nodes are the individual computers or devices that make up the blockchain network. Each node maintains a copy of the ledger and participates in the consensus mechanism to verify transactions. As noted by Crosby et al. (2016), “Nodes in the blockchain network are responsible for validating transactions and maintaining the integrity of the blockchain”.

These components work together to create a secure, decentralized system for recording and verifying transactions on the blockchain.

As for blockchain features, the key one is its decentralized nature, meaning that no central authority or intermediary is controlling the system. Instead, the network is maintained and validated by a distributed network of nodes, which work together to ensure the integrity and security of the system. This makes it resistant to tampering or hack attacks, as any changes to the blockchain would need to be approved by a majority of the network. Important features are the blockchain’s transparency and immutability, meaning that once a transaction is recorded on the blockchain, it cannot be altered or deleted. This provides a tamper-proof and auditable record of all transactions on the network, which can be useful for a variety of applications.

Table 1. Blockchain features.

There are also several different types of blockchains, including public blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are open to anyone to participate, and private or permissioned blockchains, which are restricted to a specific group of participants. There are also hybrid blockchains, which combine elements of both public and private blockchains.

Blockchain use cases

Blockchain technology has gained significant attention in recent years due to its potential applications in a wide range of industries and domains. Here are some examples of blockchain use cases:

Scheme 1. Blockchain’s main use cases.

• Financial transactions

One of the earliest and most well-known use cases of blockchain is in the realm of financial transactions. Blockchain can provide a secure and transparent means of recording and verifying transactions and has the potential to reduce costs and increase efficiency in the financial sector. Well-known cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are examples of blockchain-based financial systems that have gained significant traction in recent years.

• Supply chain management

Blockchain can be used to create a transparent and auditable record of the entire supply chain, from the origin of raw materials to the final product delivered to the customer. This can help to reduce fraud, increase transparency, and improve traceability and accountability.

• Identity management

Blockchain can be used to create a decentralized and secure digital identity system, which would allow individuals to control and manage their data. This could help to prevent identity theft and fraud, and could also facilitate secure and seamless access to services and resources.

• Voting systems

Blockchain can be used to create a secure and transparent voting system, which would allow for the verifiable recording and counting of votes. This could help to increase trust and confidence in the electoral process, and could also help to reduce fraud and manipulation.

• Intellectual property rights

Blockchain can be used to create a decentralized and transparent system for managing intellectual property rights, such as patents and copyrights. This could help to reduce disputes and legal challenges, and could also facilitate more efficient and effective management of intellectual property assets.

• Healthcare

Blockchain can be used to create a secure and decentralized electronic health record system, which would allow patients to control and manage their medical data. This could help to improve patient privacy and data security, and could also facilitate more efficient and effective healthcare delivery.

• Internet of Things

Blockchain can be used to create a secure and decentralized system for managing the Internet of Things (IoT). This could help to reduce the risk of cyber-attacks and data breaches, and could also facilitate more efficient and effective management of IoT devices and networks.

• Gaming and virtual worlds

Blockchain can be used to create secure and transparent gaming and virtual world platforms, where users can own and trade digital assets.

• Disrupting the art industry

Tokenization of art is a use case of blockchain technology that enables the fractional ownership of artworks through the creation of digital tokens. This allows art investors and collectors to buy and sell shares of artwork ownership, which can be traded on blockchain-based platforms. The tokenization of art has the potential to democratize the art market by enabling a wider range of people to invest in artworks, as well as allowing artists to receive funding for their work directly from their supporters.

• Music and entertainment

Blockchain technology can be used to create a decentralized platform for distributing and monetizing music and other forms of entertainment, which can help artists and creators receive fair compensation for their work.

• Science and education

Blockchain technology can be used to create a secure and decentralized system for verifying academic credentials and qualifications, which can help reduce the risk of fraud and improve the efficiency of hiring and recruitment processes.

• Charity and donations

Blockchain technology can be used to create a transparent and secure system for managing charitable donations, which can help ensure that donations reach their intended recipients and are used for their intended purposes.

• Real estate

Blockchain technology can be used to create a secure and transparent real estate registry system, which can help reduce the risk of fraud and ensure that property ownership is properly recorded.

Challenges and limitations

Despite its potential benefits, there are also several challenges and limitations associated with blockchain technology, including issues related to scalability, energy consumption, and the absence of common regulatory frameworks among others.

Table 2. Blockchain challenges.

Part II. Philosophical implications of blockchain technology

“Technology is not neutral. We’re inside of what we make, and it’s inside of us. We’re living in a world of connections, and it matters which ones get made and unmade.”

– Donna Haraway

Blockchain is not just a technological innovation; it also has significant philosophical implications. The decentralization, transparency, and security of blockchain transformative technology have challenged traditional conceptions of power, trust, and authority, raising philosophical questions that are essential to the current philosophical and technological discourse. This part is an attempt to examine the ethical, epistemological, ontological, aesthetic, social, and political implications of blockchain.

Table 3. The philosophical implication of blockchain.

Ethical implications of blockchain: An analysis of trust, transparency, and responsibility

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles, values, and concepts of right and wrong conduct. It explores questions about how individuals and societies should behave, what actions are morally right or wrong, and what constitutes virtuous behavior. Ethics examines various ethical theories and frameworks to provide guidelines for moral decision-making and to evaluate the consequences and ethical implications of human actions.

Usually, ethics involves contemplation and reflection upon ethical dilemmas, considering the ethical ramifications of different choices, and striving to make judgments and decisions that align with principles such as honesty, fairness, justice, compassion, and respect for others. It encompasses a wide array of subjects, including personal morality, professional ethics, social ethics, environmental ethics, and bioethics. Furthermore, ethics tackles profound philosophical inquiries concerning the essence of moral values, the underlying foundations of ethical theories, and the intricate relationship between moral principles and human nature. It provides a framework that enables individuals and societies to critically examine ethical issues, assess moral arguments, and construct ethical principles and guidelines that steer behavior and foster the well-being of both individuals and communities.

Many well-known philosophers have written extensively about ethics throughout history. Known for his virtue ethics, or study of character, Aristotle emphasized the importance of cultivating virtuous character traits to lead a morally good life. His ethics was built around the premise that people should achieve an excellent character (a virtuous character, “ethikē aretē” in Greek) as a pre-condition for attaining happiness or well-being (eudaimonia). Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics laid out his monumentally influential ethical work “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785) centered around the concept of moral duty and the categorical imperative, which emphasizes the importance of acting in accordance with moral principles. Friedrich Nietzsche’s ethics challenged traditional moral values and focused on the concept of the “will to power” and the affirmation of life’s inherent complexities. Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist ethics emphasized individual freedom and responsibility, highlighting the importance of personal choice and authenticity in moral decision-making. To name a few.

The intersection of ethics and technology, particularly in relation to the ethical implications of technological advancements, has also been an interesting field for exploration for several philosophers. For example, Martin Heidegger’s work “The Question Concerning Technology” (1954) discussed the essence of technology and its impact on human existence. He raised important questions about the ethical challenges of technology’s tendency to reduce everything to a calculable and controllable resource. Hans Jonas (1979) wrote about the ethics of technology, emphasizing the need for ethical responsibility and foresight in the development and use of technology to prevent harm to human beings and the environment. German-born American philosopher In his book “Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry” (1984), Albert Borgmann analyzed the ethical aspects of technology in everyday life and emphasized the need to engage with technology in ways that preserve human values, relationships, and meaningful experiences. Italian and British philosopher Luciano Floridi, known for his work in the field of information ethics and the philosophy of information, in his book “The Philosophy of Information” (2011), examined the ethical challenges posed by the digital age, including issues of privacy, data protection, and the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI).

With the emergence of new technologies, come new ethical implications. In the case of blockchain, these ethical implications carry substantial philosophical weight and demand contemplation. Mainly, the ethical implications of blockchain revolve around several key themes, including privacy and data protection, decentralization and power, social and environmental impact, trust and transparency, and economic and social justice. These themes have been explored by several prominent philosophers, who have raised critical questions about the impact of emerging tech on society and people’s morals.

• Privacy and data protection

One of the most visible ethical implications of blockchain technology is the issue of privacy and data protection. The use of blockchain often involves the collection, storage, and sharing of personal information, which raises significant concerns. Contemporary scientist and philosopher Helen Nissenbaum (2010) argues that privacy is not just about controlling access to personal information, but also about shaping social rules and norms around appropriate information flows. Blockchain technology’s impact on privacy must be carefully considered to avoid potential violations of ethical principles.

• Decentralization and power

Another critical ethical implication of blockchain is the issue of decentralization and power. Blockchain technology enables the decentralization of power, which can have both positive and negative implications. Philosopher Nick Srnicek (2018), associated with the political theory of accelerationism and a post-scarcity economy, warns decentralization does not necessarily lead to a more democratic or equitable distribution of power, and the concentration of power can still occur in the hands of a few powerful actors. The implications of blockchain technology on power relations must be critically evaluated to ensure ethical principles are upheld.

• Social and environmental impact

The social and environmental impact of blockchain technology is another important ethical consideration. American philosopher of technology Benjamin Bratton (2016) argues that the social and environmental effects of blockchain must be evaluated in the broader context of technological and economic development. The energy consumption required for blockchain mining, for example, has significant environmental implications. Therefore, the ethical implications of blockchain technology on social and ecological issues must be critically evaluated to ensure that the technology contributes to sustainable development.

• Trust and transparency

The potential for blockchain technology to enhance trust and transparency is another key ethical implication. Luciano Floridi (2019) notes that transparency is a fundamental value in any democratic system, and blockchain technology has the potential to provide a tamper-proof record of transactions that enhances transparency. However, this potential must be balanced against the risk of creating a false sense of trust and the potential for abuse.

• Economic and social justice

Blockchain technology has the potential to contribute to economic and social justice. Belgian philosopher of technology Mark Coeckelbergh (2015) argues that blockchain technology can provide more equitable access to financial and other resources, which could contribute to greater economic and social justice. However, this potential must be carefully evaluated to ensure that the benefits are not outweighed by unintended negative consequences.

• Responsibility

Additionally, blockchain technology raises questions about issues of responsibility, particularly when it comes to the deployment of smart contracts. Smart contracts are self-executing digital agreements that can be automatically enforced by blockchain technology. While they offer many benefits, they also raise questions about legal liability and accountability in cases where a smart contract may lead to unintended or negative consequences. On the other hand, blockchain decentralization can lead to issues of transparency, as the lack of a centralized authority can make it difficult to determine responsibility in cases of fraud, hacking, or other criminal activity.

In conclusion, the ethical implications of blockchain technology from a philosophical perspective are vast and multifaceted. The themes of privacy and data protection, decentralization and power, social and environmental impact, trust and transparency, and economic and social justice are critical considerations that must be addressed to ensure that the technology is used ethically and contributes to a better society.

Epistemological implications of blockchain: An exploration of knowledge creation, validation, and trust in the age of Web3

Epistemology, a branch of philosophy, delves into the nature, origins, and boundaries of knowledge. It grapples with fundamental questions such as: What is knowledge? How do we acquire it? What criteria justify our beliefs? Epistemology investigates the concepts of truth, justification, evidence, perception, reasoning, and the intricate relationship between the knower and the known.

Within the realm of epistemology, different theories and approaches seek to unravel the nature of knowledge. Rationalism emphasizes the role of reason and innate intuition in acquiring knowledge, while empiricism highlights the significance of sensory experience and observation. Skepticism raises doubts about the possibility of absolute certainty and questions the reliability of our beliefs.

Epistemology also explores critical concepts and distinctions, such as the differentiation between knowledge and belief, the contrast between knowledge derived from reason alone (a priori) and knowledge based on experience (a posteriori), and the challenges posed by the problem of induction. It endeavors to address fundamental inquiries concerning the nature and scope of human knowledge, the methodologies we employ to acquire knowledge, and the limits of our understanding.

In essence, epistemology provides a framework for comprehending and assessing the nature of knowledge and the processes through which we come to comprehend and engage with the world. It stands as an essential field within philosophy, forming the foundation for numerous other areas of inquiry, including science, ethics, and metaphysics.

Numerous philosophers throughout history have made significant contributions to the field of epistemology. René Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy” (1641) explored skepticism and rationalism, laying the groundwork for modern epistemology. He famously coined the phrase “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) as a starting point for foundational knowledge. John Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (1689) investigated the origins of human knowledge, emphasizing the role of experience and sensory perception. Locke introduced the concept of tabula rasa, suggesting that the mind is initially a blank slate upon which knowledge is imprinted through sensation and reflection. David Hume’s “Treatise of Human Nature” (1740) and “Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” (1748) challenged traditional notions of causality and induction. He critiqued the concept of innate ideas and highlighted the limitations of human knowledge, arguing for a more skeptical approach. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason” (1781) addressed the limits of human reason and knowledge. The philosopher distinguished between the realms of phenomena (the world as we perceive it) and noumena (things as they are in themselves), emphasizing the role of synthetic a priori knowledge in shaping our understanding of reality. Bertrand Russell’s “Problems of Philosophy” (1912) provided a comprehensive overview of key epistemological questions, examining topics such as the nature of perception, the problem of induction, and the relationship between knowledge and belief. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations” (1953) explored language and its role in shaping our understanding of the world and delved into the nature of knowledge, language games, and the importance of context in interpreting meaning.

Several philosophers have explored the intersection of epistemology and technology, considering how technological advancements impact our understanding of knowledge and the acquisition of information. Heidegger’s philosophy of technology (1954), examined the relationship between technology and our understanding of being. He argues that technology can shape our understanding of the world and influence how we perceive and acquire knowledge. Albert Borgmann (1984) delved into the effects of technology on human experience, including its impact on knowledge acquisition. He explores how technological devices can shape our engagement with the world and raise questions about the nature of knowledge and authenticity. Don Ihde’s work, particularly his book “Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth” (1990), explored the relationship between technology, perception, and knowledge, and examines how various technologies mediate our experiences and influence our ways of knowing. Luciano Floridi’s philosophy of information (2013) considered the impact of information and communication technologies on our understanding of knowledge. He explored concepts such as informational privacy, digital ontology, and the ethical dimensions of technology-mediated knowledge. Shannon Vallor’s book “Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting” (2016) investigated the ethical dimensions of technology and its impact on knowledge acquisition, and examined how technology shapes our cognitive processes, information access, and the cultivation of intellectual virtues.

As a novel phenomenon, blockchain technology has epistemological implications that are worth exploring from a philosophical standpoint. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and the advent of blockchain technology has raised questions about the nature of knowledge and how it is produced, distributed, and authenticated.

• Decentralized knowledge creation and validation

Blockchain technology has the potential to disrupt traditional epistemological frameworks by offering new possibilities for knowledge creation, validation, and trust. The decentralized and immutable nature of blockchain makes it possible to create and verify knowledge without the need for traditional intermediaries such as banks, governments, or academic institutions. In this sense, blockchain represents a departure from traditional epistemological models that rely on centralized institutions to create and validate knowledge.

• Truth and the reliability of the information stored on blockchains

At its core, blockchain technology is a distributed ledger that records transactions in a secure and transparent manner. This has the potential to provide a new standard of trust in a world where trust is often difficult to establish. However, it also raises questions about the nature of truth and the reliability of the information that is stored on the blockchain.

David Golumbia (2016), an American scholar and professor who has written extensively on digital culture, technology, and philosophy, has written about how blockchain technology challenges traditional concepts of truth and trust. He argues that blockchain technology is often presented as a solution to problems of trust, but in fact, it is based on a new form of trust that is rooted in mathematical algorithms rather than human relationships.

• Distribution and dissemination of knowledge

The epistemological implications of blockchain are not limited to the creation and validation of knowledge but also extend to its distribution and dissemination. For example, blockchain technology can create new possibilities for decentralized science (DeSci), decentralized publishing, and information sharing, bypassing traditional gatekeepers and intermediaries. However, this decentralization also raises questions around issues of censorship, access, and ownership, which must be addressed to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of knowledge.

Michael Punt (2009), a British artist, writer, and academic, has written about how blockchain technology influences art and culture and challenges our understanding of knowledge production and dissemination. He argues that blockchain technology has the potential to create new forms of knowledge that are based on decentralized networks rather than centralized authorities. Punt has written about blockchain’s potential to transform a range of industries, particularly those that rely on trust and transparency.

• Objectivity and subjectivity of knowledge

Another philosophical question that arises from blockchain technology is whether the knowledge produced through blockchain is objective or subjective. This is because the data that is recorded on the blockchain is only as reliable as the data that is inputted into it. If the data is biased or incorrect, then the knowledge produced by the blockchain will also be biased or incorrect.

• Completeness of knowledge

Is it possible to have complete knowledge of the transactions recorded on the blockchain? While the blockchain is designed to be tamper-proof, it is still subject to errors and bugs. Additionally, there may be information that is not recorded on the blockchain, which could impact the accuracy of the knowledge produced.

• Access to knowledge

Finally, there is the question of who has access to the knowledge produced by blockchain and stored on-chain. While blockchain technology has the potential to democratize access to information, it is also subject to centralization and power imbalances. This raises concerns about who has the power to produce and authenticate knowledge, and whether this power is distributed in a fair and equitable manner.

French philosopher and cultural theorist Bernard Stiegler (1994) who specialized in the study of technology, media, and culture, argues that innovative technologies have the potential to disrupt traditional power structures by democratizing access to knowledge. He has written about the role of technology in human evolution and the ways in which our use of technology shapes our concept of time. He also addresses the cultural and political implications of technological change and the ways in which new technologies challenge traditional forms of knowledge and communication.

One of Stiegler’s key ideas was that of “technics,” (1994) which he used to describe the way in which technology is intertwined with human culture and society. He argued that technics should not be viewed as a tool or a means to an end, but rather as a form of knowledge that affects our perception of the world.

It is worth noting, the epistemological implications of blockchain technology are compound. For example, while the transparency and immutability of blockchain can enhance trust in the knowledge-creation process, it can also create new challenges related to issues of bias, privacy, and security. The trustworthiness of the blockchain relies on the assumption that the system is neutral and not influenced by human biases or manipulation. Yet, as with any system, there is always the potential for bias or manipulation, which could compromise the integrity of the knowledge created and validated through blockchain technology.

In summary, blockchain technology has important epistemological implications that require philosophical exploration. By engaging with these questions, we can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of knowledge and the role that blockchain technology plays in its production and dissemination.

Ontological implications of blockchain: Redefining reality

Ontology is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of being, existence, and reality. It examines fundamental questions about the nature of existence, the categories of entities that exist, and the relationships between them. Ontology seeks to understand the fundamental structure of reality and the nature of existence itself. In ontology, philosophers explore questions such as: What exists? What are the fundamental building blocks of reality? Are there different levels or types of existence? What is the nature of the relationship between entities? What is the nature of being?

Ontology goes beyond the study of individual objects or phenomena and aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the nature of reality as a whole. It often involves the development of conceptual frameworks and theories to analyze and categorize different types of entities and their relationships.

In addition to its philosophical context, ontology is also a term used in computer science and information science. In this context, ontology refers to the formal representation of knowledge in a specific domain, often used to facilitate data integration, knowledge sharing, and reasoning in artificial intelligence systems.

Several philosophers have made significant contributions to the field of ontology. In his dialogues, Plato discussed the theory of forms, proposing that there is a realm of abstract, unchanging forms or ideas that underlie the physical world. Aristotle’s works, particularly his “Metaphysics,” delved into ontology by exploring the concept of substance, essence, and the categorization of different types of beings. In his “Critique of Pure Reason” (1781), Kant explored the nature of existence and reality by discussing the distinction between noumena and phenomena. Heidegger’s seminal work “Being and Time” (1927) is a profound exploration of ontology, where he investigates the nature of being (Dasein) and the ontological structures that underlie human existence. Sartre, in his existentialist work “Being and Nothingness” (1943), examined ontology from the perspective of human freedom, existence, and the nature of consciousness. Gilles Deleuze’s “Difference and Repetition” (1968) and Alain Badiou’s “Being and Event” (1988), offer unique ontological perspectives on the nature of becoming, multiplicity, and event. The contemporary American philosopher and academic Graham Harman, known for his development of object-oriented ontology (OOO), proposed a framework that emphasizes the autonomous existence of objects and their relations. Harman’s colleague in speculative realism, Quentin Meillassoux in his book “After Finitude” (2008), Meillassoux discussed the concept of contingency and the necessity of a non-anthropocentric ontology.

There are several philosophers who have written about the ontological implications of technology. Martin Heidegger (1954) wrote extensively about technology’s relationship to ontology, arguing that modern technology has led to a “forgetting” of the deeper meaning and essence of being. Similarly, Gilles Deleuze (1992) wrote about the ways in which technology and media shape our perception of reality and the world around us. French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist Bruno Latour’s writings, such as “We Have Never Been Modern” (1991) and “An Inquiry into Modes of Existence” (2012), explored the ontological implications of technology and investigated how technology participates in the construction of social and natural realities, challenging traditional understandings of ontological boundaries. American philosopher of science and technology Don Ihde’s work, including “Technology and the Lifeworld” (1990) and “Postphenomenology and Technoscience” (2009), examined the ways in which technology mediates our perception and experience of the world. Basically, he explored how technologies shape our ontology by influencing our interactions and understanding of reality. Contemporary Hong Kong philosopher Yuk Hui’s book “On the Existence of Digital Objects” (2016) engaged with the ontological implications of digital technology and explored how digital technologies challenge traditional ontological categories and propose new modes of existence. Other philosophers, such as Manuel DeLanda and Luciano Floridi (2014), have written specifically about the ontological implications of blockchain technology, discussing how it challenges traditional notions of ontology and reality by creating new forms of digital identity and property that are not dependent on centralized authorities.

Emerging technologies and blockchain have significant implications for today’s ontology, as they challenge our traditional understanding of what it means to exist and how reality is constructed.

• Constantly constructed and negotiated reality

Traditional conceptions of ontology and reality are based on the idea of a stable, objective world that is independent of human perception and social construction. However, the blockchain challenges this notion by creating a decentralized and distributed network that is based on consensus and trust between users. In this sense, the reality created by blockchain technology is not fixed or stable but rather is constantly being constructed and negotiated by its users. This has important implications for our understanding of ontology, as it challenges the idea of a fixed and objective reality and emphasizes the importance of human agency and social construction in shaping our understanding of the world.

• New forms of digital existence

One of the key ontological implications of blockchain technology is its ability to create new forms of digital existence. By creating decentralized networks that are not dependent on centralized authorities, blockchain has the potential to create new forms of digital identity and digital property that are independent of traditional power structures. This has led some philosophers to argue that blockchain technology represents a shift in our understanding of what it means to exist in the digital age. For example, Mark Coeckelbergh (2015) has written that blockchain technology challenges our traditional understanding of existence by creating new forms of digital identity and digital property that are not dependent on centralized authorities.

• New forms of reality

Another ontological implication of blockchain technology is its ability to create new forms of reality. By creating decentralized networks that are based on consensus algorithms, blockchain technology has the potential to create new forms of reality that are not dependent on human interpretation or subjective experience. This has led some philosophers to argue that blockchain technology represents a new form of objectivity.

Moreover, the concept of metaverses has emerged as a new form of reality, which challenges our traditional understanding of the relationship between the physical and digital worlds. Metaverses are virtual worlds that are created and inhabited by users, and they offer a new form of immersive experience that blurs the boundaries between the real and the virtual. From an ontological perspective, metaverses introduce a new layer of reality that is neither purely physical nor purely digital. They represent a new kind of hybrid reality that is based on the interaction between physical and digital elements. This raises important philosophical questions about the nature of reality and our understanding of what it means to exist. Metaverses also challenge our traditional understanding of the relationship between the self and the world. In a metaverse, users are able to create their own avatars and interact with others in a virtual space. This raises important questions about the nature of identity and the relationship between the self and the body.

In essence, the ontological implications of blockchain technology are complex and multifaceted. However, it is clear that blockchain has the potential to challenge our traditional understanding of existence and reality in profound ways.

Social and political implications of blockchain: Understanding the potential for decentralization and power redistribution

Many philosophers have written extensively on social and political philosophy, addressing questions related to the nature of society, the role of government, justice, equality, power, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals within a political community.

Here we can refer to Plato’s political philosophy as explored in his famous work “The Republic” (375 B.C.E) where he discussed the ideal state and explored concepts such as justice, the nature of the ruler, and the ideal organization of society. Aristotle’s “Politics” (350 B.C.E) examined the nature and purpose of the political community, different forms of government, the role of the citizen, and the concept of justice. Thomas Hobbes’s work “Leviathan” (1651) explored the concept of the social contract and the necessity of a strong central authority to prevent a state of nature, which he describes as a condition of perpetual conflict and insecurity. John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” (1689), a foundational work in liberal political philosophy, argued for the natural rights of individuals, including life, liberty, and property, and explored the concept of government based on consent and limited powers. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762) discussed the idea of the social contract, where individuals voluntarily surrender some of their rights to the community in exchange for protection and the common good. John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” (1859) and “Utilitarianism” (1861) are important works in political philosophy that defend the value of individual liberty and argue for the importance of maximizing happiness and well-being for the greatest number of people. Karl Marx’s works, including “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) and “Capital” (1867) analyze the social and political dynamics of capitalism and explores class struggle, the exploitation of labor, and the need for a revolutionary change in the social and economic structure. Hannah Arendt’s works, such as “The Human Condition” (1958) and “The Origins of Totalitarianism” (1951) examine the nature of power, authority, and the public sphere. She explores the importance of political action and public engagement in a democratic society. Michel Foucault’s work delves into the relationship between power and knowledge, particularly in institutions and systems of discipline. His books like “Discipline and Punish” (1975) and “The Birth of Biopolitics” (1979) analyze the workings of power in various social contexts. Jurgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action and his concept of the public sphere, as discussed in works like “The Theory of Communicative Action” (1981) and “Between Facts and Norms” (1992) examines the role of rational discourse and public deliberation in democratic societies.

Several philosophers have written about the intersection of social and political issues with technology. Karl Marx discussed the social and political implications of capitalism and its relationship with technology as well as how technology and industrialization shape social classes, labor relations, and the dynamics of power in society. Herbert Marcuse’s book “One-Dimensional Man” (1967) explored the social and political consequences of advanced industrial society and technological advancements. The author argued that technology can be used as a tool of domination and control, limiting individual freedom and hindering social progress. Hannah Arendt’s writings touched upon the impact of technology on politics and society. She reflected on the potential loss of the public realm and the rise of a “social atomization” caused by technological developments. Donna Haraway’s influential essay “A Cyborg Manifesto” (1985) discussed the blurring boundaries between humans and machines and challenged traditional conceptions of identity, gender, and politics, and explored the ways in which technology shapes social relations and power structures. Political theorist Langdon Winner’s book “The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology” (1986) examined the political and social implications of technology and emphasized the need for critical analysis of technology’s impact on power dynamics, values, and democratic processes. Sherry Turkle’s “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other” (2011) focused on the social and psychological effects of technology, particularly on human relationships and social interaction. These philosophers offer insights into how technology shapes social and political structures, power dynamics, individual agency, and the overall fabric of society. Their writings provide critical perspectives on the complex relationship between technology and social and political life.

In recent years, we witnessed that the emergence of blockchain technology and the crypto sphere carries profound social and political implications, as it poses a challenge to our conventional notions of power, authority, and governance. With the establishment of decentralized networks that operate independently of central authorities, blockchain has the capacity to upend traditional power structures and usher in novel forms of social and political organization.

• Trust and transparency

Blockchain has the potential to create a more transparent and democratic society by establishing new forms of trust and transparency. With the use of consensus algorithms and decentralized environments, blockchain can eliminate the need for third parties and increase accountability. The implications for social and political institutions are significant, as it can increase public trust and reduce corruption and power abuse.

• New forms of economic organization

Another social implication of blockchain is its ability to create new forms of economic organization. Due to smart contracts that automate transactions and enforce rules, blockchain has the potential to create a more efficient and decentralized economy. This could have significant implications for economic inequality, as it could reduce the power of centralized institutions and create new opportunities for economic participation and entrepreneurship. Thus, blockchain-based supply chain management systems could provide greater transparency and accountability in industries such as food and pharmaceuticals.

• New forms of democratic participation

The political implications of blockchain are also significant. The technology has the potential to challenge traditional models of governance and create new forms of democratic participation by creating decentralized networks that are not dependent on centralized authorities. Blockchain-based voting systems could potentially eliminate voter fraud and increase trust in the electoral process. This could lead to a more participatory and inclusive political system, as citizens are empowered to participate directly in the decision-making process.

Political theorist David Golumbia (2016) has argued that blockchain technology is not inherently democratic or egalitarian but rather is shaped by the social and political contexts in which it is used. Golumbia has also written about blockchain’s political and economic implications. He is critical of the utopian visions that some have for blockchain, arguing that it is not a panacea for the problems. He suggests that we need to be more critical of the ways in which blockchain is being used and consider its potential downsides, such as the concentration of power in the hands of a few large players.

Risks associated with the use of blockchain technology in social and political contexts are still here. Critics argue that blockchain technology could actually exacerbate existing social and political inequalities. For example, the concentration of mining power in the hands of a few powerful actors could lead to the creation of new forms of digital oligarchies. Similarly, blockchain-based systems could potentially be used to perpetuate discrimination and exclusion, if they are not designed to be inclusive and accessible to all.

Furthermore, the use of blockchain technology raises important questions about the role of the state in regulating economic activity. Some argue that blockchain-based currencies could be used to circumvent traditional financial regulations and facilitate illicit activity. Others argue that blockchain-based currencies could be used to promote greater financial inclusion and reduce the power of centralized financial institutions.

Mainly, the social and political implications of blockchain technology are complex and multifaceted. While blockchain technology has the potential to create new forms of trust, transparency, and democratic participation, it is important to carefully consider the risks and challenges associated with its use in social and political contexts.

Aesthetic implications of blockchain: Exploring new forms of creativity, ownership, and community

As a branch of philosophy, aesthetics deals with the study of beauty, art, and the principles underlying our perceptions and judgments of what is aesthetically pleasing or valuable. It explores questions about the nature of beauty, the role of art in human experience, and the criteria by which we evaluate and appreciate artistic creations. Basically, aesthetics encompasses a wide range of topics, including the nature of aesthetic experiences, the characteristics of art forms, the relationship between beauty and truth, the role of emotions in art, and the cultural and historical contexts that shape our understanding of aesthetics. It examines the ways in which art and beauty contribute to human knowledge, emotions, and social interactions.

Aesthetics involves both theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretical aesthetics seeks to develop theories and frameworks to analyze and understand aesthetic phenomena, while practical aesthetics focuses on the application of aesthetic principles in creating, interpreting, and experiencing art.

Furthermore, aesthetics is not limited to visual art but also includes other art forms such as literature, music, dance, theater, and film. It extends beyond the realm of art to encompass the aesthetics of nature, design, architecture, and even everyday experiences.

Many philosophers have explored the field of aesthetics. For example, Immanuel Kant in his work “Critique of Judgment,” delved into the nature of aesthetic judgments and the principles that govern our experience of beauty, and discussed concepts such as the sublime, the role of taste, and the universality of aesthetic judgments. For Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel aesthetics is an integral part of the broader philosophical system. In his works, he explored the historical development of art and examined the role of art in expressing and reflecting the spirit of a particular time and culture. Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy of aesthetics centers around the notion of the “Will” and its manifestation in art. In his book “The World as Will and Representation” (1818), he argued that aesthetic experiences offer a temporary escape from the suffering inherent in human existence. Friedrich Nietzsche’s perspectives on aesthetics can be found throughout his works, particularly in “The Birth of Tragedy” (1872) where he discussed the role of art in affirming life, the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of art, and the transformative power of artistic creation. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological approach to aesthetics focuses on embodied perception and the interplay between the perceiver and the work of art. John Dewey’s pragmatiс philosophy extends to aesthetics in his book “Art as Experience” (1934) where he emphasized the experiential and transformative nature of art, highlighting the integration of aesthetics with everyday life and the importance of aesthetic experiences for personal growth.

Several philosophers have explored the intersection of aesthetics and technology, considering how technology influences our understanding and experience of beauty, art, and aesthetic value. Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1935) examined how the advent of technologies such as photography and film has impacted the authenticity, aura, and cultural value of art, and explored the ways in which technological reproduction alters our perception and reception of artworks. Marshall McLuhan’s “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” (1964) emphasized the transformative power of technology on human perception and culture. McLuhan argued that different media and technologies shape our sensory experiences, including our aesthetic sensibilities.

The aesthetic implications of blockchain technology are multifaceted and encompass various aspects of artistic expression, cultural production, and the overall experience of engaging with blockchain-based systems. Many of them closely correlate with the non-fungible tokens (NFTs) phenomenon. NFTs refer to cryptographic tokens that represent digital files, images, audio, video, videogame collectibles, and other creative products. Unlike cryptocurrency, which requires all tokens to be identical, each NFT is unique or limited in quantity.

• Resolving art scarcity issues

NFTs address the long-standing digital art scarcity issues on how to keep virtual artworks rare if they can be copied digitally. The use of NFTs in this regard gives each piece of art a unique hash that allows it to be differentiated. Artists of original artworks can include their signature in NFTs, thereby reinforcing the authenticity of the content created. While it is possible to make copies of digital art, NFTs ensure that each copy is solely owned by the purchaser so that it is not interchangeable with another copy, increasing the art’s appeal to amateur collectors and speculators. Subsequently, users could view the entire history of the artwork, including the previous prices at which it was purchased and its ownership.

• Artwork ownership provenance and authentication

Blockchain’s inherent transparency and immutability can have aesthetic implications by fostering trust and authenticity in creative processes. Artists and creators can leverage blockchain to provide verifiable proof of authorship, ownership, and the history of their works. This transparency enhances the aesthetic experience by offering a deeper understanding of the artwork’s origin, lineage, and integrity.

• Tokenization of art and its monetization

Tokenization of art by means of NFTs has enabled artists to not only gain more profits from the sales of their work but also receive a royalty each time their artwork is transferred to a new owner. The concept of royalty was previously impractical, especially in the case of physical art, as it was difficult to trace its ownership. The incorporation of NFTs has enabled novel monetization opportunities for artists to be compensated for their craft.

• Disrupting traditional art interactions

Blockchain technology has the potential to disrupt traditional art markets by introducing new methods of valuation and ownership. Smart contracts and decentralized platforms can facilitate direct artist-to-collector interactions, bypassing intermediaries and potentially reshaping the dynamics of the art market. This disruption can have aesthetic implications by redefining how value is attributed to artworks and challenging established notions of artistic worth.

• Decentralized artistic practices

The decentralized nature of blockchain challenges traditional power structures and gatekeepers in the art world. It opens up opportunities for artists to engage in collaborative and community-driven practices, transcending geographical boundaries. Blockchain-based platforms and marketplaces provide spaces for decentralized curation, peer-to-peer interactions, and alternative models of artistic production and distribution.

• Generative art and algorithmic aesthetics

Blockchain’s underlying mathematical algorithms and cryptographic processes can inspire new forms of data visualization and algorithmic aesthetics. The intricacy and patterns inherent in these algorithms can be creatively explored, resulting in visually compelling representations of blockchain data and transactions.

• Redefining digital identity and authenticity

Blockchain’s ability to securely verify and authenticate digital identities can have aesthetic implications by influencing how individuals present themselves online. The concept of digital authenticity and the ownership of personal data can be explored artistically, challenging existing norms and aesthetics of online identity construction.

To sum up, the aesthetic implications of blockchain are far-reaching, impacting artistic creation and the overall experience of engaging with art and digital assets. By embracing transparency, decentralization, and new modes of ownership and monetization, blockchain opens up new aesthetic possibilities, challenges established systems, and reshapes the relationship between artists, audiences, and the art market.

Part III. Blockchain in terms of philosophy: chronologically

“Those who can imagine anything, can create the impossible.”

― Alan Turing

“The foundation of all technology is fire.”

— Isaac Asimov

The history of blockchain can be traced back to concepts proposed by cryptographer David Chaum in 1982, the description of the cryptographically secured chain of blocks introduced by researchers Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornettathe in 1991, and of course by the emergence of iconic Bitcoin in 2008. However, the philosophical roots of this technology can be traced back much further in history. In fact, the philosophical underpinnings of blockchain can be traced back to some of the most fundamental questions of philosophy, such as the nature of truth, trust, and community. From the ancient Greek philosophers who debated the role of the individual in society, to the medieval thinkers who grappled with questions of justice and the role of institutions in governing society; from existentialists who emphasized the importance of responsibility for individuals’ actions to post-structuralists who critique of centralized authority, the history of philosophy has been shaped by questions of social and political organization and the ontological and epistemological questions that aligned with concepts and issues actual in today’s hi-tech world.

In this part, we will explore the philosophical roots of blockchain technology and its concepts in parallel with ones in the history of thought, tracing them from ancient philosophical debates to modern theories of the XX century. We believe that by understanding them, people can gain a deeper appreciation for the ways in which technology is shaping our world and our understanding of social and political organization.

Ancient philosophy

There are some interesting connections between blockchain technology and the phenomena from the ancient world. Firstly, the concept of a distributed ledger, which is at the heart of the blockchain, has similarities with some ancient practices of keeping records on stone tablets or clay tablets, which were widely used in ancient Mesopotamia and other early civilizations.

The concept of trustlessness, which is a key feature of blockchain, may have parallels with ancient Greek philosophy concepts, specifically the concept of parrhesia (Greek: παρρησία). Parrhesia refers to speaking truthfully without fear of reprisal or punishment, and it was seen as a key aspect of democratic governance in ancient Athens.

Another possible connection is through the concept of consensus. In Greek philosophy, consensus was seen as a means of democratically resolving disputes and making decisions that were in the best interest of the community as a whole. These ideas have been influential in shaping the blockchain phenomenon, which seeks to create decentralized systems that rely on trust and consensus rather than decisions by centralized authorities.

Similarly, the idea of decentralization may have parallels not only with ancient Greek traditions but with Asian ones like, for instance, Taoism which emphasizes the importance of decentralized and non-hierarchical structures, and holds that everyone, humans and animals, should live in balance with the Tao, or the universe.

The community structure of ancient Greece was the structure of an autonomous city-state or polis. All polis’ citizens were pronounced equals and had the same rights, including the right to vote (except for women). In that sense, famous Plato’s concept of the ideal state in “The Republic” (around 375 BCE) may be relevant to the way in which blockchain could enable decentralized governance without a central authority. In this dialogue, Plato undertakes to show what justice is and why it is in each person’s best interest to be just, and he does so in both an ethical and a political context. Additionally, Plato’s idea of knowledge as justified true belief may be relevant to the way in which blockchain provides a transparent and immutable ledger of verifiable information.

It may be seen that Aristotle’s idea of distributive justice is relevant to the way in which blockchain enables secure and transparent records that can be audited by multiple parties. Additionally, Aristotle’s idea of a virtuous life lived in accordance with reason and practical wisdom is relevant to the way in which blockchain emphasizes the importance of rational decision-making and autonomous agents.

Furthermore, the concept of privacy has historical roots in ancient Greek philosophical discussions. The most well-known of these was Aristotle’s distinction between two spheres of life: the public sphere of the polis, associated with political life, and the private sphere of the oikos, associated with domestic life.

Marcus Aurelius’ emphasis on the importance of reason and self-control is relevant to the potential for blockchain technology to enable individuals to securely and verifiably own and transfer assets without relying on intermediaries.

Also, the Greek Pre-socratic philosophers, and later Aristotle conceptualized the notion of determinism which seems to be one of the key principles of blockchain and is correlated with its finality. At its core, determinism is the idea that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by previous causes. This notion aligns with the idea of immutability in blockchain, where once a transaction is recorded on the ledger, it cannot be altered or deleted. In other words, the outcome of a transaction on the blockchain is predetermined and cannot be changed by any individual or entity.

To sum up, while the connections between blockchain technology and ancient philosophy may seem tenuous at first glance, there are certainly some intriguing parallels and similarities that are worth further exploration.

Medieval philosophy

Medieval thought and the field of emerging technologies may initially appear unrelated due to their significant temporal and conceptual differences. However, upon closer examination, parallels and connections can be identified between the two.

Medieval philosophy, which flourished during the Middle Ages, encompassed a diverse range of philosophical traditions influenced by classical Greek philosophy, Christian theology, and Islamic philosophy. It explored metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological questions, often within the framework of religious doctrines and scholasticism.

One possible connection between the main concepts of that time and blockchain is through the notion of trust. In medieval philosophy, trust was seen as a crucial component of social and political life. People placed their trust in leaders and institutions to govern justly and provide for their well-being. On the other hand, medieval philosophy, particularly within the realm of religious discourse, focused on the notions of faith, trust, and consensus. Similarly, blockchain relies on cryptographic mechanisms to establish trust and agreement among participants in decentralized networks.

Furthermore, there is the idea of immutability, which is a key feature of blockchain technology. In medieval philosophy, the pursuit of truth and the quest for absolute knowledge were fundamental concerns. Blockchain technology, through its immutability and tamper-resistant nature, provides a digital equivalent of preserving records and ensuring their integrity over time.

Medieval philosophy reflected on the nature of the individual and their rights within dominant societal structures. Similarly, blockchain allows for enhanced privacy and individual control over personal data, aligning with the concepts of individual autonomy present in certain medieval philosophical traditions.

Although blockchain technology and medieval philosophy may not be directly linked, intriguing parallels and similarities can be identified between the two.

Renaissance philosophy

The Renaissance period in Europe, which lasted from the XIV to the XVII centuries, was characterized by a renewed interest in classical Greek and Roman philosophy, resulting in the development of new philosophical ideas and approaches.

One of the key tenets of Renaissance philosophy was the focus on humanism, which emphasized the potential for human beings to achieve greatness and make meaningful contributions to society. In the context of crypto, this could be seen in parallel with the potential for blockchain to empower individuals by providing new opportunities for financial and social inclusion.

Also, the processes of secularisation, the weakening of the influence of the church, and the rise of Protestantism in Europe in the 1500s may be seen in parallels with the elimination of third parties and centralized authorities in various fields due to the main blockchain foundations.

At that time, the concept of security was formed. The word ‘secure’ entered the English language in the XVI century, derived from the Latin securus, meaning freedom from anxiety. Still, the origin of the modern field of security studies has been traced to the period between World War I and World War II.

Philosophers such as Francis Bacon, and Giordano Bruno were one of those whose ideas and approaches can be applied to blockchain. For instance, Bacon’s emphasis on observation and experimentation could relate to the potential for blockchain-based oracles, and data analysis to provide insights into complex systems and networks. And Bruno’s ideas about a universe as an infinite, living organism could relate to the potential for blockchain to enable autonomous self-sufficient decentralized networks that challenge traditional power structures.

To conclude, by exploring the connections between Renaissance philosophy and blockchain technology, scholars may gain new insights into the potential implications of this technology for society and culture.

Modern philosophy

The potential connections between blockchain and modern philosophy, which span the period between the XVII and early XX centuries, may be thought-provoking. Thus, Modern philosophy emphasizes the importance of reason, empiricism, and skepticism. Additionally, modern thought challenges traditional notions of identity, truth, and hierarchy, which is similar to how blockchain challenges the concept of trust and creates a new kind of truth that is transparently based on verifiable records.

A core value of Enlightenment philosophy was individual freedom. Thinkers such as Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau championed the importance of individual rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property. They argued that individuals should have the freedom to pursue their own interests and make decisions for themselves, without interference from the government or other external forces. This emphasis on individual freedom may also reflect in blockchain technology. Blockchain allows for decentralized systems that rely on consensus and individual autonomy rather than a centralized authority. Participants in the network have the freedom to make their own decisions and control their own assets, without the need for intermediaries such as banks or governments.

Furthermore, blockchain allows individuals to maintain control over their own data and personal information, aligning with the Enlightenment ideal of individual autonomy. By creating decentralized identity systems, blockchain allows individuals to control their own digital identities and determine how their personal data is used.

The concept of universal individual privacy is a modern concept primarily associated with Western culture, particularly British and North American.

Another important aspect of modern time technology and thought was the emphasis on industrialization and automation. In the context of blockchain, this could relate to the use of smart contracts to automate and streamline complex business processes.

A key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment Adam Smith laid the foundations of classical free market economic theory. Later, Austrian School economist Friedrich von Hayek argued that free markets themselves are decentralized systems where outcomes are produced without explicit agreement or coordination by individuals who use prices as their guide. Contemporary scholar Eleanor Doyle writes that “[e]conomic decision-making in free markets is decentralized across all the individuals dispersed in each market and is synchronized or coordinated by the price system,” and holds that an individual right to property is part of this decentralized system. It parallels blockchain and crypto world basics.

The term “centralisation” itself emerged in France in 1794 when the post-Revolution French Directory leadership established a new government structure. In the 1820s, the term “décentralisation” started being used. The term “centralization” made its way into written English in the early 1800s, and references to decentralization also began to appear during that period. In the mid-1800s, French politician and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the French Revolution initially aimed for decentralization but ultimately resulted in an expansion of centralization. Tocqueville writes: “Decentralization has, not only an administrative value but also a civic dimension since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will.”

On top of that, in this period, other big ideas came into play. Thus, Immanuel Kant’s emphasis on autonomous agents is relevant to how blockchain enables secure and transparent transactions without intermediaries. John Locke’s ideas about property and ownership are relevant to the way in which blockchain enables individuals to securely and verifiably own and transfer assets. Friedrich Nietzsche’s critique of traditional values, the concept of meritocracy, and emphasis on the will to power are relevant to the potential for blockchain to disrupt traditional models of society and create new forms of value exchange.

As for negative examples, following Nietzsche (“On Truth and Lie in a Nonmoral Sense”) Sigmund Freud regularly argued that transparency is impossible because of the occluding function of the unconscious.

Libertarian socialism

Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy that seeks to combine the principles of socialism, such as social ownership and democratic decision-making, with individual freedom and autonomy. As Noam Chomsky (1970) put it, a consistent libertarian “must oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer”. Blockchain technology aligns with libertarian socialist principles by promoting decentralization, individual autonomy, and democratic decision-making.

Libertarian socialism rejects the concept of a state. It advocates for decentralized decision-making and self-management of resources, aiming to eliminate hierarchical structures and empower individuals and communities. Blockchain technology aligns with these principles by offering decentralized consensus mechanisms, enabling peer-to-peer interactions, and facilitating autonomous governance through smart contracts. Blockchain’s ability to distribute power and decision-making aligns with the core tenets of libertarian socialism.

Libertarian socialism emphasizes collective ownership and control over resources. Blockchain technology can support libertarian socialist ideals by enabling DAOs that promote collective ownership, democratic decision-making, and social justice. Blockchain-based DAOs can empower individuals to create and manage decentralized, community-driven projects and initiatives.

Moreover, blockchain technology can facilitate the implementation of libertarian socialist policies, such as universal basic income (UBI). Smart contracts can automate the distribution of resources and ensure transparency and accountability.

Libertarian socialism seeks to create a society based on trust, transparency, and accountability. Blockchain technology’s inherent features, such as immutability, transparency, and auditability, can enhance trust in economic and social interactions. Through blockchain-based systems, information can be recorded and accessed by all participants, reducing the need for blind trust in centralized authorities. This aligns with the goals of libertarian socialism to establish systems that prioritize openness and accountability.

While there are potential interconnections between libertarian socialism and blockchain technology, certain challenges and considerations should be acknowledged. These include addressing the digital divide to ensure equal access and navigating regulatory frameworks that may impact the decentralized nature of blockchain systems. Additionally, careful attention must be given to prevent the replication of existing power dynamics within blockchain communities and to ensure inclusivity and diversity.

Various historical and contemporary currents and movements often categorized as libertarian socialism encompass a range of ideologies. These include anarchism, Marxism, communalism, certain strains of democratic socialism, guild socialism, participism, and revolutionary syndicalism.

Marxism

Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848) that emphasizes the importance of class struggle and the role of economic and social factors in shaping society.

One of the central tenets of Marxism is the idea that the means of production should be collectively owned and controlled by the workers, rather than by a small group of capitalists. In a similar vein, blockchain technology allows for the creation of decentralized systems that in an ideal scenario are not controlled by a central authority, but rather by a network of participants. This decentralization could be seen as a way of subverting traditional power structures and allowing for greater control and ownership by the people.

Additionally, some proponents of Marxism argue that capitalism is inherently unstable and prone to crises. Blockchain technology has been touted by some as a way to create more stable and transparent systems, particularly in the realm of finance, increasing the efficiency and fairness of the financial sphere.

However, others argue that blockchain technology is not a panacea for the problems of capitalism and may actually perpetuate existing power imbalances. For example, the concentration of mining power (in the case of PoW) or capital (in the case of PoS) in the hands of a few large players in the blockchain space could be seen as analogous to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small group of wealthy people under capitalism.

As for modern thought, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams in their book “Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work” (2015) argue that blockchain has the potential to create a more equitable and democratic society. Against the confused understanding of our high-tech world by both the right and the left, this book claims that the emancipatory and future-oriented possibilities of our society can be reclaimed. Instead of running from a complex future, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams demand a postcapitalist economy capable of advancing standards, liberating humanity from work and developing technologies that expand our freedoms.

Philosopher Mark Alizart in his book “Cryptocommunism” (2020) argues that blockchain technology could be a tool for creating a new kind of communism. He writes that cryptocurrencies are often associated with right-wing political movements, or even with the alt-right. They are the preserve of libertarians and fans of Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek. With their promotion of anonymity and individualism, there’s no doubt that they seamlessly slot into the prevailing anti-sState ideology. But in his book, Mark Alizart argues that the significance of cryptocurrencies goes well beyond crypto-anarchism. In so far as they allow us ‘to appropriate collectively the means of monetary production’, to paraphrase Marx, and to replace ‘the government of persons by the administration of things’, as Engels advocated, they form the basis for a political regime that begins to look like communism which has, at last, come to fruition — a cryptocommunism: ‘Cryptocurrencies enable the optimal adjustment of the relationship between money and activity by serving as a converter between information and energy […] Bitcoin is not just a currency, or even the regulator of social thermodynamics it is the currency of life, it is “living currency”. Hence blockchains allow us to imagine a future in which relations between us are no longer dictated by exploitation because they are mediated by “dead” money […] this ontological communism, this communism of substances, is ultimately what we could call cryptocommunism’.

Slovenian cultural philosopher Slavoj Zizek (2022) has occasionally spoken up about the emancipatory potential of cryptography in the age of digital control but he is not easily convinced by Bitcoin and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). He says that NFTs and cryptocurrencies have no value in themselves but rather represent self-referential exchange value and capitalist speculation. In an essay, Zizek argued that it’s naive to believe that digital assets bring freedom. He writes: ‘digital control and manipulation are not an anomaly, a deviation, of today’s libertarian project, they are its necessary framework, its formal condition of possibility. The system can afford the appearance of freedom only under the conditions of digital and other modes of control that regulate our freedom — for the system to function, we HAVE to remain formally free and perceive ourselves as free.’

Anarchism

Anarchism is a political philosophy that emphasizes the abolition of centralized authority and the promotion of individual autonomy and self-governance. Anarchist thought has readable parallels with blockchain, particularly in the realm of decentralized governance.

In traditional governance models, power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals or institutions. This concentration of power can lead to corruption, abuse, and unequal distribution of resources. Anarchist philosophy advocates for a more decentralized approach to governance, where power is distributed among all members of a community or society.

Blockchain technology provides a way to implement decentralized governance by creating networks that rely on consensus and individual participation rather than a centralized authority. By creating decentralized systems that allow individuals to participate in decision-making processes and contribute to the maintenance of the network, blockchain technology aligns with anarchist ideals of individual autonomy and self-governance.

Blockchain can also be used to create decentralized marketplaces and economic systems that promote a more equitable distribution of resources. Anarchist thought has long emphasized the importance of economic equality and the elimination of exploitative systems of capitalism (to what blockchain ideally contributes). By allowing individuals to transact directly with each other and bypass traditional financial institutions, blockchain technology has the potential to create more egalitarian economic systems that prioritize the needs of individuals rather than the profits of corporations.

For French philosopher and “father of anarchism” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, mutualism — an anarchist school of thought that advocates a socialist society based on free markets and usufructs, — involved creating “industrial democracy”, a decentralized system where workplaces would be “handed over to democratically organised workers’ associations’’. He urged “workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism.” This would result in “capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed.”

Moreover, there are such phenomena as anarcho-syndicalism, an ideology centered on self-management of labor and direct democracy, and anarchist communism, which advocates for decision-making by direct or consensus democracy and the abolition of the state. They may be partially related to blockchain fundamental concepts.

Anarcho-communism calls for a confederal form in relationships of mutual aid and free association between communes as an alternative to the centralism of the nation-state. Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin thus suggested that “Representative government has accomplished its historical mission; it has given a mortal blow to court-rule; and by its debates it has awakened public interest in public questions. But to see in it the government of the future socialist society is to commit a gross error. Each economic phase of life implies its own political phase; and it is impossible to touch the very basis of the present economic life-private property — without a corresponding change in the very basis of the political organization. Life already shows in which direction the change will be made. Not in increasing the powers of the State, but in resorting to free organization and free federation in all those branches which are now considered as attributes of the State.”

Existentialism

Basically, existentialism is a philosophical movement that emerged in the XX century, characterized by its emphasis on individual freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a seemingly meaningless world. Existentialists argue that individuals are free to make their own choices and must take responsibility for their actions and their place in the world. They also emphasize the inherent isolation and absurdity of human existence and the need for individuals to confront this reality and create their own meaning in life.

Existentialist philosophers offer insights into how blockchain technology can be understood and its implications explored.

Existentialism emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and the authentic expression of one’s true self. Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1946) emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility may relate to how blockchain technology allows individuals to have greater control over their own assets and participate in decentralized decision-making. Through decentralized systems and self-sovereign identities, blockchain can support individuals in asserting their autonomy and preserving the authenticity of their digital presence.

The movement often delves into questions of ethical responsibility and the implications of individual choices. Blockchain’s transparent and immutable nature can facilitate accountability and ethical decision-making. Smart contracts, for example, can enforce predetermined rules and ensure that agreements are upheld, aligning with existentialist notions of personal responsibility. In terms of blockchain, the concept of responsibility parallels, for example, slashing as one of the consequences of bad validator actions in the network.

Existentialism challenges the notion of external authorities and structures that may limit individual freedom. Blockchain, as a decentralized technology, offers the potential to challenge centralized power structures by enabling peer-to-peer interactions and eliminating intermediaries. By decentralizing power and reducing the influence of centralized institutions, blockchain technology can provide individuals with greater agency and control over their lives as well as support the ideals of freedom and self-determination.

Existentialists raise concerns about the potential for inauthentic or alienated existence. Blockchain technology can play a role in addressing these concerns by enabling secure and verifiable identity verification. Through digital signatures and decentralized identity systems, blockchain enhances the trustworthiness of online interactions, contributing to the authenticity of digital existence.

Additionally, the idea of meaninglessness in existentialism can be seen as parallel to the idea of trustlessness in blockchain technology. In a trustless system, transactions are verified and recorded in a way that does not rely on trust between individuals or centralized institutions. Similarly, in existentialism, meaning is not something that can be given or received from external sources but must be created through individual experience and choice.

On top of that, existentialism often explores the themes of anxiety and the search for meaning in an uncertain world, and blockchain’s emphasis on trust, security, and transparency can help alleviate existential anxieties by providing individuals with a reliable and tamper-resistant framework and information sharing.

However, it’s important to note that blockchain technology is not inherently existentialist. While it can provide individuals with greater agency and control, it can also perpetuate power imbalances and reinforce existing social structures. Additionally, while blockchain technology can provide a trustless system for financial transactions, it does not address the broader existential questions related to meaning and purpose.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the subjective experience of individuals and the way in which they perceive and interpret the world around them. In the context of blockchain technology, phenomenology can offer insights into the way in which individuals experience and interact with this technology. Moreover, the concept of blockchain as a decentralized system can be related to phenomenological ideas of intersubjectivity and the shared nature of reality.

One aspect of phenomenology that is relevant to a blockchain is the idea of intentionality, which refers to the way in which individuals direct their attention toward objects and experiences in the world. In the case of blockchain technology, intentionality plays a role in how individuals perceive and interpret the information stored on the blockchain, as well as how they interact with the decentralized networks that make up the blockchain.

Phenomenology can also shed light on the way in which individuals experience trust and transparency in relation to blockchain technology. The transparency and immutability of blockchain transactions can create a sense of trust and security, but this trust is also dependent on the subjective experience of the individual using the technology. For example, an individual may perceive a blockchain-based system as trustworthy due to its technical features, or they may require social validation from others before placing trust in the system.

To sum up, phenomenology provides a useful framework for exploring the subjective experience of individuals in relation to blockchain technology. By examining the way in which individuals perceive and interact with this technology, we can gain a deeper understanding of its potential impact on society and the way in which it may shape our future.

Here we can mention Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a French phenomenological philosopher, who has written extensively about the relationship between perception and technology. He argued that technology is not simply a tool that we use to manipulate the world around us, but rather it is an extension of our own perceptual capabilities and bodily experiences. In his book “Phenomenology of Perception” (1962), Merleau-Ponty wrote about the ways in which our perceptions are shaped by our bodily experiences and how technology can extend and transform these experiences. He argued that technologies such as telescopes, microscopes, and cameras do not simply allow us to see more clearly or magnify what is already visible, but they fundamentally transform the way in which we perceive the world.

Merleau-Ponty also explored the relationship between technology and embodiment. He argued that technology is not a separate entity from our bodies, but rather it is integrated into our bodily experiences and shapes the way in which we interact with the world. For example, the use of prosthetic limbs or hearing aids can transform our bodily experiences and alter the way in which we perceive the world.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes practicality and the usefulness of ideas. It is closely tied to the development of American philosophy in the late XIXth and early XXth centuries and has been influential in a wide range of fields, including law, education, and politics. When it comes to blockchain technology, pragmatism can offer useful insights into the practical implications and potential applications of this technology. For instance, one of the practical benefits of blockchain technology, such as increased efficiency and transparency, aligns with pragmatic philosophies that prioritize practical solutions and results.

Pragmatism encourages collaboration and collective problem-solving. Blockchain technology facilitates collaborative networks through its decentralized nature and consensus-driven decision-making processes. DAOs enable individuals and organizations to work together in a transparent and efficient manner, fostering pragmatic problem-solving approaches.

Another key aspect of pragmatism is the focus on the practical consequences of ideas. In the case of blockchain, this means that the value of the technology lies not just in its theoretical potential, but also in its ability to solve practical problems and create new opportunities. For example, blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient systems for financial transactions or to establish decentralized systems for data storage and sharing.

Pragmatism recognizes the importance of innovation and adaptability in addressing changing circumstances. Blockchain technology, with its capacity for programmable and self-executing smart contracts, allows for innovative applications across various sectors. The flexibility and adaptability of blockchain enable pragmatic responses to evolving challenges, offering scalable and efficient solutions.

Additionally, the emphasis on experimentation and experience in pragmatism aligns with the iterative and constantly evolving nature of blockchain technology. As developers and users experiment with the technology, they can learn from their experiences and adapt the technology to meet their needs better.

While the connections between blockchain and pragmatism may not be immediately obvious, there are still important philosophical questions to be explored in this area, such as how blockchain can be used to improve efficiency and effectiveness in various industries and contexts.

As for pragmatism representatives, John Dewey, a key figure in the pragmatist movement, argued that technology could be a powerful tool for promoting human flourishing and solving social problems, and considered technology to be both a productive skill in inquiry but also how new methods and models for inquiry are developed. William James, another influential pragmatist philosopher, also wrote about the impact of technology on society. He emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between scientific progress and human values, warning against the potentially dehumanizing effects of excessive reliance on technology.

Analytic philosophy

Analytic philosophy is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the use of logical analysis and the clarification of concepts. While it may seem less obvious how blockchain technology intersects with analytic philosophy compared to other philosophical traditions, there are still some interesting connections to be explored. For example, one area of analytic philosophy that may be relevant to a blockchain is the philosophy of language. Analytic philosophy pays close attention to language and semantics, analyzing the meanings of words and their relationship to concepts. In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about how language is used to describe and represent the various elements of blockchain technology, such as smart contracts, digital assets, and decentralized networks.

One of the key aspects of analytic philosophy is its emphasis on clarity and precision in language and argumentation. This can be particularly important in the development and implementation of blockchain systems, where technical precision and accuracy are essential for ensuring the security and functionality of the technology.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, a philosopher known for his work on language and meaning, emphasized the importance of the rules and conventions that govern the use of language. In the case of blockchain, the rules and protocols that govern the way transactions are recorded and validated are crucial to the functioning of the technology. These rules and protocols create a shared language that allows different nodes in the network to communicate and coordinate with each other.

Additionally, analytic philosophy prioritizes logical reasoning and argumentation. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and transparent nature, operates on cryptographic algorithms and consensus mechanisms that rely on rigorous logic. The validation of transactions and the verification of data on the blockchain involve logical operations and mathematical algorithms, aligning with the analytic tradition’s emphasis on logical reasoning. On the other hand, analytic philosophy’s main focus on logical analysis and the careful examination of concepts and assumptions can be useful in identifying and addressing potential challenges or limitations of blockchain technology. For example, analytic philosophers may be able to identify potential logical inconsistencies or conceptual problems in blockchain systems and offer solutions for addressing them.

Another area of analytic philosophy that could be relevant to a blockchain is epistemology. Analytic philosophy often explores questions of knowledge, belief, and justification. In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about the nature of trust and how it relates to the various actors involved in blockchain networks. For example, how do we come to trust the decentralized network that underlies a blockchain system, and what role do concepts like transparency and immutability play in building that trust?

Philosophers such as Saul Kripke, and John Searle have explored the intersections of analytic philosophy and technology, offering theoretical frameworks and conceptual tools for analyzing the philosophical implications of technology. Though these philosophers may not have directly addressed the intersection of blockchain and analytic philosophy, their work provides valuable insights for studying the philosophical implications of technology.

Post-structuralism

Post-structuralism is a philosophical and critical movement that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, and it emphasizes the instability and contingency of language and meaning. In the context of blockchain technology, post-structuralist thought raises important questions about the relationship between language, power, and control.

One key aspect of post-structuralism is its emphasis on the idea that meaning is not fixed or stable but is instead constantly shifting and contingent on a variety of factors. This can be relevant to the development and use of blockchain technology, as the meaning and significance of the technology may be understood differently depending on cultural, social, and political contexts. The work of post-structuralist thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Jean-Francois Lyotard has explored the ways in which technology shapes our understanding of language, meaning, and knowledge.

Jacques Derrida’s (1967) deconstructionist approach to language and meaning emphasizes the ways in which language is inherently unstable and ambiguous wich contrasts rogramming languages used for smart contracts since they bring stability.

In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about how blockchain technology creates new forms of linguistic instability, such as through the use of cryptographic hashes and other cryptographic techniques. These techniques create linguistic instability by introducing complex and technical language that can be difficult for non-experts to understand. For example, the use of terms such as “hash function,” “digital signature,” and “nonce” can create a language barrier that makes it difficult for individuals without a technical background to understand how blockchain technology works.

Moreover, the use of cryptographic techniques also creates new forms of linguistic instability by introducing new ways of encoding and decoding information. For example, the use of cryptographic hashes creates a one-way function that can be used to verify the integrity of data, but which cannot be reversed to recover the original data. This introduces a new form of linguistic instability, in which the meaning of data is transformed by its encryption and decryption.

On the other hand, post-structuralism challenges notions of fixed identity and stable meanings over time. Blockchain, with its immutability and timestamped transactions, offers a record of events and interactions that challenge traditional conceptions of temporality. This intersection prompts critical reflections on how the permanence and transparency of blockchain impact our understanding of time and the construction of identity.

Continuing this thought, post-structuralism highlights the fragmented and multiplicitous nature of subjectivity and knowledge. Blockchain, as a distributed ledger, consists of multiple nodes maintaining a synchronized record. This multiplicity and distributed nature align with the post-structuralist critique of unified and essentialized identities, allowing for a more decentralized and diverse approach to data management.

Moreover, post-structuralism emphasizes the deconstruction of hierarchical power structures and the examination of power dynamics. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and transparent nature, challenges traditional centralized power structures by enabling peer-to-peer transactions and eliminating intermediaries. The distributed ledger of blockchain can contribute to the decentralization of power and disrupt existing systems of authority.

Also, post-structuralism’s focus on the role of power relations and social structures in shaping meaning and knowledge can be relevant to understanding the potential social and political implications of blockchain technology. For example, post-structuralist thinkers may be interested in analyzing the ways in which blockchain technology can either challenge or reinforce existing power structures and systems of control.

Among philosophical works that have examined the idea of transparency is Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1975). Furthermore, Foucault’s theory of power and knowledge is concerned with the ways in which knowledge is used to exercise power and control over individuals and societies. In the context of blockchain, questions could be raised about how blockchain technology represents a form of knowledge production and distribution, and how this relates to questions of power and control.

Michel Foucault, well-known for his analysis of the relationship between power and knowledge, has explored the ways in which technology can be used to control and regulate human behavior. Foucault’s work on discipline and surveillance has been particularly relevant to the study of digital technologies, including blockchain.

Moreover, post-structuralist feminist theorists such as Donna Haraway have explored the intersections between technology, gender, and power, and have highlighted the potential for technology to either challenge or reinforce existing power structures and hierarchies.

Worth noting here is the concept of Acephale — one of the key concepts in the work and life of French philosopher Georges Bataille. Derived from the Greek ἀκέφαλος (akephalos, literally “headless”), Acephale was the name of a surrealist magazine created by him in the 1930s and a para-religious society of the College de Sociologie. Acephale’s headlessness parallels the concept of decentralization, as a man without a head may be seen as a symbol of the elimination of centralized power.

Table 4. Blockchain concepts parallel ones from the history of thought.

Part IV. Blockchain in the context of contemporary philosophical theories

“Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories.”

– Laurie Anderson

“The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.”

– William Gibson

As Web3 and blockchain continue to reshape our digital landscape, it has become increasingly clear that their impact extends beyond the realm of technology and economics. The blockchain boom raises important questions about the nature of society, politics, and technology itself, and it may spark an interest for contemporary philosophers. In this chapter, we explore how blockchain may intersect with some of the most innovative and thought-provoking areas of contemporary philosophy, including posthumanism, transhumanism, accelerationism, critical theory, and speculative realism. By examining these intersections, we can gain new insights into the potential impact of this technology on us, our society, and the nature of reality itself.

Transhumanism

Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that explores the intersection of technology, humanity, and human enhancement. It advocates for the use of emerging technologies to enhance human capabilities and transcends biological limitations.

Transhumanist thinkers engage in the examination of emerging technologies with the aim of surpassing inherent human limitations, while also considering the ethical implications of their implementation. Within transhumanist discourse, there exists a belief that humans have the potential to enhance themselves to such a degree that they could be classified as posthuman beings, possessing significantly augmented capabilities beyond their current state.

Transhumanist thought has been here for years. According to Nick Bostrom (2005), transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, the Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death.

Synergies and intersections between transhumanism and blockchain are significant, as both of these fields aim to transform and enhance human capabilities. Transhumanism seeks to transcend the limitations of the human body and mind through the use of technology, while blockchain offers a decentralized and secure platform for the exchange of information and value.

One of the key intersections between transhumanism and blockchain is the potential for blockchain technology to facilitate the integration of advanced technologies into the human body. For example, blockchain-based smart contracts could be used to ensure the safe and secure exchange of data between implanted devices and external systems. This could enable the creation of a seamless and interconnected network of human-machine interfaces, leading to unprecedented levels of efficiency and productivity.

Also, transhumanism may envision the possibility of creating authentic digital identities on-chain. Blockchain, with its decentralized and immutable nature, offers a platform for managing digital identities and personal data. By utilizing blockchain, transhumanist ideas of integrating technology with human identity can be facilitated, enabling secure and verifiable storage and management of personal information, including biometric data or digital representations of oneself.

Transhumanist endeavors often involve sensitive personal data and emerging technologies that raise concerns about privacy and security. Blockchain’s cryptographic protocols and consensus mechanisms offer enhanced security measures, protecting sensitive information and reducing the risk of data breaches. Additionally, blockchain’s decentralized nature provides individuals with more control over their data, aligning with transhumanist ideals of personal autonomy and self-determination. For example, blockchain-based authentication systems could be used to ensure that only authorized individuals have access to advanced medical implants or other enhanced technologies.

Another area of intersection is the idea of decentralized systems. Both transhumanism and blockchain seek to decentralize power and authority. Transhumanists envision a world in which individuals have more control over their own bodies and minds, using technology to enhance their physical and cognitive abilities. Blockchain, on the other hand, seeks to decentralize control over financial transactions and other forms of data by using distributed ledger technology.

Moreover, what connects transhumanism with blockchain is the idea of immutability. Transhumanists seek to enhance and extend human life through technology, with the goal of achieving immortality. Blockchain, meanwhile, uses cryptographic algorithms to create immutable records that cannot be altered or deleted, ensuring the integrity of the data being recorded.

Additionally, both transhumanism and blockchain have the potential to disrupt existing power structures. Transhumanist technologies could challenge the traditional power dynamics between individuals, governments, and corporations, while blockchain has the potential to disrupt at least the banking and financial industries.

Transhumanism often questions centralized authority and hierarchical structures. Similarly, blockchain operates on decentralized networks, allowing for peer-to-peer interactions and governance without a central intermediary. Blockchain-based DAOs can provide avenues for transhumanist projects and initiatives, enabling decentralized decision-making, resource allocation, and coordination among participants.

In addition, transhumanism embraces technological progress and innovation. Blockchain, through tokenization and decentralized funding models, provides new avenues for funding and incentivizing transhumanist research, development, and intellectual property protection. It can facilitate the DeSci movement as well as the creation of decentralized marketplaces and intellectual property management systems that enable fair compensation and attribution for transhumanist innovations.

The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues arouse philosophical debates. Also, there is speculation that advancements in human enhancement techniques and emerging technologies like blockchain could enable significant progress in enhancing human abilities by the mid-XXI century. Notably, Ray Kurzweil’s book “The Singularity is Near” (2005) and Michio Kaku’s book “Physics of the Future” (2011) explore a range of human enhancement technologies and provide valuable insights into the potential impact of these technologies on the future of humanity.

All in all, the intersection of transhumanism and blockchain has the potential to enable the development of new technologies that transform the human experience in unprecedented ways. By leveraging the security and decentralization provided by blockchain technology, transhumanist visionaries can work towards creating a future where human potential is limitless.

Posthumanism

Posthumanism (meaning “after humanism” or “beyond humanism”) is a philosophical and cultural movement that challenges the traditional boundaries between human and non-human entities and explores the possibilities of enhancing or transcending human capabilities through technology.

Posthumanism encompasses different branches, including antihumanism, cultural posthumanism, philosophical posthumanism, posthuman condition, posthuman transhumanism, AI takeover, and voluntary human extinction. Antihumanism is critical of traditional humanism, while cultural posthumanism challenges assumptions about human nature and subjectivity. Philosophical posthumanism examines the ethical implications of extending subjectivities beyond the human species. Posthuman transhumanism aims to develop technologies that enhance human capacities for a “posthuman future”. The AI takeover variant argues for the eventual replacement of humans by artificial intelligence, while voluntary human extinction seeks a future without humans.

Proponents of a posthuman discourse, suggest that innovative advancements and emerging technologies have transcended the traditional model of the human, as proposed by Descartes among others associated with the philosophy of the Enlightenment period. In contrast to humanism, the discourse of posthumanism seeks to redefine the boundaries surrounding the modern philosophical understanding of the human.

Theoretically, blockchain, with its potential to create decentralized and trustless networks, may be seen by posthumanists as a tool for empowering individuals and creating new forms of social organization.

One area where posthumanism and blockchain intersect is the idea of distributed agency. Posthumanists argue that agency is not limited to human beings, but can be distributed across human and non-human entities. Similarly, blockchain technology enables distributed agency through its decentralized and autonomous network structure, where no single entity has control over the system.

Another area where posthumanism and blockchain intersect is in the idea of post-scarcity. Posthumanists argue that technological advancements can lead to a post-scarcity society, where material abundance is achieved through the efficient use of resources and automation. Blockchain technology, with its potential to create decentralized and self-executing smart contracts, has been seen as a way to automate and streamline various industries, leading to increased efficiency and potentially reduced resource consumption.

American philosopher Theodore Schatzki (2001) identifies two types of philosophical posthumanism. The first, called “objectivism,” seeks to balance the focus on human experience by recognizing the role of nonhuman agents, such as animals, plants, and technology, in shaping the world.

The second agenda prioritizes practices over individuals, suggesting that individuals are constituted by their practices. Blockchain technology enables the creation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), which operate without a centralized governing authority, which resonates with the posthumanist agenda of prioritizing practices over individual subjects.

In the context of posthumanism, we can mention a prominent feminist scholar and philosopher of science Donna Haraway who is known for her work on cyborg theory (1985), which explores the relationship between humans and technology. Haraway’s work on cyborg theory also offers insights into the potential implications of blockchain for the relationship between bodies, identities, and technology. Her idea of the cyborg as a hybrid of human and machine challenges the notion of a strict divide between the natural and the technological and suggests that technology is already an integral part of human identity and experience. In this context, blockchain could be seen as a technology that has the potential to shape and transform identities and relationships in new and unforeseen ways.

In a nutshell, the intersection of posthumanism and blockchain raises important questions about the role of technology in shaping the future of society and the boundaries between human and non-human entities.

Accelerationism

Accelerationism is a philosophical movement that posits the idea of deliberately accelerating or intensifying societal and technological processes in order to bring about significant transformations or outcomes. As a concept within post-Marxist thought, accelerationism aims to speed up the process of capitalism in order to bring about radical social and political change. The belief is that by accelerating the processes and dynamics inherent to capitalism — such as technological innovation, economic expansion, and social disruption — the system will reach a breaking point, rendering it unsustainable and leading to its eventual collapse and capitalism’s own destruction.

The term “accelerationism” was introduced by professor Benjamin Noys in his book The Persistence of the Negative. Noys provided a critical analysis of the concept and its various strands. He offered insights into the tensions and contradictions within accelerationism, questioning its political implications and potential pitfalls. Also, he used the term to describe a trajectory observed in certain post-structuralist thinkers who adopted unconventional Marxist and counter-Marxist perspectives on capital. This included thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (Anti-Oedipus, 1972), Jean-François Lyotard (Libidinal Economy, 1974), and Jean Baudrillard (Symbolic Exchange and Death, 1976). Thus, for example, Deleuze and Guattari (1972) explored the relationship between desire, capitalism, and social structures. They propose a form of accelerationism that seeks to unleash and redirect the liberatory potential of desire, challenging established hierarchies and societal norms.

The accelerationism movement has been partially influenced by technology, and there may be some interesting connections between accelerationism and blockchain.

Firstly, accelerationism seeks to harness the transformative power of technology and social systems to bring about radical change. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized and transparent nature, has the potential to disrupt traditional systems and institutions, such as finance, governance, and supply chains. By enabling peer-to-peer transactions and eliminating intermediaries, blockchain can accelerate the decentralization of power and facilitate new economic and social arrangements.

Accelerationism explores the potential for profound societal transformations. Similarly, blockchain technology has the capacity to reshape socioeconomic structures by enabling new models of collaboration, resource distribution, and value creation. Concepts like decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and token economies can contribute to the acceleration of alternative economic systems and organizational frameworks. Especially, it is interesting to make parallels with “left accelerationism” which advocates strengthening the processes of technological development to overcome the restrictive “framework” of the current system of capitalism by redirecting modern technologies like blockchain, based on criteria of social utility and the level of emancipatory potential, to perform more useful tasks.

Another connection between accelerationism and blockchain is the concept of decentralization. Decentralization is a core principle of blockchain technology, and it is also an idea in accelerationist thought. The idea is that by distributing power and control across a network, it is possible to create a more participatory society. Blockchain technology can potentially help to facilitate this by creating decentralized networks that enable more direct forms of social and economic organization.

English philosopher, writer, and later Dark Enlightenment commentator, a former leader of the 1990s “theory-fiction” collective Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU), Nick Land is often considered a prominent figure in accelerationist thought. He emphasizes the transformative power of technology and capitalism, advocating for a radical embrace of technological acceleration to overcome traditional boundaries and create new possibilities. In his essay “Crypto-Current: Bitcoin and Philosophy” (2018), Land explores the philosophical implications of blockchain technology, arguing that it represents a revolutionary shift away from centralized forms of power and towards a more decentralized and anarchic future. Land explores the emergence of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin. In this essay, Land argues that blockchain and cryptocurrencies represent a paradigm shift in the way we think about money, value, and power. He also draws connections between the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and the concept of “hyperbitcoinization,” which refers to the potential for Bitcoin to become the dominant global currency. Basically, the essay provides a unique perspective on the relationship between technology, philosophy, and economics, and suggests that blockchain has the potential to create new forms of economic organization that are aligned with the values of accelerationism.

Other contemporary accelerationist thinkers are Mark Fisher, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams. Mark Fisher was a British cultural theorist, engaged with accelerationism in his writings, particularly in his book “Capitalist Realism’’ (2009). He critically examines the contemporary condition shaped by neoliberal capitalism and explores the potential of accelerationism to disrupt existing systems. In his book, he argues that technological innovation has the potential to create new forms of social and economic organization. Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams are two philosophers who have written extensively about economics and technology. In their book, “Inventing the Future” (2015), they argue that technological progress is a key driver of social and political change.

However, some accelerationist thinkers have also raised concerns about the potential for blockchain to reinforce existing power structures rather than disrupt them. They argue that the current state of blockchain technology is still largely dominated by large corporations and wealthy individuals and that without significant changes, blockchain may simply entrench existing inequalities rather than create a more egalitarian society.

To conclude, the intersection of blockchain and accelerationism is a complex and multifaceted area of inquiry. While blockchain technology has the potential to challenge capitalist realism and enable new forms of social and economic organization, there are also concerns about the potential for blockchain to entrench existing power structures. Philosophers have an important role to play in critically examining these issues and helping to shape the development of blockchain technology in a way that aligns with broader social and political goals.

Critical theory

Critical theory is a philosophical and sociological tradition that seeks to challenge and critique existing social structures and power relations. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. While it may not be immediately apparent how critical theory intersects with blockchain technology, there are still some interesting connections to be explored.

One way in which critical theory could be applied to blockchain is through an analysis of power relations within blockchain networks. Blockchain technology has the potential to disrupt traditional power structures by allowing for decentralized networks and peer-to-peer interactions. However, this potential is not automatically realized, and there are still questions about how power is distributed within blockchain networks and who benefits from the technology.

Theoreticians of Critical Theory Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer were two influential philosophers associated with the Frankfurt School, a group of scholars who were critical of modern society and culture. They are most well-known for their critique of the “culture industry,” which they saw as a form of mass deception and social control.

There is no direct connection between Adorno and Horkheimer’s work (1944) and blockchain technology, as they were written long before the emergence of blockchain. However, their critique of mass media and the culture industry can be applied to the current digital landscape and the role that blockchain technology may play in it. For example, while blockchain has been touted as a democratizing technology that can disrupt existing power structures, there are concerns that blockchain could also be co-opted by corporate interests and become just another tool of the culture industry, perpetuating existing power dynamics. In this sense, Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of the culture industry and its use of technology to perpetuate mass deception and social control can be seen as relevant to the current discussion around blockchain and its potential role in shaping the digital landscape.

In the context of critical theory, we can also mention a prominent feminist scholar and philosopher of science Donna Haraway who is known for her work on cyborg theory, which explores the relationship between technology, bodies, and identities. While Haraway has not explicitly written about blockchain technology, her ideas about the politics of knowledge production, the nature of power, and the possibilities for collective action can offer insights into the potential implications of blockchain.

Haraway’s work is often concerned with the ways in which technology and knowledge intersect with social relations and structures of power. She has been critical of the idea that knowledge is neutral or objective, arguing instead that all knowledge is situated and produced within specific historical and social contexts. Similarly, she has argued that technologies are never neutral, but are shaped by the interests and values of those who create and use them.

In the context of blockchain, Haraway’s ideas suggest that the technology is not inherently liberatory or transformative, but is shaped by the values and interests of those who design and use it. This raises questions about who benefits from the development and deployment of blockchain, and how power is distributed within the technology and its ecosystem.

Additionally, there is another area where critical theory could be applied to blockchain is through an analysis of the social and environmental impact of blockchain technology. For example, questions could be raised about the carbon footprint of PoW blockchain networks, as well as the social and economic implications of a technology that relies on complex algorithms and specialized knowledge.

Speculative realism

Speculative realism is a movement in contemporary Continental-inspired philosophy that emerged in the early XXI century, challenging traditional philosophical assumptions and the dominant trends in Continental philosophy, as well as exploring ontological questions about the nature of reality. Speculative realism takes its name from a conference held at Goldsmiths College, University of London in April 2007.

Speculative realism broadly positions itself as a proponent of metaphysical realism, contrasting with what it perceives as the prevailing trends of post-Kantian philosophy, which it refers to as “correlationism”, which the French philosopher and one of four main contributors, Quentin Meillassoux (2008) define as “the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other”.

Speculative realists, who often disagree with each other on basic philosophical issues, are united by criticism of the philosophy of human finitude, a tradition dating back to Immanuel Kant. What unites the movement’s four main contributors Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier, Iain Hamilton Grant, and Graham Harman is an attempt to overcome both “correlationism” and privileged “philosophies of access” — philosophies that privilege the human being over other entities.

While speculative realism and blockchain may not have direct connections, we can examine potential parallels and implications when considering their intersection.

At first glance, what unites these phenomena is their non-anthropocentric respective. Speculative realism encourages a shift away from anthropocentric views and explores the existence and agency of non-human entities. It criticizes correlationism and related philosophies. For speculative realists, both ideas represent forms of anthropocentrism. Similarly, blockchain technology is a technology that operates on machines and decentralized networks that prioritize the collective validation and verification of transactions, reducing reliance on human authorities. This decentralization aligns with the non-anthropocentric perspectives of speculative realism, emphasizing the importance of non-human actors and distributed agency.

Speculative realism acknowledges the radical contingency and uncertainty of the world. Similarly, blockchain embraces the concept of distributed consensus, where multiple participants validate and agree upon the state of the ledger. The decentralized nature of blockchain introduces an element of contingency and unpredictability, as the consensus process involves negotiation and continuous adaptation. On the other hand, it can be quite predictable because consensus rules are transparent.

As for epistemological considerations, speculative realism engages with questions of knowledge, perception, and reality. Blockchain, with its transparent and auditable ledger, can contribute to the epistemological exploration of trust and verification in digital environments. The immutability and transparency of blockchain records offer new possibilities for understanding and evaluating the provenance and authenticity of information.

Finally, speculative realism and blockchain may have parallels while considering decentralized governance and trust. Speculative realism challenges traditional notions of authority and hierarchical structures. Blockchain technology, by enabling decentralized governance models and eliminating the need for intermediaries, aligns with the ethos of non-hierarchical and distributed power structures. The self-executing smart contracts and DAOs built on blockchain can provide new avenues for exploring alternative modes of governance and trust.

• Speculative materialism

As for Quentin Meillassoux’s philosophy named speculative materialism (2008), again it centers around the concept of “correlationism,” which refers to the idea that humans can only access reality through their subjective experiences and cannot know things as they are in themselves, independent of human perception. Meillassoux challenges correlationism by arguing for the existence of an absolute reality that is independent of human thought or observation.

When examining blockchain in relation to Meillassoux’s philosophy, one might consider how blockchain could potentially provide a mechanism for accessing objective information and establishing trust without relying on subjective human intermediaries. Blockchain allows for the creation of a shared and tamper-proof database that can be accessed by multiple parties without the need for a central authority. One could argue that blockchain, by providing a verifiable and auditable record of transactions and events, introduces a certain objectivity into certain domains. The decentralized nature of blockchain ensures that no single entity has complete control over the data, thereby reducing the influence of subjective biases or manipulation.

Furthermore, blockchain’s use of cryptographic techniques ensures the integrity and immutability of the recorded information. This aspect aligns with Meillassoux’s emphasis on contingency. Once a transaction or data entry is recorded on the blockchain, it becomes resistant to alteration or erasure, reinforcing the notion of objective reality.

Moreover, Quentin Meillassoux showed his interest in encryption in his book “The Number and the Siren: A Reading of Mallarmé’s Throw the Bones” (2011). Quentin Meillassoux’s main task here was to identify the encryption procedure in this work of the French poet, search for the code number and try to explain its meaning. Based on the thesis that a certain number is indeed encrypted in the poem, and that knowledge of this number is necessary for a correct understanding of the entire poem, Meillassoux makes a thorough analysis of the work itself and a comparative analysis with other significant works of the author in order to find the principle of the code, and then justify it.

• Object-oriented ontology (OOO)

Object-oriented ontology (OOO), a branch of speculative realism, is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the existence and interactions of objects as independent entities with their own reality, regardless of human perception. The term “object-oriented philosophy” was coined by Graham Harman, the movement’s founder, in his doctoral dissertation “Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects” (1999). In 2009, Levi Bryant rephrased Harman’s original designation as “object-oriented ontology”, giving the movement its current name.

One way in which OOO may intersect with blockchain is through the concept of distributed agency. In the context of blockchain, this refers to the ways in which digital objects, such as smart contracts and decentralized networks, can act autonomously and make decisions without human intervention.

From an OOO perspective, blockchain can be seen as a network of objects that interact and affect each other within a decentralized system. Each block in the blockchain can be understood as an object that contains information about a specific transaction or data entry. These objects exist independently and interact through the process of validation and consensus within the blockchain network.

OOO also emphasizes the idea that objects have their own intrinsic properties and qualities, which can be extended to the blockchain. In a blockchain system, each object (block) contains a unique set of data and cryptographic signatures that make it distinct from others. This uniqueness and individuality align with the OOO notion that objects have their own reality and qualities.

Additionally, OOO posits that objects are withdrawn from direct access and can only be perceived through their interactions with other objects. Similarly, in blockchain, the information is immutable and can only be accessed and verified through the consensus of the network participants. This decentralized nature of blockchain aligns with the OOO idea that objects interact with each other without the need for a human observer.

American philosopher Graham Harman is a central figure in OOO. While Harman’s philosophy does not directly address blockchain technology, we can explore some possible connections and considerations between OOO and blockchain.

One way to approach this connection is through the lens of how blockchain technology operates. Blockchain’s decentralized nature aligns with Harman’s emphasis on the autonomous existence of objects and their interactions without the need for human intervention.

From an OOO perspective, one can argue that blockchain technology treats digital assets or transactions as discrete objects with their own reality. Each block in the blockchain can be seen as an object that interacts with other objects through the process of validation and verification. These objects, in the form of transactions or data entries, exist independently and are connected through their interactions within the blockchain system.

Furthermore, blockchain technology can be seen as providing a platform for a multiplicity of objects to interact and affect each other without privileging anyone. The consensus mechanisms used in blockchain systems involve the participation and agreement of multiple nodes or participants. This decentralized consensus aligns with Harman’s idea of a network of objects, where no single object holds a privileged position or complete knowledge of the whole system.

The second central figure of OOO is the American philosopher Levi Bryant. His own version of object-oriented thought, called ‘onticology’ (2011), disprivileges human experience from a central position in metaphysical inquiry while holding that objects are always split between two domains — virtuality and actuality. For Bryant, virtuality refers to the powers and potential of any given object, whereas actuality designates the qualities manifested by the actualization of an object’s potential at any given point in time. Here we can refer to the Web3 concept of the metaverse. Later Bryant, concerned with the doctrine of withdrawal and the non-relationism of object-oriented philosophy, departed from the OOO movement and developed a machine-oriented ontology that argues being is composed entirely of machines or processes.

English philosopher Timothy Morton, a prominent OOO thinker, also has written extensively about the relationship between humans and non-human objects. In his book, “Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World” (2013), he suggests that we need new ways of thinking about human relationships with technology in order to address the ecological crises facing our planet. Morton’s use of the term ‘hyperobjects’ was inspired by Björk’s 1996 single ‘Hyperballad’, although the term ‘Hyper-objects’ (denoting n-dimensional non-local entities) has also been used in computer science since 1967. Morton employed the term to describe objects that are so massively distributed in time and space as to transcend spatiotemporal specificity. In the context of blockchain, we may see blockchains as distributed networks that in the case of PoW heavily affect our environment. On the other hand, blockchain technology has the potential to intersect with ecological concerns and contribute to sustainability efforts in various ways, including the tracking of carbon footprints, or environmental data management, to name a few.

However, it is important to note that Harman, Bryant, and Morton themselves have not explicitly discussed or applied his philosophy to the blockchain. While connections can be drawn between OOO and blockchain concepts, these connections should be understood as speculative and interpretive.

• Transcendental materialism

Transcendental materialism is a philosophical position defended by the British philosopher Iain Hamilton Grant. He argues against “somatism,” which is the philosophy and physics of bodies. In his book, “Philosophies of Nature After Schelling,” (2006) Grant proposes a new history of philosophy that returns to the Platonic matter, the basic building blocks of reality, and the forces and powers that govern it. He traces this argument to German idealists Fichte and Schelling and advocates for a “physics of the All” instead of a physics of bodies. Other thinkers have rallied around process philosophy, uniting around Schelling, Bergson, Thacker, Whitehead, and Deleuze.

Grant’s philosophy often focuses on the concept of nature, emphasizing the dynamic and productive aspects of natural processes. He explores how nature unfolds through processes of self-organization, emergence, and the interplay between materiality and transcendental structures.

When considering blockchain technology from Grant’s perspective, we can examine how it fits within the broader context of natural processes and systems. Blockchain can be seen as a technologically mediated system that emerges from human engagement with nature and its productive capacities.

Furthermore, Grant’s engagement with German Idealism, particularly the philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, can offer insights into the relationship between technology and nature. Schelling’s philosophy emphasizes the idea of a dynamic and creative nature that unfolds through productive forces and self-organization. In the context of blockchain, we can interpret it as a manifestation of nature’s productive capacities and self-organizing principles mediated through human technological interventions. Blockchain’s decentralized and distributed nature aligns with the notion of nature’s autonomous and self-regulating tendencies, as discussed within Grant’s philosophical framework.

Additionally, Grant’s exploration of the relationship between materiality and transcendental structures can be relevant when considering blockchain’s potential impact on social structures. Blockchain technology introduces new possibilities for transparency, and trust without relying on centralized authorities. This aspect resonates with Grant’s emphasis on the interplay between materiality and the structures that shape our experiences and social interactions.

• Transcendental nihilism

Transcendental nihilism is a philosophical position that challenges traditional metaphysical assumptions and questions the possibility of objective knowledge and meaning. It is associated mainly with British philosopher Ray Brassier, who argues for a radical skepticism regarding the existence of ultimate truths or foundational principles. In his book “Nihil Unbound: Extinction and Enlightenment” (2007) Brassier argues that philosophy has avoided the idea of extinction and instead tries to find meaning in a world that is conditioned by the very idea of its own annihilation. He critiques both the phenomenological and hermeneutic strands of continental philosophy and defends a view of the world as inherently devoid of meaning. Brassier embraces nihilism as the truth of reality and defends a radically anti-correlationist philosophy that proposes that Thought is conjoined not with Being, but with Non-Being.

While transcendental nihilism does not directly address blockchain technology, we can explore potential connections and considerations between these concepts.

From a transcendental nihilist perspective, blockchain technology can be seen as a manifestation of human attempts to create systems of trust and meaning in the absence of ultimate foundations. Blockchain operates through distributed networks and consensus mechanisms, providing a decentralized and transparent platform for recording and verifying transactions. This decentralized nature aligns with the skepticism towards centralized authority and hierarchical structures often associated with transcendental nihilism.

Furthermore, blockchain’s cryptographic algorithms and immutable nature can be seen as an attempt to establish trust and security without relying on traditional institutions or metaphysical foundations. Transcendental nihilism’s rejection of absolute truths and ultimate meaning resonates with blockchain’s focus on objective verification and transparency.

Moreover, Brassier’s exploration of the limits of human cognition and the implications of scientific realism can be relevant when considering blockchain’s potential impact on social and economic structures. Blockchain technology enables the automation and programmability of transactions through smart contracts, reducing the reliance on human intermediaries and introducing new possibilities for efficiency and accuracy.

In summary, while connections can be drawn between Ray Brassier’s philosophical ideas and blockchain technology by considering themes such as nihilism, trust, and the limits of human cognition, these connections are interpretive and speculative. Applying Brassier’s philosophical framework to the blockchain requires critical analysis and interpretation, recognizing the limitations and practical considerations of the technology.

Table 5. Blockchain in the context of contemporary philosophical theories.

Part V. Beyond technology: Blockchain as the philosophy

“The essence of technology is by no means anything technological.”

– Martin Heidegger

“The most human thing about us is our technology.”

— Marshall McLuhan

Blockchain and cryptocurrencies have emerged as more than just technological innovations or financial tools and did not appear out of nowhere. They have engendered a philosophical discourse, offering a fresh perspective on societal structures, power dynamics, and the nature of trust. In this part, we delve into the philosophical dimensions of blockchain as a philosophy in its own right. By examining the concepts from cyberpunk, solarpunk, technolibertarianism and crypto-anarchism movements and by mixing them with traditional philosophical concepts such as decentralization, openness, and trust, we navigate the philosophical landscape shaped by blockchain and crypto.

The hypothetical philosophical heart of blockchain: From cyberpunk and solarpunk to crypto-anarchism and technolibertarianism

We believe that cyberpunk, solarpunk, transhumanism alongside technolibertarianism, crypto-anarchism and cyber-utopianism are all thoughts that are associated with blockchain and can be considered as basic parts of its philosophy. Together, these movements highlight the diverse and complex philosophical underpinnings of the crypto space, which draw on a wide range of cultural, social, and political influences.

• Cyberpunk

Cyberpunk is a subgenre of science fiction that emerged in the 1980s and is characterized by a dark, dystopian vision of the future that is heavily influenced by technology and the increasing power of corporations. The philosophy behind cyberpunk is often described as a reaction to the excesses of late capitalism, with its emphasis on profit, consumerism, and the relentless pursuit of technological progress.

At its core, cyberpunk is a critique of the dehumanizing effects of technology and the power structures that emerge around it. It is a vision of a future in which individuals are increasingly alienated from each other and from themselves, and in which corporations and governments wield unprecedented control over every aspect of human life. This philosophy is often expressed through the use of themes such as AI, cybernetics, virtual reality, and hacking.

Cyberpunk also draws heavily on postmodernist and existentialist philosophy, with its emphasis on the fragmentation of identity and the search for meaning in a world that has lost its sense of purpose. In many ways, cyberpunk can be seen as a kind of nihilistic response to the problems of contemporary society, a rejection of the utopian dreams of earlier generations, and an embrace of the bleak realities of the present.

Nonetheless, in cyberpunk’s dystopian future where powerful corporations and governments dominate society, individuals are usually highly ethical and utilize hi-tech to resist their control. Thus, the genre often features hackers, cyborgs, and other characters who use technology to enhance their abilities and challenge authority.

The importance of cyberpunk cannot be leveled when discussing new technologies. It has influenced the development of the majority of modern advanced tech including blockchain by emphasizing the importance of decentralization, individual empowerment, and the use of technology to subvert power structures.

• Solarpunk

Solarpunk is a newer subculture that emerged as a response to the dystopian themes of cyberpunk. It focuses on visions of a sustainable future, and seeks to develop technologies and social structures that promote ecological balance and social justice. Solarpunk values transparency, openness, and collaboration, all of which are also key principles of blockchain technology.

Furthermore, solarpunk advocates for a regenerative and circular economy, where waste is minimized, and resources are reused and recycled. Blockchain technology can help facilitate this vision by enabling transparent tracking and tracing of resources and supply chains, ensuring that materials are used efficiently and sustainably.

Solarpunk and blockchain also share a critique of the dominant economic and political systems that prioritize profit and power over people and the planet. Solarpunk envisions a future where the values of care, cooperation, and community are prioritized, while blockchain technology can help enable more democratic decision-making and governance, where individuals have a say in how resources are allocated and decisions are made. Worth noting, the Ethereum community took solarpunk as one of their directions while transitioning to PoS in 2022. Many crypto projects focus on sustainability and help facilitate solarpunk vision.

• Crypto anarchism

Crypto-anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates the use of strong cryptography and other privacy-enhancing technologies as a means to achieve social and political goals. It is closely related to the philosophy of anarchism, which advocates for the abolition of all forms of hierarchy. The term was first introduced by computer scientist and cypherpunk, Timothy May, in his 1988 essay “The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.”

Crypto-anarchists argue that the use of cryptography and decentralized technologies such as blockchain can enable individuals to exercise their right to privacy, free speech, and freedom of association without fear of government surveillance or interference. By creating decentralized systems that are resistant to censorship and control, crypto-anarchists believe that individuals can create a more equitable and just society.

At the heart of crypto-anarchism is the idea of individual sovereignty and autonomy. Crypto-anarchists reject the idea that the state has a legitimate monopoly on violence and seek to empower individuals to exercise greater control over their lives. They view technology as a means to achieve these goals and believe that decentralized, peer-to-peer networks can enable individuals to organize and coordinate their activities without the need for centralized authorities.

• Cyber-utopianism

Cyber-utopianism, also known as web-utopianism, digital utopianism, or utopian internet, is a philosophy that emphasizes the transformative potential of technology, particularly the internet and digital communication, for creating a more decentralized, democratic, and libertarian society. Cyber-utopians believe that the internet can promote freedom, equality, and individual empowerment by enabling people to access information, communicate and organize with each other, and challenge traditional power structures.

At the heart of cyber-utopianism is the belief that the internet can lead to the emergence of a new kind of society that is more democratic, decentralized, and egalitarian. Cyber-utopians see the internet as a tool for breaking down traditional hierarchies and enabling new forms of social and political organization based on networks and voluntary associations.

However, critics of cyber-utopianism argue that this philosophy is overly optimistic and ignores the potential negative consequences of technology, such as the concentration of power in the hands of a few large tech companies, the erosion of privacy and personal autonomy, and the exacerbation of social inequalities.

• Technolibertarianism

Technolibertarianism (sometimes referred to as cyberlibertarianism) is a political philosophy with roots in the Internet’s early hacker cypherpunk culture in Silicon Valley in the early 1990s and in American libertarianism. Technolibertarianism combines elements of libertarianism and techno-utopianism. At its core, technolibertarianism advocates for the maximum freedom of individuals to use technology in any way, they see fit, without interference or regulation from governments or other authorities. This includes the use of technology for purposes such as cryptocurrency, peer-to-peer networking, and other decentralized forms of communication and exchange.

Technolibertarianism is based on the belief that technology can help solve many of the problems facing society, and that by removing barriers to innovation and progress, individuals can create a better world for themselves and others. Technolibertarians often argue that governments and other institutions are slow to adapt to new technologies and that their attempts to regulate or control technology only serve to stifle innovation and limit individual freedom.

While technolibertarianism shares some similarities with cyber-utopianism and other techno-utopian philosophies, it is more focused on individual freedom and less concerned with issues of social justice or collective action. Technolibertarians generally believe that the market should be left to regulate technology and that any attempts to interfere with this process will only lead to negative outcomes.

• Transhumanism

We believe that transhumanism should be also at the bottom of the imaginary philosophical heart of blockchain. As we mentioned above, transhumanism is a philosophical and cultural movement that advocates for the use of technology to enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capabilities beyond what is considered normal or natural for humans.

Transhumanism is often associated with a sense of optimism about the future and the potential for technology to solve some of humanity’s greatest challenges. However, it also raises questions about the ethical implications of using technology to modify human beings and the potential consequences of creating a new kind of post-human society. The philosophy of transhumanism continues to evolve as technology advances and our understanding of its implications deepens.

Finally, both transhumanism and blockchain are driven by a belief in the power of technology to shape the future. Transhumanists envision a future where humanity has transcended its biological limitations and evolved into a new, posthuman species. Blockchain proponents envision a future where decentralized systems have replaced centralized institutions, creating a more equitable and autonomous society. Both movements share a belief in the transformative potential of technology and a desire to shape the future according to their respective visions.

Scheme 2. The hypothetical philosophical heart of blockchain.

The thirteen philosophical pillars of blockchain

We assume that blockchain can be examined from a philosophical standpoint, as it embodies certain values and principles that reflect a broader philosophical perspective. The underlying philosophy of blockchain encompasses ideas such as decentralization, transparency, and immutability, which aim to establish a more democratic, open, and trustless society. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum manifest a philosophical inclination towards creating a peer-to-peer digital currency that operates beyond the control of centralized institutions, thereby challenging the power structures inherent in traditional financial systems.

Approaching blockchain and crypto as a philosophy entails exploring the philosophical implications of these technologies. They symbolize a departure from hierarchical structures and centralized authorities, advocating for a more equitable and decentralized approach to the management of information and wealth. As a result, they align with a philosophical movement that embraces decentralization and open access, extending their impact beyond the realms of technology and finance to domains such as governance, art, and media.

In the scheme below key aspects where blockchain can be considered as a philosophical framework are presented:

Scheme 3. The thirteen philosophical pillars of blockchain.

1. Decentralization

Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are often associated with the principle of decentralization. This concept is rooted in political philosophy, particularly anarchist and libertarian ideas, that emphasize the need for decentralized power structures. Blockchain enthusiasts aim to create systems that distribute power, authority, and control across a network of participants rather than relying on centralized entities.

2. Trust and transparency

Blockchain technology offers a transparent and immutable ledger that records transactions and information. It aims to establish trust and remove the need for intermediaries or central authorities. This emphasis on transparency resonates with philosophical notions of truth, accountability, and open dialogue. It challenges traditional systems of trust and authority and encourages a more participatory and democratic approach.

3. Self-sovereignty

Blockchain technology emphasizes the concept of self-sovereignty, which means that individuals have control over their own data and identity. This is based on the idea of individual autonomy and the need for individuals to have agency over their own lives.

4. Privacy and security

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain systems incorporate cryptographic techniques to secure transactions and protect user privacy. They offer the possibility of pseudonymity and control over personal data, and some of them offer privacy. This aspect aligns with philosophical discussions around privacy rights, personal autonomy, and the limitations of surveillance capitalism. It encourages individuals to take ownership of their data and engage in self-determined interactions.

5. Programmability and automation

Automation is an important aspect of the philosophy behind blockchain. One of the key benefits of blockchain is that it allows for the automation of trust through the use of smart contracts, eliminating the need for intermediaries. Furthermore, blockchain technology also enables the automation of many other processes, such as record-keeping, identity verification, and supply chain management. This not only reduces the potential for human error and fraud but also increases efficiency and lowers costs. The idea of automation in the context of blockchain is rooted in the broader philosophy of automation, which seeks to replace manual labor and decision-making processes with machines and algorithms. Proponents of automation argue that it can increase productivity, reduce costs, and free humans from menial tasks to focus on more creative and innovative endeavors.

6. Immutability

Immutability refers to the idea that once data is recorded on a blockchain, it cannot be changed or deleted. This is because the ledger is distributed across the network, making it virtually impossible for any single user to alter the data without the consensus of the entire network. The rights given to the network’s participants are immutable and cannot be changed. In philosophy, the idea of unchanging, eternal truths has been explored by thinkers such as Plato, who posited the existence of a perfect, unchanging realm of Forms.

7. Trustlessness and peer-to-peer collaboration

Blockchain technology enables peer-to-peer interactions and disintermediation, allowing direct interactions and collaborations without intermediaries. This aspect resonates with philosophical ideas of horizontal relationships, cooperation, and the empowerment of individuals and communities. It challenges centralized power structures and promotes a more participatory and egalitarian approach to interactions and decision-making. The collaboration concept also resonates with the concept of consensus which can be traced back to the works of Ancient Greek philosophers and Enlightenment thinkers.

8. Equality and financial inclusion

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based financial systems have the potential to promote financial inclusion by providing access to financial services for individuals who are unbanked or underbanked. This aligns with philosophical concerns about justice, equality, and addressing socio-economic disparities. By offering financial agency and empowerment, blockchain and crypto can be seen as philosophies that strive for more inclusive and equitable systems.

9. Economic liberty

Economic liberty is a fundamental philosophical pillar of blockchain technology. It is rooted in the belief that individuals should have the freedom to conduct their economic activities without interference from governments or other centralized authorities. Blockchain enables economic liberty by providing a decentralized infrastructure that allows individuals to engage in peer-to-peer transactions without the need for intermediaries.

10. Accessibility

Accessibility is one of the key philosophical pillars of blockchain technology. It is the idea that the benefits of technology should be open to everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status, education level, or technical expertise. Accessibility means that blockchain should be open and transparent, with no barriers to entry for individuals or organizations looking to participate. Also, at its core, accessibility in blockchain means that the technology should be designed in a way that makes it easy for anyone to use and participate in.

11. Sustainable development

Sustainable development is another philosophical pillar of blockchain. The decentralized and transparent nature of blockchain can contribute to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aimed at ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring peace and prosperity for all, creating a more equitable and sustainable world for future generations.

12. Progress and innovation

The pillar of progress and innovation refers to the continuous development and evolution of blockchain. This includes ongoing research and development, as well as the implementation of new features and functionalities that improve its capabilities and expand its potential use cases. It also involves fostering an environment that encourages innovation and experimentation, which is essential for the growth and adoption of innovative technologies.

13. Determinism

Determinism, one of the key philosophical pillars of blockchain, equals the finality concept. At its core, determinism is the idea that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by previous causes. This notion aligns with the idea of immutability in blockchain, where once a transaction is recorded on the ledger, it cannot be altered or deleted. In other words, the outcome of a transaction on the blockchain is predetermined and cannot be changed by any individual or entity. Determinism was developed by the Greek Pre-socratic philosophers, and later by Aristotle. Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with this issue are Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and, more recently, John Searle, and Daniel Dennett.

However, it is vital to acknowledge that various blockchain projects encompass a diverse array of perspectives and approaches within their respective communities. Furthermore, while they embody certain philosophical principles, they also entail practical considerations and limitations that must be taken into account.

To conclude, viewing blockchain and cryptocurrencies through a philosophical lens unveils the underlying values and ideas that challenge established power dynamics and promote decentralization and openness. Analyzing and engaging with these philosophical dimensions provide valuable insights into the potential and boundaries of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, both as technologies and as philosophical frameworks.

Discussion: Blockchain challenges and potential role in shaping the future of society

“The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it.”

– Molière

“I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.”

― Noam Chomsky

There are several critiques and challenges that may be raised about blockchain technology from a philosophical perspective. These challenges include potential centralization, ethical and epistemological considerations, environmental impact, and technological determinism.

Thus, while blockchain is often touted as a decentralized solution, critics may argue that it can still be subject to centralization, particularly if a small group of actors controls the majority of the network’s computational power. From a philosophical perspective, this raises questions about the nature of power and control in decentralized systems.

Also, there are concerns that blockchain could exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities, particularly if access to the technology is restricted to a small group of actors. This raises questions about the potential for blockchain to contribute to social exclusion and perpetuate existing power imbalances.

Furthermore, blockchain technology presents a range of ethical challenges, particularly around issues such as privacy, security, and data ownership. From a philosophical perspective, this raises questions about the ethical implications of using a technology that has the potential to be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes.

On the other hand, blockchain technology has several epistemological challenges, particularly when it comes to verifying the accuracy of the information stored on the blockchain. While the blockchain is often presented as a secure and immutable ledger, there have been instances of errors and inaccuracies being recorded on the blockchain. This raises questions about how we can know what information on the blockchain is accurate and trustworthy.

Trust is the main critical philosophical challenge in the blockchain field. The decentralized nature of blockchain requires trust in the underlying technology and the consensus algorithm used. In addition, blockchain-based systems require trust between participants, as any malicious actor in the network can undermine the security and integrity of the system. Therefore, it is important to establish a trust framework that can ensure the security and privacy of blockchain-based systems.

Another critique of blockchain technology is its environmental impact. The process of mining and validating transactions on the blockchain requires a significant amount of computational power, which in turn requires a lot of energy. This has led some to question the ethical implications of using a technology that has such a large carbon footprint.

Finally, the tendency to view blockchain technology as a panacea for a wide range of social and economic problems may be criticized. This raises questions about the extent to which technological solutions can truly address deep-seated social and economic issues, and whether the focus on technological solutions risks overlooking other important factors that contribute to these problems.

Despite these challenges, the potential of blockchain technology to shape the future of society is enormous. Blockchain has the potential to create new economic and social systems that are more equitable, efficient, and sustainable. It can facilitate the creation of decentralized applications that can provide access to financial services, healthcare, education, and other vital services to people around the world.

Conclusion

Exploring blockchain technology through the lens of philosophy provides a rich and multifaceted perspective on the implications of this innovative and rapidly evolving sphere. From ethical and epistemological implications to social and political ones, philosophy offers a valuable framework for critically examining the potential opportunities and challenges posed by blockchain.

One of the key insights from this exploration is the need for a nuanced and context-specific approach to understanding the implications of blockchain. While it has the potential to challenge traditional forms of economic organization and facilitate new forms of cooperation and ownership, it is not a panacea and must be carefully evaluated in terms of its broader social and political implications.

Blockchain has the potential to significantly shape the future of both society and philosophy. From a societal perspective, blockchain’s decentralized and transparent nature could potentially revolutionize the way we interact with each other and institutions, as well as how we exchange value. It has the potential to create a more democratic and trustless society, where power is distributed and accountability is more easily ensured.

From a philosophical perspective, blockchain’s potential impact is even more far-reaching. As we have explored in this paper, blockchain technology intersects with a variety of philosophical theories and movements, from ancient philosophy to critical theory and cyberpunk.

Philosophical discussions of blockchain underscore the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to understanding the implications of emerging technologies. By drawing on insights from philosophy, economics, political science, and other fields, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the ways in which modern technology is transforming our social and economic landscape.

References

• Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1997). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press.
• Aggarwal, N., & Floridi, L. (2019). The Opportunities and Challenges of Blockchain in the Fight against Government Corruption. Digital Ethics Lab, Oxford Internet Institute.
• Albano, Alessandra (2019–09–29). “Autonomous Distributed Networks: The Unfulfilled Libertarian Dream of Breaking Free from Regulations”. Rochester, NY. SSRN 3461166
• Alizart, M. Cryptocommunism, Cambridge: Polity, 2020.
• Antonopoulos, A. M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
• Aristotle. (1984). Politics (C. Lord, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
• Aristotle. (2004). Rhetoric (W. Rhys Roberts, Trans.). Dover Publications.
• Bacon, F. Novum Organum. Oxford University Press.
• Barlow, John Perry (1996), A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.
• Baudrillard, J. (1976). Symbolic Exchange and Death. Sage Publications.
• Benjamin, R. (2018). Crypto-fetishism. boundary 2, 45(2), 13–38.
• Bostrom, Nick (2005). “A history of transhumanist thought” (PDF). Journal of Evolution and Technology. 14 (1): 1–25.
• Borgmann, A. Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. The University of Chicago Press (March 15, 1987).
• Borsook, P. (2000). Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech. Public Affairs. ISBN 1891620789.
• Borsook, P. (2001). Cyberselfish: Ravers, Guilders, Cyberpunks, And Other Silicon Valley Life-Forms. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 3(1): 1–10.
• Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213–238.
• Bratton, B. (2016). The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. MIT Press.
• Brassier R. (2007), Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction. Palgrave Macmillan; 2007th edition.
• Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011). The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism (PDF). Melbourne, Australia.
• Bryant L. The Ontic Principle: Outline of an Object-Oriented Ontology.
• Bryant L. The Democracy of Objects. An imprint of Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library.
• Buterin, V. (2013). Ethereum Whitepaper. A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform.
• Buterin, V. (2015) “On Public and Private Blockchains.” 2015. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
• Calhoun, Craig. 1995. Critical Social Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference. Blackwell. ISBN 1–55786–288–5. — A survey of and introduction to the current state of critical social theory.
• Charmaz, K. 1995. “Between positivism and postmodernism: Implications for methods.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 17:43–72.
• Coeckelbergh, M., & Reijers, W. (2015). Cryptocurrencies as Narrative Technologies. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(3), doi:10.1145/2874239.2874264.
• Cox, Christopher M. (13 January 2020). “Rising With the Robots: Towards a Human-Machine Autonomy for Digital Socialism”. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique.
• Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V. (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Applied innovation, 2, 6–10.
• Davis, J. B. (2015). The blockchain as a narrative technology: Investigating the social ontology and normative configurations of cryptocurrencies. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1), 107–132.
• DeLanda M. (2002). Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. Continuum Books.
• Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
• Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1972). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
• Deleuze G. (1992) Postscript on the Societies of Control.
• Derrida, Jacques. (1976). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Galloway, A. R. (2018). Blockchain as philosophy. In J. Geiger & M. Schneider (Eds.), Blockchain and philosophy: New prospects for an old tradition (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
• Gildea, F. (2020), Accelerating down a Road to Nowhere: On Inventing the Future by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams. The Political Quarterly, 91: 359–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12850
• Ferrando, Francesca (2013). “Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms: Differences and Relations” (PDF). Existenz.
• Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? John Hunt Publishing.
• Filby, Michael (1 January 2008). “Together in electric dreams: cyber socialism, utopia and the creative commons”. International Journal of Private Law.
• Flichy, Patrice (2007). The Internet Imaginaire. The MIT Press. ISBN 9780262062619.
• Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press.
• Florid , L. (2013) The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.
• Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books (April 25, 1995).
• Fuchs, Christian (13 January 2020). “The Utopian Internet, Computing, Communication, and Concrete Utopias: Reading William Morris, Peter Kropotkin, Ursula K. Le Guin, and P.M. in the Light of Digital Socialism”. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique.
• Geuss, Raymond (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory. Cambridge University Press.
• Golumbia, D. (2009). The cultural logic of computation. Harvard University Press.
• Golumbia, D. (2016). The politics of Bitcoin: software as right-wing extremism. University of Minnesota Press.
• Grant, Iain Hamilton. (2006). Philosophies of Nature After Schelling. Continuum.
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. “The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment: Horkheimer and Adorno”. In The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, translated by F. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Harman, G. (2018). Object-oriented philosophy: A new theory of everything. Pelican Books.
• Harman, G. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Open Court.
• Haraway Donna J. The Cyborg Handbook, Routledge; First Edition (October 2, 1995).
• Haraway Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge; 1st edition (December 12, 1990).
• Harman G., Speculative Realism: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
• Harman G., (2009), Prince of Networks, p. 213.
• Harman G., “On Vicarious Causality,” in Collapse II (1997), p. 201.
• Harman G., “Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects”. Open Court Publishing Company. 2002.
• Harrison, Peter; Wolyniak, Joseph (2015). “The History of ‘Transhumanism’”. Notes and Queries. 62 (3): 465–467. doi:10.1093/notesj/gjv080.
• Heidegger Martin (1954) The Question Concerning Technology.
• Herman, Edward S and Noam. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York, Pantheon Books, 2002.
• Herbrechter, S.; Callus, I.; Rossini, M.; Grech, M.; de Bruin-Molé, M.; Müller, C.J. (2022). Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism. Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism. Springer International Publishing.
• Hook, Christopher (2004). “Transhumanism and Posthumanism” (PDF). In Post, Stephen G. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. pp. 2517–2520.
• Husain, S.O., Franklin, A. & Roep, D. The political imaginaries of blockchain projects: discerning the expressions of an emerging ecosystem. Sustain Sci 15, 379–394 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00786-x
• Huxley, Julian (1957). “Transhumanism”. New Bottles for New Wine. London: Chatto & Windus. pp. 13–17.
• Ihde, Don (1990) Technology and the Lifeworld. From Garden to Earth. Indiana University Press.
• Ihde, Don (2009) “Postphenomenology and Technoscience”. The Peking University Lectures.
• James, W. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Jara Vera, Vicente (2022), New Directions in Crypto-Politics.
• Johnson, Isaijah (May 2020). “”Solarpunk” & the Pedagogical Value of Utopia”. Journal of Sustainability Education.
• Jonas, Hans. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Suhrkamp Verlag; 9th edition, 2003.
• Jordan, Tim. Taylor, Paul. (2013). Hacktivism and Cyberwars: Rebels with a Cause? Routledge. ISBN 1134510756.
• Jurgenson, N. (2009). Globalization and Utopia. Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited.
• Kaku, M. (2011). Physics of the future: How science will shape human destiny and our daily lives by the year 2100. Doubleday.
• Khutkyy, Dmytro (July 2019). “Pirate Parties : The Social Movements of Electronic Democracy”. Journal of Comparative Politics. ISSN 1337–7477.
• Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Penguin.
• Land N. (2018) “Crypto-Current : An Introduction to Bitcoin and Philosophy.” Šum Št. 10.2 (nov. 2018) Str. 1355–1372.
• Land, Nick (2014). “#Accelerate”. Urban Future.
• Land, Nick (2017). “A Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism”. Jacobite Magazine.
• Locke J. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press. 1988.
• Lyotard, J.-F. (1974). The Libidinal Economy. Indiana University Press.
• McCaffery, Larry (1991). Storming the Reality Studio: A Casebook of Cyberpunk & Postmodern Science Fiction. Duke University Press.
• Manzocco, R. (2019). Transhumanism — Engineering the Human Condition: History, Philosophy and Current Status. Springer Praxis Books. Springer International Publishing.
• Marx, Karl. “Capital: Volume 1.” Penguin Classics, 1990.
• Marx, Karl, On the Question of Free Trade. Archived 26 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels, 9 January 1848.
• Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “The Communist Manifesto.” Penguin Classics, 2002.
• May, Timothy C. (1994), The Cyphernomicon.
• Michaud Thomas, “Science fiction and politics: Cyberpunk science fiction as political philosophy”, pp. 65–77 in Hassler
• Meillassoux, Q. (2008). After Finitude. New York, New York: Continuum. p. 5. ISBN 978–1–4411–7383–6.
• Meillassoux, Q. (2011). The Number and the Siren: A Reading of Mallarmé’s Throw the Dice. Urbanomic.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1908–1961. Phenomenology of Perception. London: New York: Routledge & K. Paul; Humanities Press, 1974.
• Mercer, Calvin; Throten, Tracy J., eds. (2015). Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement. Praeger. ISBN 978–1–4408–3325–0.
• Morton, Timothy, 1968 (9 March 2018). Being ecological. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
• Murphy, Graham; Schmeink, Lars (2017). Cyberpunk and Visual Culture. London: Routledge.
• Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
• Nissenbaum, Helen. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press.
• Noys, B. (2010). The Persistence of the Negative. Edinburgh University Press.
• Plato. (1992). The Republic (D. Lee, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
• Plant, S. (1998). Zeroes and ones: Digital women and the new technoculture. Doubleday.
• Punt, M. (2009). An Art for the Post-Media Condition?
• Reina-Rozo, Juan David (2021–03–05). “Art, Energy and Technology: the Solarpunk Movement”. International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace.
• Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative, Volume 3, Ricoeur, Blamey, Pellauer. 1988.
• Rousseau, J. J. (2003). The Social Contract. Penguin Classics.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” Yale University Press, 2007.
• Schatzki, T.R. (2001) Introduction: Practice theory, in The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory eds. Theodore Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina & Eike Von Savigny.
• Searle, J. Social Ontology: Some Basic Principles. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford University Press.
• Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations., London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
• Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
• Stiegler, B. (1994). Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford University Press.
• Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: blueprint for a new economy. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
• Szabo, Nick. 1997. “Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks.” First Monday 2 (9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548.
• Tang, Yong & Xiong, Jason & Becerril Arreola, Rafael & Iyer, Lakshmi. (2019). Ethics of blockchain: A framework of technology, applications, impacts, and research directions. Information Technology & People. ahead-of-print. 10.1108/ITP-10–2018–0491.
• Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: how the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin.
• Tasca, Paolo, and Claudio J. Tessone. 2017. “Taxonomy of Blockchain Technologies. Principles of Identification and Classification.” ArXiv:1708.04872 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.04872.
• Tariq, O. The End of Digital Libertarianism? The Wayback Machine. London School of Economics.
• de Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America. University of Chicago Press; 1st edition (April 1, 2002).
• Turner, Fred (2008–05–15). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago, Ill.: University Of Chicago Press.
• Vinge, Vernor; Frankel, James (2001), True Names: And the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier, Tor Books.
• Williams, Rhys (September 2019). “‘This Shining Confluence of Magic and Technology’: Solarpunk, Energy Imaginaries, and the Infrastructures of Solarity”. Open Library of Humanities.
• Wittgenstein L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Dover Publications; 471st ed. edition (January 12, 1998).
• Young, Sherman. 1998. “’Of Cyber Spaces: The Internet & Heterotopias.” 1998. http://journal.media-culture.org.au/9811/hetero.php.Zizek S. (2022) It’s naive to think Bitcoin & NFT give us freedom. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/545405-bitcoin-nft-digital-control/