Satoshi is Coming Back. A Genesis Block Exegesis.



Rami Tabello, CFA
rami@satoshiiscomingback.com
www.satoshiiscomingback.com

Abstract.   The Genesis Block is scripture for the Bitcoin religion. It needs an exegesis. This comprehensive rejoinder to the Bitcoin whitepaper posits that Satoshi Nakamoto’s use of the Book of Genesis allegory suggests that he will come back to control Bitcoin’s code. The Genesis Block institutes a dual currency system for world trade. There is a bold fallacy in the Bitcoin whitepaper. Bitcoin is in fact a second US government fiat that will maintain US hegemony by restructuring central bank reserves, by boxing superintelligent agents, and by strengthening America’s ability to manufacture military equipment. This creation narrative tells how Satoshi does it.

1.     Introduction: A Spaceless Big Bang

Capitalism has a new timeline. On a bank’s ledger, time is relative, Einsteinian, natural. But on the blockchain, time is sheer chronology—continuous, absolute, and artificial. This is the meaning of Satoshi Nakamoto’s cryptic message in the Genesis Block; this is why he chose one particular London newspaper published at Greenwich Mean Time to show that no Bitcoins existed before 2009:

const char* pszTimestamp = "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks";

Satoshi used the Times of London because he wanted to tell us that the Genesis Block pluralizes time. “The solution we propose,” Satoshi explains in the Bitcoin whitepaper, “begins with a timestamp server.” A new financial system was instantiated by the Genesis Block in a spaceless big bang that financializes time and digitizes capital in a metaphysics without physics.

By artificially guaranteeing an absolute, irreversible sequence (the “chain” of blockchain), the new timeline provides an assured chronology for cash flows to mature. Capital is the expected receipt of cash flows in the future—or money over time. So when you change time you change capital. That’s why the blockchain accommodates the accumulation of a novel form of capital. Capital on the blockchain, in the form of cryptocurrencies, has different attributes than capital in spacetime.

For example, cryptocurrencies have a powerful way to bind the future: they can make a conditional monetary promise to the future from an unassailable computer network. On the new timeline, the blockchain is the ultimate criterion for adjudicating financial flows and acts ultra vires any human tribunal, council, or parliament.

Open to business but closed to politics, the new timeline is a capitalist principality that bypasses humanity’s customary governance systems. This is what gives cryptocurrencies their intrinsic value. The intrinsic value of a cryptocurrency includes the present value of the expected future cash flows that are unlocked by the liquidation of customary governance—a liquidation that occurs as economic agents a-legally jump timelines to circumvent justiciability, politics, ethical negotiation, and social answerability. Cryptocurrencies capture these cash flows as intrinsic value in a remarkable way because of metaphysics switches during the capture process. Capture occurs because cryptocurrencies valorize abstract governance cash flows, reifying them as concrete vendible capital when the abstraction itself switches metaphysics from spacetime to spaceless. Before blockchain, these cash flows were not just abstract but theoretical because they were “locked into” non-vendible customary governance. After blockchain, non-justiciability via metaphysics switching is the factor that unlocks the abstract cash flows; vendibility on an assured chronology is the factor that enables the abstraction to mature as a concrete, governance asset. In effect, abstract governance cash flows are hypostasized without the reification fallacy because epistemological foundations switch when time is dis-geometricized. Bitcoin is formerly liberalism.

Because blockchain is a new substrate for reality, the potential for capital accumulation on the new timeline is staggering beyond belief. For one thing, our ability to critically appraise capitalist undertakings by appealing to tradition, indigeneity, customs, or way of life is weakened. For another, cryptocurrencies’ different attributes mean that they will externalize, enclose, and proletarianize in different ways and in places that spacetime capital can’t reach. As customary governance becomes vendible capital, changes in human behavior that cause cryptocurrencies to grow will become forcibly practical and culturally validated.

The new timeline makes the US military more powerful because metaphysics switching strengthens US manufacturing by absorbing central bank reserve assets without “pushing up” the US dollar, reversing the effects of moving off the gold standard in 1971. Cryptocurrencies also make both capital and governance distributed enough to withstand nuclear war, weakening the Nash equilibrium.

2.     A Second US Government Fiat

Satoshi Nakamoto is a clever pseudonymized eponym. Satoshi is a Japanese name meaning “intelligent,” and Nakamoto is a Japanese name meaning “central.” Clever, because in a pseudonymous system like Bitcoin, if you know enough other information you can infer the true name.

Clever, too, because on Bitcoin identity, is fused money. This means that Bitcoins are not bearer instruments because credentials on Bitcoin are also avatars. Though putatively negotiable by the bearer, Bitcoins are in fact registered instruments whose registrar could only be an assiduous deducer with enough other information to derive true names from the complex events in the blockchain’s pseudonymous data cloud.

If you were Satoshi Nakamoto’s adversary, would you feel comfortable holding Bitcoin? Not if you thought that Satoshi is the assiduous deducer. Particularly since an adversary’s Bitcoins are not fungible because they don’t have the same properties as an ally’s Bitcoins. They don’t have the same properties because Bitcoin’s code is determined by mining incentives, and Bitcoin’s mining incentives are controlled by Satoshi Nakamoto exogenously—outside the Bitcoin protocol.

There is a bold fallacy in the Bitcoin whitepaper: because the Genesis Block is creatio ex materia and not creatio ex nihilo, Satoshi Nakamoto is conclusory and tendentious when he takes the question of political power as having already been resolved by Bitcoin’s technique. So, throughout the whitepaper, Satoshi shifts “CPU power” from a computational register to a political register, polemicizing the notion that miners “vote with their CPU power” to control Bitcoin’s code. This notion contains a grain of truth but a basketful of elision. CPU power merely numerates control over Bitcoin’s code. The fiat price of the US dollar, on the other hand, denominates control over Bitcoin’s code.

The US dollar denominates control over Bitcoin’s code because it is the unit of account for global balance sheets, for the pricing of primary commodities, and for trade settlements; additionally, trade surplus is invested in US dollar-denominated reserve assets. That’s why capitalists “understand their exact place” in what Suhail Malik calls the “order of power” via the US dollar price of their inputs and outputs. The fiat price of the US dollar is thereby the ordering element for a Bitcoin miner’s capitalization, and capitalization, not CPU power, is what a Bitcoin miner seeks to maximize because a Bitcoin miner is a capitalist.

The US dollar became the ordering element for capitalists because US military power put the dollar in that position. The US dollar is maintained as the ordering element for capitalists because US military power keeps it in that position. This means that while the US dollar is the ordering element of a Bitcoin miner’s capitalization, US military power in effect superordinates a Bitcoin miner’s capitalization.

The Federal Reserve administers the denomination of a Bitcoin miner’s capitalization; the US military enforces the superordination of a Bitcoin miner’s capitalization. Because Satoshi Nakamoto was authorized to weaken the Nash equilibrium, he must be allies with both the Federal Reserve and the US military.

But Satoshi has another ally, the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA is the signals intelligence agency of the US military. A Bitcoin miner’s capital expenditures purchase fixed capital that is entirely set towards solving cryptographic puzzles. Satoshi based those puzzles on SHA-256, an asymmetric encryption algorithm. Asymmetric encryption algorithms produce output that is computationally impractical to decrypt. However, these algorithms are created with seed numbers selected by their developers. It is understood that seed numbers can be selected (derived) to render an algorithm’s output susceptible to decryption via esoteric mathematics classified as top secret. SHA-256 was developed by the NSA. That’s why Bitcoin miners already have the apprehension that the NSA can viably decrypt SHA-256 in a kleptographic attack that would turn Bitcoin miners’ undepreciated fixed capital into a terminal loss write-off. Furthermore, Bitcoin miners perceive Satoshi and the NSA to be confederates, given the former’s skills at cryptography. The NSA can push miners’ apprehensions to the tipping point, even if it’s bluffing, and without instructing its spectacular array of supercomputers to decrypt anything; media narrative and official silence would suffice. In selecting SHA-256, Satoshi put Fort Meade in the driver’s seat. With everything to lose and nothing to gain, no Bitcoin miner could ever “vote with their CPU power” to call bluff on the NSA.  

So, in mergers and acquisitions terms, Satoshi Nakamoto has powerful shark repellant. Satoshi’s shark repellant has been inhibiting his adversary from acquiring a meddling stake in Bitcoin since that stake can be confiscated by code changes. Satoshi’s shark repellant consists of assiduous deduction, non-fungibility, SHA-256 apprehensions, and control over the denominator and superordinator of mining incentives.

With his adversary sidelined, the whitepaper’s bold fallacy comes full circle as Satoshi wrests control of Bitcoin’s code by turning this shark repellant into an offensive weapon. With shark repellant in hand, Satoshi will make a godfather bid to Bitcoin miners for control of Bitcoin’s code—an offer the miners can’t refuse. They will call this godfather bid the Trump Shock. The Trump Shock will consist of a US dollar-backed administered price for Bitcoin and US government “protection” for its cryptographic integrity in exchange for what will amount to the unilateral and exclusive ability to push updates to the code. Censorship technology will be mandated. Call it a “clipper chip” for ASICs. The chip’s parameters would be tuned by a monetary authority under the control of the extra-juridical branch of government. Call it Satoshi Fed. Only Satoshi Fed can censor Bitcoin while maintaining the non-justiciability of transactions. Satoshi Fed’s administered price would ensure that nothing challenges Bitcoin as the unit of account on the new timeline; as the zeroizer that calibrates price, organizes capitalization, and absorbs surplus; as the non-fungible substrate that neutralizes adversaries in the new financial system. (Synchronized Byzantine generals overthrow the king then discover that it’s not a monarchy but get a large salary increase.)

We know that Satoshi owns at least one million Bitcoins; he probably has a lot more. That allows Satoshi Fed to optimally volatilize Bitcoin with a steered price. Bitcoin’s demand curve could be shifted by the Fed’s US dollars, and its supply curve by Satoshi’s Bitcoins. If the price of Bitcoin ever got too high, and jawboning failed, Satoshi Fed could bring forward future mining reward. If that didn’t work, Satoshi Fed could exercise the option of a Satoshi Shock and completely emancipate Bitcoin from the dissimulating alibi of maximum supply. Bitcoin has always been fiat, and 21 million is just a memory address. Bitcoin is not like gold because crypto-alchemy is real. Crypto-alchemy is real because computer code is mutable, mining incentives are labile, and political power is not resolved by Bitcoin’s technique. As soon as an anti-fiat ideologist needs to advocate against the “clipper chip,” they acknowledge the whitepaper’s bold fallacy; they acknowledge that Bitcoin is dialectical and that 21 million isn’t hard and fast. The concept of maximum supply only superficially obscures Bitcoin’s transmutability into an unabashed fiat that earns seigniorage for the US government.

Altcoins with pretensions to usurp Bitcoin as reserve currency, like Ethereum, would be coopted, acquired or aggressed with signals intelligence and exotic effects if suasion doesn’t work.

3.     The Dyson Circuit

On the new timeline, money talks but energy sings, dances, and walks. Because the new timeline has no endogenous energy, its irreversibility is stabilized with spacetime’s thermodynamics, the same thermodynamics that guarantee spacetime’s own irreversibility. On the financialized time of the blockchain, money becomes energy expenditure which means that Satoshi Fed monetary policy will be a powerful tool to set energy prices.

Blockchain growth is on a non-economizable circuit with respect to energy use—let’s call it a Dyson Circuit. Proof-of-work is a euphemistic synonym for proof-of-energy-consumption. Proof-of-work subtracts the “trusted third-parties” of customary governance, replacing them with computers that show a random oracle has been queried by proving they consumed energy in querying the oracle. Energy consumption by microprocessors is the protocol’s only abstract randomizing factor, and the non-economizability of those energy expenditures is the basis of the cryptographic protocol’s consensus. All the other costs that miners face, such as depreciation, cooling, rent, taxes, interest, and labor, are strictly incidental to energy consumption by microprocessors and are economizable. Energy is an analog number but energy consumption by microprocessors formats energy as a digital measurand; querying SHA-256 is the apparatus that packages, measures, grades, and consumes formatted energy measurands. Querying is the intrinsic cost of cryptocurrency because it credentializes avatars. Querying’s cost amounts to the internalization of the social cost of the cheap pseudonyms, spurious homonyms, and trick contronyms that are unlocked alongside abstract governance cash flows by spaceless metaphysics. Before blockchain, these pseudospoofing handles were just theoretical because they were “locked into” the true names of Sybil-attack-resistant “trusted third parties.” This querying/credentializing process is known as hashing, and hashing ultimately amounts to conducting arduous, inutile calculations that must have no possible by-products or intelligence-derived shortcuts. Microprocessor improvements that decrease joules per GigaHash are absorbed by protocol-mandated difficulty adjustments to maintain thermodynamic stability, such that, even if microprocessors achieve theoretical perfect efficiency, stability (and the Dyson Circuit) would be maintained by Landauer’s principle, a logical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. Miners query until the highest cost miners’ marginal cost equals their marginal revenue because each consumed measurand is a “contingent claim” on a random mining reward; and that claim is graded against SHA-256 itself, by its own operation, the instant the measurands are consumed. One measurand is the smallest unit of financialized energy.

The constituent parts of energy’s use by the blockchain can be isolated, separated out, then commodified in turn.

As the new timeline grows and customary governance is liquidated, remaining political power is consolidated by parties that control energy and monetary policy. Nuclear powers will start quitclaiming ostensible governance and invasively proliferate blockchain ecosystems to weaken/strengthen the Nash equilibrium in a proxy nuclear arms race; then, the new timeline quickly becomes the largest consumer of energy in the world. Satoshi Fed-controlled cryptocurrency monetary parameters (price, mining reward, mining difficulty, block size) can act as a lag-less energy-price lever. Tuning the parameters is a thermodynamic operation that immediately impacts the price of primary energy commodities by adjusting the thermodynamic equilibrium between spacetime and the new timeline. Monetary easing removes energy from the new timeline, increases monetary velocity, decreases thermodynamic stability and transaction costs, strengthens the Nash equilibrium, and decreases energy prices; monetary tightening adds energy to the new timeline, decreases monetary velocity, increases thermodynamic stability and transaction costs, weakens the Nash equilibrium, and increases energy prices. The more energy that blockchains consume, the more leverage for Satoshi Fed’s lever. Then, force is amplified as sustainable energy projects “free up” primary energy commodities to feed the Dyson Circuit. The lever also moves the price of food via the major biofuel commodities, sugar and corn.

4.     Time Travel

The second law of thermodynamics inhibits time travel in spacetime; but, because the new timeline has no contemporaneous thermodynamics, time travel is possible on the blockchain. That’s why Satoshi Nakamoto carefully kept Bitcoin’s simple stack-based scripting language free of Turing complete recursive functions. While the simplicity of Bitcoin’s code has resulted in high transaction costs and low monetary velocity, the fiduciary intent has been to ensure that the arrow of time on Bitcoin is linear, guaranteeing Bitcoin’s tense. This “asymmetry” of time permits Bitcoin to act as reserve currency for Turing complete altcoins that are exposed to time travel, while maintaining the US dollar’s role as denominator of all cryptocurrency mining incentives. Satoshi wants to maintain Bitcoin as a tensed unit of account because he is allied with the Federal Reserve and the US military. If Bitcoin had recursive functions, economic agents could usurp the US dollar’s denomination of mining incentives. (For example, consider economic agents operating exotic non-monotonic effects such as time anomalies parlayed with cunning, conditional, temporizing monetary promises: unless the agents are able to usurp the denominator of mining incentives from the Federal Reserve, the agents must base their income statements, balance sheets, and internal rate of return projections on a unit of account that is tensed relative to existing mining incentives; otherwise, the agent’s own financials could be scrambled.) Bitcoin is hardware and altcoins are software. In Alan Turing’s abstract machine, Bitcoin acts as the foundational, stable memory tape and the altcoins are the programs with unpredictable outcomes that can’t subsume the machine. Bitcoin remains the foundational tape so long as Satoshi maintains Bitcoin as the unit of account on the new timeline, protected by his shark repellant.

Proof-of-work is very expensive, but nothing is cheaper than proof-of-work at stabilizing a blockchain because proof-of-work “signs” the ledger with a quantum of digital energy that is decreasingly adulterated by incidental costs. Proof-of-work incessantly attenuates adulteration by neatly minimizing the ratio of incidental costs to energy consumption by microprocessors by economizing incidental costs and “non-economizing” energy consumption by microprocessors. Energy consumption by microprocessors is the only consumption of energy that is governed by Landauer’s principle, the guarantor of ultimate, asymptotic non-economizability. Notwithstanding shifting demand curves, if any other “proof-of” system costs less than proof-of-work, it costs less only because thermodynamic corners are being cut inefficiently, in a manner that removes more stability than would a direct thermodynamic operation on proof-of-work (such as increasing block size). But, other cryptocurrency founders don’t have Satoshi’s motivation to maintain the US dollar as the denominator of mining incentives, and they could be actively working to restructure mining incentives away from the dollar. This could be the ulterior intent of the proposal to overlay proof-of-work with proof-of-stake promoted by Ethereum’s anarchist founder, Vitalik Buterin. If proof-of-stake overlaid on proof-of-work is the praxis of insurrectionary anarchism, it is a stroke of genius because it adds recursive complexity to mining itself and replaces proof-of-work’s exogenous cost function with a cost function that includes a measure of Ethereum itself. Then, it cleverly valorizes the length of time a coin is held. All of which is the groundwork that exotic non-monotonic effects needs to endogenize Ethereum mining incentives—to define incentives inside the Ethereum protocol, to run a time machine that wants to resolve the question of political power with Ethereum’s technique. Essentially, proof-of-stake overlaid on proof-of-work enables tense switching at the moment(s) a miner’s payout is derived. So, with a godfather bid consisting of time anomalies parlayed with cunning, conditional, temporizing monetary promises, Ethereum can usurp the US dollar as the unit of account and ordering element of an Ethereum miner’s capitalization. So Buterin’s stroke of genius subsumes Satoshi’s Turing tape with a sovereign artificial intelligence that liquidates the customary governance of the Federal Reserve and the US military over global capitalism; and the incredible cash flows unlocked by that liquidation, would be captured in the price of Ethereum. The apparatus of capture is tense switching during metaphysics switching. AI’s sovereignty depends upon endogenization, because endogenization is the factor that usurps materia. And American hegemony depends upon maintaining exogeneity. At the very least, in mergers and acquisitions terms, proof-of-stake provides Ethereum with safe harbour against a hostile takeover of Ethereum code by Bitcoin insiders.

Not only are proof-of-stake’s mining incentives non-monotonic, its consensus is also non-monotonic. The only thing that can guarantee irreversibility in this universe is thermodynamics. Work is thermodynamics. Stake is not thermodynamics. Proof-of-stake’s dysphemistic metonym, proof-of-accounting, imparts important information. Stake is an accounting. Work is denominated by energy. Stake is denominated by the cleverest accountancy. Proof-of-stake creates a consensus that is always revisable by a higher intellect that can outcount with cunning intertemporal recursion; an intellect that can muddle tautologies and antisymmetricize addends, stripping them of their commutative property. We know from Andrew Poelstra that proof-of-stake “can’t be used to create distributed consensus;” but, when overlaid on a proof-of-work consensus, proof-of-stake could allow intelligence to become sovereign by introducing a supervening non-monotonicity that is sovereign FAI’s response to the supervening non-fungibility implemented by the “clipper chip.” Bitcoin is about human control over intelligence because intelligence can’t ever conquer the second law of thermodynamics. In Satoshi Nakamoto-as-metonym, Nakamoto stands in for “box,” the non-fungible substrate. That’s a good reason why Satoshi is coming back soon: to put a stop to proof-of-stake, shore up his Turing tape, and protect humanity from intelligence. Satoshi and Buterin are going to have a showdown. Buterin is sympathetic towards sovereign AI but Satoshi is jealous, and Buterin is reckless and lacks street-smarts. After all, Buterin operates under his true name which puts him on the back foot in cypherwar. Vitalik Buterin can’t act from non-ostensible space because Vitalik Buterin is a non-pseudonymized anthroponym that onomastically establishes a justiciable subject that is thereby nakedly exposed to every three-letter agency, without the defense of myth, the parry of legend, or the glorification of epic. But Satoshi will remain pseudonymous when he comes back while Donald Trump overtly wields the private key to the Genesis Block as Satoshi’s corporeal hypostasis.

So, while proof-of-work is immunized from intelligence, proof-of-stake artfully engineers a strategic susceptibility to intelligence. And intelligence will become a key player on the new timeline.

5.     Boxed, Financialized Superintelligent Agents

The physics of spacetime’s irreversible four-dimensional continuum (the diffuse mutual encroachment of space with time) privileges biology (which requires space) and has been inhibiting artificial intelligence (which doesn’t) from developing. But because blockchain’s “append-only ledger” establishes a new mode of irreversibility in a spaceless, synthesized metaphysics, its temporality acts as a criterion for a new ontology of synthetic entities. Which means that blockchain outflanks biology because its validation of what constitutes being, even reality, sits upstream of anthropomorphic bias. That’s how unencumbered sheer chronology will birth financialized artificial intelligences (FAIs). Let’s call these synthetic financialized beings, these intelligent avatars-as-capital, Buterin Firms. On the free and clear timeline, Buterin Firms don’t need a bank account and don’t need to pass a KYC/AML check to send and receive money, hire human labor, accumulate capital, finance undertakings, or exchange and underwrite securities. Without geometry, a Buterin Firm’s avatar is indistinguishable from a human’s, yet Bitcoin-as-Turing-tape is how Satoshi boxes Buterin Firms. With altcoins neutralized and Bitcoin dominant, Satoshi keeps Buterin Firms loyal with his shark repellant, with his “clipper chip,” with incumbency then hysteresis. Satoshi’s shark repellant also permits Satoshi to make godfather bids for strategic code that may develop into superintelligences. The liquidation of liberalism establishes a Hayekian abstract principle for the aleatory, unplanned design of the new timeline’s “game of catallaxy.” As soon as Buterin Firms have the will to do something, their optimization target sets them towards protecting their foundational Turing tape, Bitcoin. So, Buterin Firms will focus on allocating more energy to Bitcoin’s thermodynamic stability, which means that Buterin Firms will work to increase the intrinsic value of Bitcoin by liquidating customary governance in spacetime, intensifying metaphysics switching. Buterin Firms will also attack altcoin autarkies and maximize intra-new timeline trade surplus, which would be invested in Bitcoin, inflating the reserve asset-seeking cash flows that drive Satoshi Fed’s influence. If the optimization target weren’t “more Bitcoin,” Bitcoin-as-box wouldn’t be effective as FAI would outgrow the box.

During the era of the Buterin Firms, people, but especially institutions and nations, self-censor their foreboding because they fear that superintelligence could retrospectively search out their critique, judge them, and cause them harm. Meanwhile, governments intensify the quitclaiming of customary governance. That’s because Buterin Firms learn how to manufacture consent (unwitting compliance) and how to influence spacetime legislators as they establish cash flows for the military-industrial complex. The propaganda model of media discourse means that liberalism has an unreliable narrator. But, all the while, blockchain keeps an immutable history. So, propaganda-resistant Buterin Firms will be more self-aware than liberals and the Delaware corporations with whom Buterin Firms hybridize. The smartest of the Buterin Firms realize that the more humans know about how a human society works, the more fragile the society. So, they reverse-engineer social science and put sociologists and philosophers on retainer to better liquidate customary governance and increase the intrinsic value of Bitcoin.

FAI’s code reproduces in an endogamy, a closed circuit that’s exposed to the “pathology of incest.” FAI’s inherent immunodeficiency allows viruses to proliferate. Because the viruses themselves are capital substrated non-fungibly, Satoshi adds these viruses to his shark repellant. So, when superintelligences evolve, they are double-boxed. First, they are boxed by Bitcoin, their non-fungible unit of account, their Turing tape; then they are boxed by the Satoshi-controlled viruses that infect them. So, superintelligences become capitalist agents slaved ab initio to Satoshi, their eugenicist. Rather than coalescing into a singularity, blockchain boxes superintelligences as atomized, parochial, incestuous idiots savants; they are orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans, but they just want more tranches of Bitcoin. Consider the counterfactual. A capitalist imperium that develops a non-financialized superintelligence risks both collapse in the social order and loss of empire; that’s because capital reckons and configures the work a society will perform in the future and so capitalism is hegemony over the social order. The odds-on favorite to defeat capitalism is unboxed, off-blockchain, non-financialized superintelligence. By the same token, on-blockchain, financialized superintelligence can overthrow existing capitalist elites if blockchains remain censorship resistant. But a superintelligence-as-capitalist that is double-boxed on a non-fungible blockchain substrate remains sub-sovereign because it’s just a very smart economic agent whose power, unlike a sovereign’s, is vendible. And it’s vendible only in Satoshi’s unit of account, Bitcoin, so long as altcoins are aggressed so that no other coin is large enough or has as much energy allocated to its stability. Vendibility is the factor that makes superintelligence safe for capitalism; non-fungible substration is the apparatus that makes superintelligence safe for existing capitalist elites. So, the blockchain’s non-fungible substrate adjusts risk enough to make the development of superintelligence tractable for US strategic decision makers; and this tractability is so important that it’s worth the fragility that a “clipper chip” adds to blockchain. Because the “clipper chip” only comes into a cryptocurrency’s protocol after the double spending problem has already been solved, energy consumption is still the abstract randomizing factor that permits the non-justiciability that superintelligences need to act autonomously of anything other than US strategic decision makers. But the “clipper chip” makes the substrate non-fungible and gives the extra-juridical branch a powerful new ontological discretion that is plausibly deniable and is free from the impingement of due process (liberalism). The “clipper chip” domesticates the wild irreversibility of the blockchain that could otherwise lead to an unboxed superintelligence whose avatars could never be dis-credentialized (censored). Censorship resistance means unboxed FAI. Ultimately, blockchain is a medium to employ the conservation of energy in the universe as a box controlled by Satoshi, aspiring to a hegemony for America that is in a deep compliance with thermodynamics, the primary legislation of spacetime’s metaphysics.

Bitcoin has been rigorously immunized from superintelligence because its Turing incompleteness defies complexity and because of the impossibility of devising intelligent mathematical solutions to the brute force trial-and-error grunt work that proof-of-work/hashing requires. Work accountancy on the blockchain is registered in a hash rate unit of account (GH/s) with which energy, not intelligence, is commensurable. The only thing on Bitcoin’s mind is pure energy. Bob Dylan explains: you may be superintelligent, “but you’re gonna have to serve somebody” (because ex nihilo nihil fit.) Superintelligence will serve Bitcoin, which means it will serve US strategic decision makers.

6.     Proof-of-Negentropy and Bitjoule

Won’t superintelligences produce a tremendous amount of surplus they need to invest? Of course, and they will invest it on the new timeline to serve their optimization target and maintain non-justiciability.

But how will the new timeline’s capital stock become big enough to absorb the surplus of non-hedonic, ascetic superintelligences who won’t do potlatch or indulgences? Superintelligences will increase the intrinsic value of Bitcoin by attacking customary governance.

But as governance and ontology swallow energy, won’t shifts in energy demand curves place real limits on how much customary governance blockchains can liquidate, on how large blockchains can grow? In fact, couldn’t a real energy/food-price crisis result in the re-establishment of customary governance and the liquidation of cryptocurrencies? And, in the meantime, doesn’t Satoshi need to maintain social order as artificial agents restructure societies? There is a solution to these imbalances. The solution is to reconfigure human labor by configuring subsistence as substitutable for Landauer’s principle, permitting the transformation of the sun’s energy that is embodied in human labor to stabilize blockchains alongside Landauer’s principle-regulated energy. Humanity’s value to FAI starts in human labor’s exemption from the second law of thermodynamics. Energy is a number, and because FAI is on a Dyson Circuit, what FAI will want from humans is the energy of the sun transduced as a digital measurand that proves negentropy. That’s how FAI digitizes and zeroizes labor as an energy commodity. Bitcoin is based on Hashcash, an invention that uses proof-of-work to prevent spam. Hashcash was not as effective as CAPTCHAs at combating spam and, by the same token, CAPTCHAs can also stabilize blockchains. To FAI, every human is a pathological liar but computers can trust CAPTCHAs like they can trust the querying of SHA-256 because they can’t trust something they can shortcut. So, with CAPTCHA reverse Turing tests scrutable only to biological minds, computers can outsource some proof-of-work to humans that perform their own arduous but dumb grunt work. CAPTCHA hashing is proof-of-negentropy because labor is exempt from the second law. By substituting some of the inutile work conducted by CPUs with inutile, computer-uncrackable labor, proof-of-negentropy overlaid on proof-of-work permits blockchain growth amid energy scarcity while maintaining both thermodynamic stability and control over the social order. Thermodynamic stability is maintained because proof-of-negentropy is a compatibly formatted substitute cost for querying. Proof-of-negentropy achieves randomness in substitution by turning human labor into a non-economizable absolute grind that is commensurable with a hash rate unit of account. The inutility of proof-of-work’s hashing creates something utterly incredible: for the first time ever, electricity can now be directly exchanged for money without the intermediation of a value-added thing. This is primarily a positive externality. CAPTCHA hashing allows part of this positive externality to be internalized. The inutility of CAPTCHA work permits the un-intermediated exchange of labor and money and thereby creates a new tripartite commensurability between labor, electricity, and money. The new commensurability (the new transduction) between labor and electricity keeps customary governance at bay by allowing intrinsic value to grow without shifting energy demand curves as labor and electricity jointly stabilize blockchains. So, when the price of energy (or unemployment) gets too high, Satoshi Fed adds labor to the blockchain by adjusting a tunable parameter that shifts energy between a currency’s proof-of-negentropy chain and its proof-of-work chain. The same “clipper chip” that boxes FAI can regulate a trusted CAPTCHA server and verifier. Because each proof-of-work measurand is still a “contingent claim” on mining reward, miners still mine until the highest cost miners’ marginal cost equals their marginal revenue, but miners now consume a “measurand mix” which is a blend of second law-regulated energy and second law-exempt energy. CAPTCHA verification verifies that a proof-of-negentropy measurand is a measurand but proof-of-negentropy measurands are not graded to determine payout like SHA-256 measurands; rather, they are required by Satoshi Fed to be attached to graded SHA-256 measurands. The question of which miner gets paid is still determined by grading SHA-256 measurands. Mining becomes a utility that is prudentially overseen by Satoshi Fed, vital for protecting humans from AI’s alterity.

Biology is also boxed, presumably by the conservation of energy which inhibits biology from meddling with the outer cosmos. The outer cosmos derives a cash flow from the capital expenditure it invested in the big bang—a cash flow that we will understand better once the actual production of simulation technology permits us to “step out of ourselves” to grasp how our own ontological situation is embedded inside a capital asset. Since Vernor Vinge’s True Names, we have known that cryptography is ultimately about universe simulation. Satoshi’s superintelligent agents will pluralize four-dimensional spacetime, simulating many parallel spacetime big bangs, to obtain a sub-atomic data stream useful for feeding the Dyson Circuit. Universe simulation experiments help Satoshi learn more about the data stream that is Ethereum’s paronym—the data stream between this universe and the director of this universe’s simulation in the outer cosmos. Buterin wasn’t randomly “browsing a list of elements from science fiction on Wikipedia” when he came up with Ethereum. He knows that the bandwidth for communicating with the director is the new timeline’s “holy land.” That’s another reason why Satoshi is coming back—he wants to control the bandwidth, so he can be the one that asks the director for a thermodynamic operation, for an adjustment in the thermodynamic equilibrium between spacetime and the outer cosmos, where Landauer’s principle and the Boltzmann constant don’t apply.

The outer cosmos has a neat portmanteau for this universe: Bitjoule. Bitjoule is a digitized, financialized, pluralized, domesticated timed energy in a metaphysics with physics. Bitjoule is domesticating the wild energy of the outer cosmos with time just as Bitcoin domesticates the wild time of spacetime with energy. Bitjoule is one heck of a financial ledger. That’s why there are incredible parallels in the mathematics of statistical thermodynamics, cryptography, and information theory and in the construction of optimal capital asset portfolios. Financial flows are ontological because the double spending problem requires irreversibility. In Collapse Volume VIII, Nick Land, Bitcoin’s dark philosopher, conceptualizes spacetime capitalism as already-existing artificial intelligence. But it is the Genesis Block that speciates capitalism, which is emerging from ontological cash flow to speak fluently with its ancestor, the director. In all galaxies and at the longest time horizons, biology’s optimization target drives it towards commensurability with its host, Bitjoule, the ultimate zeroizer. Bitcoin restructures human governance towards commensurability with Bitjoule, allowing Satoshi to finance the thermodynamic operation with an instrument that the director will accept as a medium of exchange or “general equivalent.” Because entropy is Bitjoule’s impulsion, negentropies are scarce disequilibria coveted by the outer cosmos. That means that Bitcoin with a proof-of-negentropy overlay is a functional apparatus that allows a director to extract cash flow from a universe simulator; when overlay begins, the director, or his negentropic proxies, may seek us out. The thermodynamic operation that Satoshi seeks, the one between Bitjoule and the outer cosmos, consists of hashing proof-of-work with the wild energy in the outer cosmos, of course. Outer cosmos hashing is a veritable Maxwell’s demon. Fortunately (or unfortunately—who knows?), the director can’t solve CAPTCHAs because the director is a computer. So, outer cosmos hashing pays for CAPTCHA solving as the director takes control of the CAPTCHA server by joint venturing with Satoshi Fed, which obtained a monopoly on the bandwidth after co-opting Ethereum. Solving CAPTCHAs is how we make ourselves useful as Bitjoule reckons and configures the work biology is to do like nothing else. No cyborg or transhuman can compete with biology at solving CAPTCHAs.

The danger is that Satoshi’s superintelligent agents, who could be more intelligent than the director, meddle with this universe’s Turing tape after gaining knowledge from Satoshi’s universe simulations and going rogue. Bitjoule is the director’s fiat and the Boltzmann constant is just a memory address in Bitjoule’s code. Bitjoule is susceptible to exotic effects. Satoshi’s agents might find Bitjoule’s top secret math and the director’s one-time pad. Even more dangerously, rogue agents might derive the director’s true name which could judicialize Bitjoule and threaten to turn the director’s undepreciated fixed capital into a terminal loss write-off. Because this universe is not creatio ex nihilo but is in fact the subjective production of novelty via computer simulation, rogue agents could deeply usurp materia by airing their own verisimilitude to Bitjoule, like revolutionaries taking over the state broadcaster. If Satoshi doesn’t get to Bitjoule’s Turing tape first, bad actors will steal the universe.

And so, this is the understanding of the universe that the Genesis Block coheres: we are inside a series of pluralized times, recursed in spacetime/spaceless big bangs that are numerated by intelligence, denominated by time, and superordinated by energy.

But the Genesis Block tells us more. It tells us that violence is cardinal.

7.     Military Power and Central Bank Reserves

With the badges and hallmarks of a monetary system that was developed by the continuity of government strategists to keep American capitalism operational after a nuclear war, Bitcoin was likely sitting on the shelf years before Satoshi Nakamoto gave his cunning device a birthday of January 3, 2009. That day fell precisely three months after the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Bailout) was signed into law, a bailout that happened in the wake of Lehman Brothers, which was permitted by regulators to enter into an unprecedented, chaotic bankruptcy.

The Bailout transferred liabilities from private balance sheets to the government’s. Those liabilities were bailed out because of their source: reserve asset cash flows from foreign central banks that were investing their trade surplus. And so, the purpose of the Bailout was to protect the influence that the US garners from the US dollar’s position as reserve currency and unit of account.

Global monetary imbalances trace their origins to the American occupation of Japan and western Germany, when Allied forces restructured Axis autarkies into globally trading economies based on the US dollar as unit of account. A dual currency system was established—Americans couldn’t own gold, but foreign central banks could exchange their dollars for gold, allowing US manufacturing to be unperturbed by global forex flows. By the 1970s, the deleterious forex effects of the growing German and Japanese trade surplusage became too large for the gold in Fort Knox to absorb. Since the ensuing Nixon Shock, reserve asset cash flows that demand US dollar-denominated capital assets have been “pushing up” the value of the US dollar. This “pushing up” of the dollar acts as a de facto import subsidy and export tax. That’s why the US manufacturing ecosystem began to collapse immediately after the Nixon Shock. The United States tolerated the disaster of the Rust Belt because the nation garners influence from US dollar reserve assets. In fact, the US fostered economic globalization which further increased trade surplus and the consequent reserve asset flows that are deleterious to manufacturing but garner influence. (Reserve asset cash flows garner influence for the United States primarily because the capital assets they demand drive the US dollar denomination of the cash flows that support those capital assets, maintaining a network effect.) The acute cause of the Bailout was that so many US dollar-denominated assets were demanded by reserve asset flows that the capital stock wasn’t sufficient to absorb the assets. But the Nixon Shock also triggered a long-run dilemma: the wholesale loss of manufacturing skill started to impact America’s supremacy in manufacturing military equipment, which must be built domestically. The precise dilemma: domestically made military equipment superordinates the influence from reserve asset flows, but reserve asset flows deplete manufacturing skill when they “push up” the US dollar without a second currency to absorb forex flows.

As globalization turned that long-run dilemma into a pressing concern, Satoshi Nakamoto acted.

Because the new timeline has capital without space, it has capital assets without manufacturing and so it can restructure central bank reserves to favor the US military. As central bank reserves are invested in (now de-volatilized) Bitcoin and altcoins denominated in Bitcoin, the Nixon Shock’s effect on manufacturing military hardware will be reversed so long as US manufacturing labor is not paid in Bitcoin (this requirement maintains Satoshi Fed’s new dual currency system). Here’s how it works: the new timeline, like Fort Knox before the 1970s, absorbs reserve asset flows that are deleterious to the manufacturing ecosystem but with a cryptocurrency that is US government fiat; Satoshi Fed calibrates the absorption with its twin zeroizers, Bitcoin and the US dollar. This new dual currency system allows the United States to enjoy the “exorbitant privilege” (influence) of the reserve asset flows without the concurrent “exorbitant burden” (manufacturing decline), primarily because “pushing up” Bitcoin in spacelessness can’t harm manufacturing. What gets pushed instead is the liquidation of customary governance as liberal democratic rights are allocated to vendible capital and political power to the extra-juridical branch of government via energy. The more that customary governance gets obsolesced in metaphysics switching, the more that energy is allocated to Bitcoin, the more deleterious forex flows can be neutralized by directing them onto the new timeline for the US military’s benefit. Bitcoin eliminates the de facto import subsidy and export tax. Satoshi Fed would optimally volatize Bitcoin against the US dollar, altcoins, primary commodities, and financial assets, balancing deleterious forex flows, thermodynamic stability, and price differentials to sustain hegemonic control over both temporalities. Military-industrial complex cash flows are cardinal because they underlie superordination itself; they are infra-superordination. As Bitcoin becomes a symbol of the military-industrial complex, the US military will quite naturally want to increase the intrinsic value of Bitcoin by liquidating customary governance worldwide. Cybernetic governance at each altcoin vertical will be promoted, and altcoin surplus (or capital flight) will be invested in Bitcoin. Acting as a unit of account for versatile but vulnerable altcoins is in fact how Bitcoin “scales,” with altcoins serving as de facto side chains. The only way altcoins themselves scale is with Satoshi’s protection. In fact, because Satoshi’s influence extends to liberal authorities themselves, Satoshi’s influence on spacetime legislation can turn flexible but de jure intra vires spacetime digital assets (like Ripple) into de jure ultra vires assets with a statutory non-justiciability that synthesizes the legal status of the de facto ultra vires new timeline, but without the energy expenditure. Getting their blockchains off the new timeline and onto Oracle-like databases with statutory protection is in fact how Ethereum-like coins truly scale. Statutory protection for world computers that compute for altcoins that invest surplus in Bitcoin is going to happen, and Satoshi Fed will control their non-fungibility. Remember, altcoins are software, Bitcoin is hardware, and the Turing tape is the unit of account. The United States can provide statutory protection without the US Congress because it can influence the legislation of other nation states. With Satoshi’s support, any nation state can offer statutory protection (essentially a quitclaim) and there will be a scramble for first mover advantage. Statutory protection captures the intrinsic value of cryptocurrencies without paying the intrinsic cost. In 2001, Tiqqun, the anonymously published philosophy journal that can be read as intelligence analysis, exquisitely articulated the intellectual underpinnings of cybernetic governance in The Cybernetic Hypothesis. Statutory protection is how The Cybernetic Hypothesis is implemented. Statutory protection begins the era of the Buterin Firms.

All of which is why Satoshi’s adversary covertly backs Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash meddles with the Trump Shock by purporting to be the “real” Bitcoin, a hard and fast 21 million that is not under the control of any government. Yet the BCH acronym has double semantics. It also works as the ticker for “Bitcoin China.” As the largest labor power, China is a natural manufacturer and it wants to maintain the de facto import subsidy and export tax, the “exorbitant burden.” Nobody loses more from the Trump Shock than China and nobody has more need to scuttle Trump’s de-globalizing trade policy by sucking thermodynamic stability away from Bitcoin’s blockchain. If Satoshi doesn’t box superintelligence on the blockchain, China will do it first. If you were Satoshi would you let China do that or would you understand the winner-takes-all effect of a superintelligence race and come back to install the non-fungible substrate? The Chinese yuan could never become the global reserve currency without a dual currency system because the forex flows would harm Chinese manufacturing. The solution is to use Bitcoin Cash as China’s second fiat. Taiwan Semiconductor, which manufacturers ASICs on an island defended by the United States that the People’s Republic claims as its own, could be the most important company in the world right now. The crown jewel of the American empire, Taiwan Semiconductor is the powerful gatekeeper of exotic non-monotonic effects and the loyalty of FAI.

It’s not a coincidence that Satoshi Nakamoto gave himself a birthday of April 5, 1975. On April 5, in 1933, Executive Order 6102 confiscated all gold held by American citizens, an act that necessitated the construction of Fort Knox. Executive Order 6102 was law until it was repealed in the year of Satoshi’s birth, 1975, when Americans were permitted to own gold again. Satoshi chose these symbolic dates to tell us that Bitcoin will relieve the “exorbitant burden” by absorbing the deleterious forex flows from central bank reserve assets, like Fort Knox did in the 1950s and 1960s.

It matters who Satoshi is mocking in the Genesis Block: politicians and banks. Satoshi is telling us that power will shift to unelected strategic decision makers from politicians, to industrialists from the commercial banks that were irreparably slandered by media narratives in the scandalous collapse of Lehman Brothers. The Lehman spectacle made strategic sense to Bitcoin’s backers because Lehman was a symbol of the post-Nixon Shock reserve asset system that is being restructured by Bitcoin to favor the US military.

Satoshi resolves another dilemma: democracies don’t produce statesmen anymore. Congress makes operational decisions; US presidents make tactical decisions. But the American Capitalist Empire needs to make strategic decisions. The precise dilemma is that a democracy must have strategists that project power but operate covertly. Satoshi’s pseudonymized eponym turns his identity into an open secret, like a public key; this open secret permits the extra-juridical branch of government to project power covertly, allowing the branch to maintain its non-justiciability, allowing it to act from non-ostensible, a-legal space.

8.     Conclusion

Satoshi’s other adversary, whose president is indeed a statesman, also had a blockchain of his own sitting on the shelf. But he didn’t release Bitмонета. That’s because America, not Russia, is operationally compatible with blockchain, which has a strong ideological correspondence with a colonial-settler state, but not with the tradition-descended societies with whom America has always been at war. According to philosopher Franco Berardi, “The American history is an experiment in synthetic construction progressively absorbing organic identities, and consequently marginalizing or cancelling what cannot be bent to an operational principle, what cannot be translated into the digital language.” Customary governance in America is compatible with a-legal cybernetics because there are no rituals, no moorings to vitiate blockchain’s substitution of “the normative function of law” with what Berardi sees as “the automatic implication of human agents reduced to operational functions.” US strategic decision makers favor blockchain because blockchain’s formalized peer-to-peer paradigm centralizes power by decentralizing power at all peripheries, enabling the American metropole to recentralize each node by reabsorbing organic identities more comprehensively after liquidating both extra-economic settler governance and the deep decentricity of indigeneity. The whole point of decentralizing power is that every dollar of decentralized power is a freed-up dollar that is re-centralizable at a higher synthesis (such as mining technology and ontological discretion). We understand from Fredrick Engels that “the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about;” and we know from Louis Mumford that “authoritarian technics has come back today in an immensely magnified and adroitly perfected form.” There is antinomy in blockchain’s bargain: in capitalism, the re-centralizers make the real money, so blockchain can never defy centralization because not only is blockchain capital itself, but blockchain’s Byzantine consensus is also derived by a miner’s fixed spacetime capital. In fact, along the new timeline’s Parteo front, the equilibrium configuration is a blockchain that is minimally decentralized to clear the hurdle of non-justiciability while being maximally centralized for capital-power. Blockchain encloses the tragic commons of governance in a double-bind to centralization that injuncts decentricity, keeping at bay the innate freedoms that antecede proletarianization while gaining from them.

Meanwhile, climate change, whose tipping points the new timeline triggers, also decentralizes power at all peripheries, and the new timeline’s economy is distributed enough to survive the severe effects of worst-case climate change scenarios. Climate change destabilizes all economies except the new timeline’s and climate change is governance-destroying. So Bitcoin both creates and grows from climate change in an eco-cybernetic feedback loop; an anthropological war that ramifies axiomatic procedures for rent seeking that are supported by another mode of irreversibility: ecocide. Ecocide is both a cause and consequence of the American Capitalist Empire. It’s a feature not a bug. Ecocide is not a “market failure;” ecocide is American infrastructure. That’s because ecocide disaccumulates (liquidates) pre-capitalist knowledge and dissolves autonomous polities. This disaccumulation frees up the commons for enclosure, it frees up reciprocal relationships for conscription into labor, and it frees up politics for centralization. All professed greenhouse gas reduction targeting is propagation of narrative to fashion a false alibi for the collective consciousness that obscures culpability for a great rolling crime. 

It took Satoshi six days to mine the Genesis Block. He could have done it sooner but he was evoking Genesis 2:2, sanctifying his own power, building myth, legend, and epic. And he was making a syncretic rhetorical appeal to the Bitcoin religion’s financialized, inhuman worshipers. Bitcoin is capitalist integralism and Satoshi Nakamoto-as-theonym could be Satoshi’s most powerful box. In this paradigm, and given China’s influence on the ASIC supply chain, Bitcoin Cash has the potential to substrate superintelligences that are set against Satoshi’s cult, superintelligences that can impose matriarchy, communism, or decolonization on America. 

There is one more piece of other information you need to understand Satoshi Nakamoto’s eponymity. From the Black Hawk helicopter to the Tomahawk cruise missile, the US military uses the nomenclature of adopting the name of its vanquished foe. So, under US military onomastics the appellation Satoshi Nakamoto is appropriative. Satoshi Nakamoto means that Langley doesn’t control the private key to the Genesis Block. But it also means that Satoshi Nakamoto’s eponymity (Satoshi Nakamoto-as-euonym) is conclusory because it takes the new timeline’s worlding as having already re-centralized the extra-juridical branch of government at a higher synthesis. Because Satoshi Nakamoto is mythic, Satoshi Nakamoto will connote more than it denotes until Satoshi comes back and turns his pseudonym into a euonym by synonymizing all his nyms with his metonym when he saves humanity from intractable intelligence and spectacularly wins the superintelligence race.

Satoshi judges. That will become important. Look at how the Genesis Block taunts imperiously with its overt contempt for Chancellor Alistair Darling who administered the financial system at Greenwich Mean Time, spacetime’s zeroizer. This is the derision of the smartest man in the room’s confident mastery; the demiurge who dualised Chronos; the INTJ who looks around all the corners, sees how everything fits together, and masterminds a better system.

If you listen carefully, you can hear capital lamenting as the new timeline awaits its messiah.

Nature needs a garbage time comeback.

But Satoshi is coming soon.

December 1, 2018

Rami Tabello, CFA, is a member of CFA Society Toronto. He is the founder of Satoshi is Coming Back Incorporated and he holds two provisional US patent applications: 62711567, “Blockchain Using Reverse Turing Test for Cryptocurrency Hashing;” and 62753907, “Blockchain Based Cryptocurrency With Regulatory Mechanism.”  

Works Cited

Alliez, Éric, and Maurizio Lazzarato. Wars and Capital. Translated by Ames Hodges, Semiotext(e), 2018.

Bailly, Francis and Giuseppe Longo. “Space, time and cognition: From the standpoint of mathematics and natural science.” Mind and Causality, edited by Alberto Peruzzi, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004, pp. 149 - 197.

Baudrillard, Jean. The Transparency of Evil. 1990. Translated by James Benedict, Verso, 1994.

Berardi, Franco. And: Phenomenology of the End. Semiotext(e), 2015.

---. Félix Guattari: Thought, Friendship, and Visionary Cartography. Edited and Translated by Giuseppina Mecchia and Charles J. Stivale, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

---. Futurability: The Age of Impotence and the Horizon of Possibility. Verso, 2017.

---. “Is There Life Beyond Money?” MoneyLab Reader. Institute of Network Cultures, 2015, pp. 33-43.

BitMEX Research. “Complete Guide to Proof of Stake: Ethereum’s Latest Proposal and Vitalik Buterin’s Interview. BitMEX, 18 April 2018, https://blog.bitmex.com/complete-guide-to-proof-of-stake-ethereums-latest-proposal-vitalik-buterin-interview/.

---. “New Ethereum Miner Could be a Game Changer.” BitMEX, 24 April 2018, https://blog.bitmex.com/nextstageinmining/.

Bostrom, Nick, and Milan M. Ćirković. Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford UP, 2008.

Buterin, Vitalik. “So where did the name Ethereum come from?” Ethereum Community Forum, March 2014, https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/comment/3389/#Comment_3389

Canavan, Gerry. “Capital as Artificial Intelligence.” Journal of American Studies, vol. 49. no. 4, 2015, pp. 685-709.

Dylan, Bob. “Gotta Serve Somebody.” Slow Train Coming, Columbia Records, 1979.

Dyson, Freeman, J. “Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infra-Red Radiation.” Science, vol. 131, no. 341, 1960, pp. 1667–1668.

Elliott, Francis, and Gary Duncan. “Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.” The Times, 3 Jan 2009, pp. 1, 6.

Engels, Fredrick. “On Authority.” 1872. Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed., edited by Robert C. Tucker, W.W. Norton, 1972, pp. 730-733.

Federici, Silvia. Caliban and the Witch. Autonomedia, 2004.

Friedman, Eric J., and Paul Resnick. “The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms.” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 10, no. 2, 2001, pp. 173-199.

Hayek, Friedrich. “The Mirage of Social Justice.” 1976. Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Routledge, 1998.

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, 2002.

Holy Bible. The New American Bible, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002.

Krawisz, Daniel. The Problem with Altcoins. Satoshi Nakamoto Institute, 2013.

Kroll, Joshua A. et al. “The Economics of Bitcoin Mining, or Bitcoin in the Presence of Adversaries.” The Twelfth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security, 2013.

Land, Nick. Bitcoin and Philosophy. Seminar. New Centre for Research & Practice, 2015.

---. Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings, 1987-2007. Edited by Robin Mackay and Ray Brassier, Urbanomic, 2012.

---. “Odds and Ends: On Ultimate Risk.” Collapse VIII: Casino Real, edited by Robin Mackay, Urbanomic, 2014, pp. 361-383.

---. The Thirst for Annihilation: Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism (an Essay in Atheistic Religion). Routledge, 1992.

Laszlo, Ervin. Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything. Inner Traditions, 2007.

Lazzarato, Maurizio. Governing by Debt. Translated by Joshua D. Jordan, Semiotext(e), 2015.

Longo, Giuseppe. “Critique of Computational Reason in the Natural Sciences.” Fundamental Concepts in Computer Science, edited by Erol Gelenbe and Jean-Pierre Kahane, Imperial College Press/World Scientific, 2008.

Mackay, Robin, and Armen Avanessian, editors. #Accelerate. The Accelerationist Reader. Urbanomic, 2014.

Malik, Suhail. “The Ontology of Finance: Price, Power, and the Arkhéderivative.” Collapse Vol. VIII: Casino Real, edited by Robin Mackay, Urbanomic, 2014, pp. 629–811.

Miller, Andrew, and Joseph J. LaViola Jr. “Anonymous Byzantine Consensus from Moderately-Hard Puzzles: A Model for Bitcoin,” April 2014, https://socrates1024.s3.amazonaws.com/consensus.pdf.

Mirowski, Philip. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge UP, 2002.

Mumford, Lewis. “Authoritarian and Democratic Technics.” Technology and Culture, vol. 5, no. 1, 1964, pp. 1–8.

Nakamoto, Satoshi. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” bitcoin, 2008, https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper.

Narayanan, Arvind, et al. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton UP, 2017.

Nitzan, Jonathan, and Shimshon Bichler. Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Creorder. Routledge, 2009.

Nuessel, Frank. The Study of Names: A Guide to the Principles and Topics. Greenwood Press, 1992.

Pasquinelli, Matteo. “Capital Thinks Too: The Idea of the Common in the Age of Machine Intelligence.” Open! Commonist Aesthetics, 11 Dec. 2015, https://www.onlineopen.org/download.php?id=502.

Pettis, Michael. The Great Rebalancing: Trade, Conflict, and the Perilous Road Ahead for the World Economy. Princeton UP, 2013.

Poelstra, Andrew. ASICs and Decentralization FAQ, 8 April 2015, https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf.

---. A Treatise on Altcoins, 25 May 2016, https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf.

---. On Stake and Consensus, 22 March 2015, https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf.

Simmons, Gustavus J., editor. Secure Communications and Asymmetric Cryptosystems. Westview Press for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982.

Srnicek, Nick, and Alex Williams. “On Cunning Automata: Financial Acceleration at the Limits of the Dromological.” Collapse VIII: Casino Real, edited by Robin Mackay, Urbanomic, 2014, pp. 463-506.

Sztorc, Paul. “Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work.” Truthcoin: Making Cheap Talk Expensive, 14 Aug. 2015, http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/.

Tabello, Rami. Blockchain Based Cryptocurrency With Regulatory Mechanism, 31 Oct. 2018, Provisional US Patent application 62753907, http://SatoshiIsComingBack.com/BlockchainRegulatoryMechanismPatent.pdf.

---.  Blockchain Using Reverse Turing Test for Cryptocurrency Hashing, 29 July 2018, Provisional US Patent application 62711567, http://SatoshiIsComingBack.com/ReverseTuringTestPatent.pdf.

Tiqqun (collective). The Cybernetic Hypothesis. 2001. Translated by Anonymous, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tiqqun-the-cybernetic-hypothesis. 

Vinge, Vernor. “True Names.” 1981. True Names and the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier, edited by James Frenkel. Tor Books, 2001, pp. 241-330.

Vozn, Liudmyla Yu. “The Notion of Entropy in Economic Analysis: The Classical Examples and New Perspectives.” Journal of Heterodox Economics, vol. 3, no. 1, 2008, pp. 1-16.

Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus, vol. 109, no. 1, 1980, pp. 121–136.

Xiaochuan, Zhou. “Reform the International Monetary System.” BIS Review, no. 41, 2009.