Is Bitcoin the First Digital Law of the Internet Jurisdiction?

[iferrerh]

Is Bitcoin the First Digital Law of the Internet Jurisdiction?

I have been reflecting (and also writing in *Bitcoin Digital Law*) on an idea I’d like to discuss with the community:

What if Bitcoin is not just money, or even a "financial asset", but actually Digital Law?

The protocol regulates supply and demand automatically and in a decentralized way:

• Supply is strictly limited by the algorithm (21 million).
  
• Demand is regulated by the halving reward system, which reduces new issuance every ~4 years and creates predictable scarcity with potential upward pressure on value.
  

In this sense, Bitcoin operates as a self-executing legal norm within the jurisdiction of the Internet. It is also more secure and robust than traditional law, because it cannot be manipulated by governments, politicians, or central authorities.

But there is something even more interesting:
Bitcoin acts as a kind of digital parliament, open to everyone.
→ Anyone can propose a change (even something as ambitious as a "Bitcoin Improvement Proposal"), and it is the network —through consensus— that decides whether to accept it or not.

No political parties, no traditional elections:

• There are clear consensus rules.
• There is open, global debate.
• There is indirect voting through nodes and miners.

This raises a key question:
Are we witnessing a new form of digital democracy, where code and consensus replace parliaments and constitutions of Nation States?

And maybe even more profound:
Are we witnessing the birth of a new jurisdiction — the Jurisdiction of the Internet — where valid agreements and value transfers exist outside the control of Nation States?

I’d love to hear your thoughts:

• Is Bitcoin law (a binding rule within its jurisdiction)?
• Or is it still just a financial asset, as regulators insist?
• What are the implications if we accept that Internet citizens already have their own "digital parliament" and their own jurisdiction?
• Unlike gold, which is regulated by natural rules, Bitcoin is regulated by human digital rules. It is not just a mere product subject to supply and demand — these are themselves regulated.
• After Bitcoin, other interesting Digital Laws have emerged as initiatives from the community.
• Can we evolve as a society in this new digital jurisdiction? How?

[hd49728]

• Supply is strictly limited by the algorithm (21 million).
  

Other cryptocurrency projects (altcoin projects) can easily have limited supplies too. I mean there is not only Bitcoin has a limited supply.

• Demand is regulated by the halving reward system, which reduces new issuance every ~4 years and creates predictable scarcity with potential upward pressure on value.
  

Demand is not from reward halving but from other more important things: Bitcoin blockchain technology, how secure it is (Bitcoin private keys can not be brute forced), its strong network, its decentralization and more. People look at many things and see whether Bitcoin has good value in the present as well as potential of higher value in the future, before deciding to invest in Bitcoin.

Demand, in my opinion, is not from halvings.

How is the 21 million Bitcoin cap defined and enforced?

[iferrerh]

You raise an important point. From my perspective, the halving mechanism creates an undeniable pressure on the supply side. Every ~4 years, the block reward is cut in half, which means miners’ revenue from new issuance also drops.

For miners to remain sustainable, they either need:

the price of Bitcoin to increase, or

to operate with significantly lower costs (e.g. cheaper energy, more efficient hardware).

Historically, this dynamic has pushed prices upward, since the reduced supply meets a relatively steady or growing demand. Sooner or later, miners themselves become part of that pressure — they cannot sell at a loss forever, and the market tends to rebalance by valuing Bitcoin higher.

This is why I argue that the halving acts like a digital law of scarcity, regulating not just issuance but also influencing market behavior.

[Hazink]

@hd49728 There is no point in engaging in such discussions; it’s obvious you are communicating with ChatGPT. The OP's first content was 75% AI-generated, and his reply to you now is 100% AI-generated. Even without checking it out, by the reply pattern you will know what comes from a bot and what comes from a human.

[hero_the_bossman]

@hd49728 There is no point in engaging in such discussions; it’s obvious you are communicating with ChatGPT. The OP's first content was 75% AI-generated, and his reply to you now is 100% AI-generated. Even without checking it out, by the reply pattern you will know what comes from a bot and what comes from a human.

I am interested in what drives such force on the forum.. If they would like to try and communicate, there is nothing wrong with doing it yourself, or using AI only to get and digest info, or to find sources to do so.

[Ucy]

Bitcoin is simply a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Its rules are there to ensure that the goal of peer-to-peer cash transaction is realized without the involvement of centralized factors. To make this possible, everything that can encourage centralization is eliminated via the use of self-regulation, checks and balances, opensource, decentralization, trustlessness, permissionless, public consensus, transparency, immutability, etc.
This are part of the rules or principles that govern the Bitcoin system, and they are binding on network participants as they seem to be hard coded into the system. And nodes ensure that the rules are adhered to.

I do not think the Bitcoin system should be for everyone or for the typical internet users. Its ideals should be different from the internet ideals with mostly people who adhere to and agree with its Principles participating in its network. They will most likely be people who believe in freedom and fairness.

Bitcoin could aswell exist as a World on its own, independent of the current World's system, with citizens or patriots that uphold its rules.
It can function as a Nation or seperate world, because, when an independent currency system like it starts existing, society tends to build around it businesses, companies, institutions, organizations, markets and other things that would depend on money for  wages/salaries, rewards, donations, and paying for products and services.  And it's important that they transact peer-to-peer and adhere to other important Bitcoin principles to keep the system/transactions decentralized, peer-to-peer or free of any form of centralization.

[iferrerh]

I totally agree with your vision: "Bitcoin could aswell exist as a World on its own, independent of the current World's system, with citizens or patriots that uphold its rules. It can function as a Nation or seperate world, because, when an independent currency system like it starts existing, society tends to build around it businesses, companies, institutions, organizations, markets and other things that would depend on money for  wages/salaries, rewards, donations, and paying for products and services.  And it's important that they transact peer-to-peer and adhere to other important Bitcoin principles to keep the system/transactions decentralized, peer-to-peer or free of any form of centralization".

What I am trying to explore (read book Bitcoin Digital Law https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FF2LG11J?ref_=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cp_ud_dp_6KIFS2TBO6PUHMLRP8GQ&bestFormat=true), and I do not think it is a minor issue, is that perhaps bitcoin (its technology) allows us to regulate ourselves in a new, unprecedented way.

In other words, we are witnessing a new form of digital, private, global law.

Little is said about this, and little is said about its practical consequences either.

[bitcoindusts]

This raises a key question:
Are we witnessing a new form of digital democracy, where code and consensus replace parliaments and constitutions of Nation States?

If Bitcoin is successful in its implementation and the government accepted such features replacing their monetary system then yes.  But sadly I think Bitcoin is trying to form digital democracy but surely government will prevent it since all they wanted is control on everything.

Are we witnessing the birth of a new jurisdiction — the Jurisdiction of the Internet — where valid agreements and value transfers exist outside the control of Nation States?

This I can say yes, since bitcoin transactions are independent from government grasp.

[henry_of_skalitz]

This raises a key question:
Are we witnessing a new form of digital democracy, where code and consensus replace parliaments and constitutions of Nation States?

If Bitcoin is successful in its implementation and the government accepted such features replacing their monetary system then yes.  But sadly I think Bitcoin is trying to form digital democracy but surely government will prevent it since all they wanted is control on everything.

Govs would never change their fiat to BTC, control is there, CBDCs are on their way, and it would be nice if they would just leave BTC alone and push forward for its usage, but it's not likely that that would happen fast, only through slow and methodical grind.

[iferrerh]

Are we witnessing the birth of a new jurisdiction — the Jurisdiction of the Internet — where valid agreements and value transfers exist outside the control of Nation States?

This I can say yes, since bitcoin transactions are independent from government grasp.


[/quote]

If we are wistesing the birth of a new Jurisdiction, then, how we can grow? Are we wait for states to control internet jurisdiction? can we think of a new way of ruling ourself without states (at least in this jurisdiction?). Are we going to use only Bitcoin? Can we issue more Digital Laws from the internert Jurisdicion? Do we need new ways of governance in this internet jurisdiction? do we need a new justice system?

[iferrerh]

Govs would never change their fiat to BTC, control is there, CBDCs are on their way, and it would be nice if they would just leave BTC alone and push forward for its usage, but it's not likely that that would happen fast, only through slow and methodical grind.
[/quote]

My worry is not what states do, is what we do to make bigger and grow in this internet jurisdiction with private digital laws. We can regulate ourself for the first time in centuries. But I do not think we are aware of this possibility yet.