Bitcoin's White Paper Isn't Just Words – It's a Constitution

[Dominic_Johnson]

Bruce Fenton, CEO of Atlantic Financial, founder of Chainstone Labs, host of the Satoshi Roundtable and board member of Medici Ventures wrote a opinion piece on Coindesk yesterday about Bitcoin's White Paper and how it isn't just a marketing or legal document.... it is a Constitution. According to Fenton, "The bitcoin white paper changed how money can work, yes, but less discussed – and even more important – is how it is changing how we share and place value on ideas." I was wondering what people's thoughts were of this point of view? Do you believe it is correct or a little wayward?

Opinion piece can be found at https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-white-paper-isnt-just-words-its-a-constitution/

[1714480711]

1714480711

[1714480711]

1714480711

[franky1]

many people say the whitepaper needs changing and is out of date and should instead treat the core roadmap as the constitution
(facepalm)
yea they want to go against satoshis vision and instead treat core as the monarchy of the network.

but as for a constitution. many interpret it different ways
take the american right to bare arms

... here's your bare arms


(constitution does not mention fully automatic machine guns, rifles)

[rodalutor]

I don't believe there should be a set in stone constitution of any sort, be that for bitcoin or for a country. The world we live in is constantly adapting and so should our direction be, there will have been so many developments since satoshi's white paper that even he didn't envisage that it's impossible to cover everything. While Satoshi is undoubtedly one of the great minds of our generation he's most definitely not a psychic.

[franky1]

I don't believe there should be a set in stone constitution of any sort, be that for bitcoin or for a country. The world we live in is constantly adapting and so should our direction be, there will have been so many developments since satoshi's white paper that even he didn't envisage that it's impossible to cover everything. While Satoshi is undoubtedly one of the great minds of our generation he's most definitely not a psychic.

a constitution should not be a complete rulebook of all law. but an essential baseline of minimum standard expectation.

EG. not a right to freedom. as that automatically makes prisons illegal, thus making crime non-punishable.
but a right to breath, talk, walk. is an acceptable minimum..(you can still breathe, walk and talk in prison)

[qwk]

Opinion piece can be found at https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-white-paper-isnt-just-words-its-a-constitution/

When those interested in bitcoin as an idea differ on the direction of a project, they can choose from several options:
* Interpret the original texts in the way that they believe was intended
* Adapt the text or keep it fixed and rigid (like a Constitution)
* Adapt the text, change it and make it different
* Disregard it or propose something potentially better

The point here is that the above statement can be misunderstood very easily.
A constitution is not meant to be "carved in stone".
It sets out some general rules, "best practices", whatever you may call it, to govern the process of adapting a society's laws to meet the actual needs of their time.
Following that logic, you may easily call Satoshi's Whitepaper a "constitution" of some sort.
If, on the other hand, you were to conclude that nothing whatsoever may ever be changed at all, you're no longer talking about a constitution, but rather about scripture.

I guess what Bruce Fenton meant is an adaptable set of rules, but it's not really clear from his wording.
In which case I agree.

[AutoBlockX]

The entire purpose of blockchain technology and Bitcoin is that it is a decentralized system. So, no, I don’t believe that whitepaper should be a constitution. We have to understand that because new technologies are being delivered every second, things are constantly shifting and changing their direction. Things have changed quite a bit since Satoshi’s whitepaper and while it is true that he is the founder, even he cannot envision the future and what it holds for the Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

[franky1]

a bitcoin constitution should be the basic ethics of what bitcoin should always stand for and be allowed to do.
this does not mean a rulebook that covers all eventualities of every possible little detail. but a broad ethos of basic understanding

laws LIMIT what people can do.
constitutions ALLOW a minimum standard of what people can do or expect without question or resistance

i just wonder. while people interrpret the bitcoin whitepaper.
what 'constitutional acts/rights' would they list if there was to be a constitution.
in short if we used this topic to write a list of 'rights'. could we all agree

EG if someone mentioned permissionless... how many would argue about multisigs
EG if someone mentioned borderless... how many would argue about fee's out pricing certain 3rd world countries from affordably using it
EG if someone mentioned borderless... how many would argue about cores roadmap of follow their roadmap or F**k off
EG if someone mentioned peer to peer.. how many would argue about escrows, and pools rejecting tx's due to low fee

[rodalutor]

I don't believe there should be a set in stone constitution of any sort, be that for bitcoin or for a country. The world we live in is constantly adapting and so should our direction be, there will have been so many developments since satoshi's white paper that even he didn't envisage that it's impossible to cover everything. While Satoshi is undoubtedly one of the great minds of our generation he's most definitely not a psychic.

a constitution should not be a complete rulebook of all law. but an essential baseline of minimum standard expectation.

EG. not a right to freedom. as that automatically makes prisons illegal, thus making crime non-punishable.
but a right to breath, talk, walk. is an acceptable minimum..(you can still breathe, walk and talk in prison)

Is it really necessary to have a constitution to tell people that they have the right to breathe, walk and talk? Breathing isn't really a right either because it's impossible to live without it, it's a necessity. Even that isn't protected by a constitution given that the death penalty exists.

Either way that's too much on the political stand and I understand the point you were trying to make, it's that there should be some basic guidelines in place for the development, implementation etc without there being anything that is too set in stone that it is not adaptable to the current situation.

[franky1]

I don't believe there should be a set in stone constitution of any sort, be that for bitcoin or for a country. The world we live in is constantly adapting and so should our direction be, there will have been so many developments since satoshi's white paper that even he didn't envisage that it's impossible to cover everything. While Satoshi is undoubtedly one of the great minds of our generation he's most definitely not a psychic.

a constitution should not be a complete rulebook of all law. but an essential baseline of minimum standard expectation.

EG. not a right to freedom. as that automatically makes prisons illegal, thus making crime non-punishable.
but a right to breath, talk, walk. is an acceptable minimum..(you can still breathe, walk and talk in prison)

Is it really necessary to have a constitution to tell people that they have the right to breathe, walk and talk? Breathing isn't really a right either because it's impossible to live without it, it's a necessity. Even that isn't protected by a constitution given that the death penalty exists.

Either way that's too much on the political stand and I understand the point you were trying to make, it's that there should be some basic guidelines in place for the development, implementation etc without there being anything that is too set in stone that it is not adaptable to the current situation.

lets delve into the right to breathe.
imagine a LAW that was made to allow cops to choke out people as a cops 'self defense' / resisting arrest appropriate method of achieving suspects arrest.
by having right to breathe in a constitution would overpower the cops law. thus the cop would be in prison for choking out someone instead of using the cops law to get away with killing a suspect..
other examples, it makes waterboarding an unconstitutional interrogation method
it makes the nazi death camp (using gas) a unconstitutional thing

but with that all said.
what fundamental aspects should a bitcoin constitution include that are not to be used to over power/extinguish innovation. or used for malicious interpretation..
after all after hundreds of years people still debate the interpretation of "bare arms" (biceps or muskets or fully automatic rifles)

[jseverson]

I feel like constitution is too strong of a word, and I'm sure Satoshi never intended it to be anything of the sort. At its barest, it proposed a way to solve a problem which was put into practice a little later on.

I don't have any strong convictions when it comes to how rigidly the whitepaper must be "followed", but I'm pretty sure Satoshi would be more than happy to let everyone use the road he paved the way they want. We'll never know for sure though I suppose.

[franky1]

I feel like constitution is too strong of a word, and I'm sure Satoshi never intended it to be anything of the sort. At its barest, it proposed a way to solve a problem which was put into practice a little later on.

I don't have any strong convictions when it comes to how rigidly the whitepaper must be "followed", but I'm pretty sure Satoshi would be more than happy to let everyone use the road he paved the way they want. We'll never know for sure though I suppose.

yep its not just words
yep its not a constitution..
its an initial invention blueprint .. a whitepaper

[davis196]

If the bitcoin whitepaper is indeed a constitution,then we need some institution that will pusnish everyone,who breaks the rules of that constitution,like every country has some sort of a constitution committee.
I agree that bitcoin changed the way we view money and ideas,but the whitepaper isn't a constiution.

[Pursuer]

if you would have said "bitcoin code" as in the initial release of the first version of bitcoin QT (as it was called initially) then this statement made a lot more sense because the code is more like a constitution since it is defining the consensus rules with details whereas the bitcoin white paper is more like the abstract idea and is used to introduce the concept of bitcoin in as short a text as possible. as Satoshi said:
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime."
which sounds more to be like a "constitution" than the paper.

[MainIbem]

A constitution is a  set of laws and rules governing a group of people. The WP of a project is a published explanation of the facets of the working of that project. So a WP cannot be said to be a constitution because not all the rules governing the project are explained in detail in the WP.

[franky1]

if you would have said "bitcoin code" as in the initial release of the first version of bitcoin QT (as it was called initially) then this statement made a lot more sense because the code is more like a constitution since it is defining the consensus rules with details whereas the bitcoin white paper is more like the abstract idea and is used to introduce the concept of bitcoin in as short a text as possible. as Satoshi said:
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime."
which sounds more to be like a "constitution" than the paper.

codes change, laws change.
a constitution is meant to just be the basics of rights(allowances). not laws(restrictions)
bitcoins consensus rules(laws) are limitations

but then, though it shouldnt happen constitutions get amendments too.

but putting that aside.
if there was to be a constitution. could anyone (meaning lets try formulating a list) successfully create constitutional acts/rights..
as i think that even if a list was made. its interpretation would not get universal agreement no matter how well wrote.

[Kakmakr]

I think this is the Last Will and testimony of Satoshi Nakamoto and also a deceleration of War against the corrupt financial systems of this world. He hated the idea that these systems were being used to enrich a small group of people and he wanted to provide an alternative for those people who were exploited and excluded from these systems.

He did not say this in the White paper, but we saw this in his other writings and also the clues he left behind. 

[franky1]

I think this is the Last Will and testimony of Satoshi Nakamoto and also a deceleration of War against the corrupt financial systems of this world. He hated the idea that these systems were being used to enrich a small group of people and he wanted to provide an alternative for those people who were exploited and excluded from these systems.

He did not say this in the White paper, but we saw this in his other writings and also the clues he left behind. 

id say not a declaration of war. but a declaration of independance away from the monopoly of fiat

[rodalutor]

I don't believe there should be a set in stone constitution of any sort, be that for bitcoin or for a country. The world we live in is constantly adapting and so should our direction be, there will have been so many developments since satoshi's white paper that even he didn't envisage that it's impossible to cover everything. While Satoshi is undoubtedly one of the great minds of our generation he's most definitely not a psychic.

a constitution should not be a complete rulebook of all law. but an essential baseline of minimum standard expectation.

EG. not a right to freedom. as that automatically makes prisons illegal, thus making crime non-punishable.
but a right to breath, talk, walk. is an acceptable minimum..(you can still breathe, walk and talk in prison)

Is it really necessary to have a constitution to tell people that they have the right to breathe, walk and talk? Breathing isn't really a right either because it's impossible to live without it, it's a necessity. Even that isn't protected by a constitution given that the death penalty exists.

Either way that's too much on the political stand and I understand the point you were trying to make, it's that there should be some basic guidelines in place for the development, implementation etc without there being anything that is too set in stone that it is not adaptable to the current situation.

lets delve into the right to breathe.
imagine a LAW that was made to allow cops to choke out people as a cops 'self defense' / resisting arrest appropriate method of achieving suspects arrest.
by having right to breathe in a constitution would overpower the cops law. thus the cop would be in prison for choking out someone instead of using the cops law to get away with killing a suspect..
other examples, it makes waterboarding an unconstitutional interrogation method
it makes the nazi death camp (using gas) a unconstitutional thing

but with that all said.
what fundamental aspects should a bitcoin constitution include that are not to be used to over power/extinguish innovation. or used for malicious interpretation..
after all after hundreds of years people still debate the interpretation of "bare arms" (biceps or muskets or fully automatic rifles)

And what of the death penalty then, how would that fit in with such a constitutional right, that is in its very nature removing your ability to breath?

As for what fundamental aspects a bitcoin constitution should have, that's not for me to say, I still don't even necessarily believe we have need for such a thing for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Bitcoin is largely considered to be for the people and not for a ruling entity, having some set in stone constitution (or such) kind of seems to go against that idea.

[Agilth@mail.ru]

it is, in fact, neither of two. it is an official document, but as we all know official documents have a tendency to be neglected and sometimes secretly violated.

[jseverson]

To some extent, this is true, since the white paper of bitcoin is the first serious document in the field of ICO and it very detailed and clearly describes all the details of the work and what difficulties can be faced in the future. All other companies took it as an example for registration of the documents therefore to some extent it can be considered if not the Bible, then the Constitution precisely.

It actually has nothing to do with ICOs. Writing white papers isn't exactly a new concept, and Bitcoin has existed for years before the first ICO was even held. Not to mention that most of ICOs' white papers are just fluff pieces riddled with error, with some of them even being plagiarized outright.

They're certainly different in that Bitcoin's white paper was written to propose a solution for a known problem, while most ICOs' white papers are simply marketing requirements.