When the code remains intact but the perspective changes.
There is a misconception that reassures many: as long as the code does not change, nothing can really change.
It is a convenient idea.
But it is also incomplete.
Because technologies do not only exist in protocols.
They exist in the way they are interpreted, described and used.
And above all: in the way they are made socially acceptable.
Bitcoin, from this point of view, is no exception.
We tend to think that technical neutrality coincides with moral neutrality.
That an infrastructure, if formally correct, is also ethically unassailable.
But morality does not reside in software.
It resides in the social context that surrounds it.
The code establishes what is possible.
Culture establishes what is legitimate.
Bitcoin can function perfectly even if its narrative changes radically.
And this is where the real problem arises.
The risk is not technical corruption.
It is the ethical normalisation of foreign logics.
Bitcoin was created as an infrastructure: open, verifiable, impersonal, indifferent to status.
But it can be progressively portrayed as: a tool for tax optimisation, geopolitical leverage, a strategic state asset, 'responsible' infrastructure only if mediated by elites.
In this shift, Bitcoin ceases to be a social good and becomes a resource to be administered.
It is not banned.
It is reinterpreted.
The difference is subtle, but decisive.
The most profound social change is this: Bitcoin has shifted from being a tool for individual autonomy to becoming infrastructure managed on behalf of individuals.
When Bitcoin is primarily framed as a financial product, a complex technology for experts and a potentially dangerous tool to be monitored,
The implicit message is clear: it is not for everyone; it is for those who know how to use it 'correctly'.
This gives rise to a new form of delegation.
Not technical, but moral.
The individual is no longer responsible.
They are protected.
When protection replaces responsibility, freedom becomes a concession.
At a geopolitical level, this change is even more evident.
Bitcoin is no longer just seen as neutral infrastructure, a distributed network and a global protocol.
Instead, it is now considered a lever of international pressure, a potential strategic reserve, a tool of competition between states and an object of selective regulation.
In this scenario, the question is no longer whether Bitcoin should exist, but who legitimises its use.
Who can safeguard it?
Who can broker it?
Who can claim it is 'safe'?
The risk is not direct control.
It is symbolic fencing.
Bitcoin continues to function.
Blocks are still being produced.
Consensus continues to emerge.
However, its social significance could be rendered meaningless.
There is no need to shut it down.
It is enough to render it compatible with everything it sought to distinguish itself from.
The code resists.
Culture does not, unless it is safeguarded.
Bitcoin does not change when the software changes.
It changes when we stop asking ourselves what its purpose really is.
The technology survives.
Responsibility only survives if it is chosen.
Choose.
Choose.
Choose.
#choose #bitcoin #responsability #software #network #change #social #function #controll #freedom #perspective #code
