When Bitcoin was launched in 2009, it was more than just a new technology—it was a beacon of hope for those disillusioned by the global financial system. Emerging from the shadow of the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC), Bitcoin attracted a community of people who were deeply skeptical of central banks, fiat currencies, and the mechanisms of debt and borrowing. This included a strong dislike of censorship, and worth highlighting the incredibly strong anti-censorship properties of Bitcoin.
These early adopters were visionaries, cypherpunks, libertarians, misfits, and idealists who saw Bitcoin not just as a currency but as a tool for resistance against centralized control (particularly banks and central banks).
Many of us who joined the community were struggling to find jobs in the shadow of the GFC or forced to transition to new careers. There was considerable stress on all people at the time. Those in power who caused the situation were very much viewed as an enemy. Bitcoin was a chance for freedom: to be free from the banks, the governments, the zeitgeist of politics that was running rampant in the West.
This can be easily lost on people who are much younger and didn't have the stress of finding a job in such a dire time. Bitcoin as some alternative to the money we had, much like gold, had an appeal. Many of us back then were gold bugs, although I suspect that has changed.
In many ways, we were too idealistic. The ideas were not necessarily "wrong", but unrealistic. I should add that many of the community were tech savvy and had grown up using decentralized file sharing networks. I well remember Napster and was devastated when it was shut down. From that moment onwards, it was clear that decentralized technology was highly desireable. There was a purpose to decentralization, it wasn't a buzz phrase or a means to make money: "I don't trust you, nor do I want to trust you."
A Community Rooted in Ideals
The early Bitcoin forums and meetups were buzzing with revolutionary energy. Discussions weren’t just about block sizes or hash rates, but about overthrowing the entrenched systems of power. The Federal Reserve was often the enemy, and terms like “fiat” were almost uttered with disdain. Bitcoiners spoke in the language of self-sovereignty, decentralization, and financial freedom, envisioning a world where people could transact without intermediaries. A core aspect of this ethos was the private key—a unique cryptographic signature that granted ownership of Bitcoin tokens. This emphasized the principle that tokens belonged solely to the holder, with no need for intermediaries, aligning deeply with broader themes of personal freedom and trustless systems. Sharing a private key was unthinkable, as it symbolized personal ownership and responsibility, aligning Bitcoin deeply with the ideals of private property.
This principle placed Bitcoin firmly in the capitalist camp, marking the start of all cryptocurrencies and blockchains. It is important to note this differs from cronyism.
For many, it wasn’t about speculation or profit—it was about principles. The blockchain was seen as a ledger of truth, a transparent and immutable alternative to the opaque machinations of the financial elite. In the earliest days we didn't use the word blockchain much either, but rather all projects were cryptocurrencies or even just "crypto". The importance of "blockchain" as a word became more prominent as the technology evolved to be more than money.
One of the most important principles of blockchain technology, censorship resistance, was deeply understood by Bitcoin’s early community. It ensured that no centralized authority could block or reverse transactions, making Bitcoin a powerful tool for financial autonomy. This principle resonated strongly with the ethos of decentralization and individual freedom, it was also important at a social level. While contra-ideals were not welcomed, Bitcoin did not exclude anyone from using the technology. Over time, the significance of the principles became less appreciated by people who joined the blockchain space later.
After a while, the outward fighting turned to infighting. Both between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency projects, but also then within the Bitcoin community itself (e.g. the "block size wars"). There was always resistance to alternatives blockchains, but it seemed to get more hostile with the launch of Ethereum. Some of the biggest fights were between people who believed in the technology, and those who did not. For the detractors, it was not obvious that Bitcoin was actual money or digital gold. The Financial Times was heavily against Bitcoin the entire way from $0 to $100,000. Only recently did they admit defeat.
It is worth noting that the early days were probably overly idealistic; however, there is an importane to the ideas expressed. If we see those ideas as principles rather than ideals, something that guides us in the right direction as opposed to a perfect standard to which we must live.
The Emergence of Ethereum and the Shift in Ideology
As the years passed, the cryptocurrency landscape began to evolve. Ethereum, launched in 2015, marked a significant shift. It is worth noting that Ethereum was not the first project to add comprehensive new features to a cryptocurrency, but it was perhaps the most ambitious and in turn the most successful. While Bitcoin remained focused on being a “store of value” or “digital gold,” Ethereum brought programmability to the blockchain. Its introduction of smart contracts opened the door to decentralized applications (dApps), token economies, and new paradigms for blockchain use.
The Ethereum community, while also inspired by decentralization, was more experimental and tech-driven. The conversation shifted from overthrowing the financial system to building a decentralized future, one protocol at a time. To find Bitcoin appealing in the early days, you had to have a good reason. It was seen as a scam or as something dangerous that only drug dealers or money launderers would use. It was not seen as a legit form of money. Bitcoin was appealing to people who were eccentric: those who had suffered some sort of setbacks and hence found this alternative (counter-cultural) movement appealing.
New entrants since the launch of Ethereum have not necessarily followed a similar path and so their motivations are different. Ethereum brought a wider audience and also new ideologies that don't fit with the founding principles. So while on the one hand, Ethereum fostered a culture of innovation and experimentation there was also a loss in understanding. Too many have asked for censorship in the community, even if there is some reticence to force censorship upon the blockchain itself.
If the social layer pushes too heavily for censorship, and gets away with it, then it will happen at the technical level too. It is in large part thanks to Vitalik that Ethereum has managed to avoid that path. He was there in the early days of Bitcoin and keenly understood why not to take that path. This is not to say that Vitalik is infallible or a messiah, but he is someone worthy of a lot of respect.
However, there are deep ideological differences between many parts of the two communities. What they have in common is that the core ideals brought across to Ethereum by Vitalik.
A Reflection on Change, and another vibe shift in 2025?
Having been part of Bitcoin’s early community, I’ve seen how the movement has evolved. What once felt like a counter-cultural revolution now feels more like an industry. Bitcoin has matured as an asset. The ideological debates of the past evolved to cover new topics, although not always for the better. Technological progress stagnated on Bitcoin for many years, I don’t think that was for the better, but now in 2025, I see some attempts to correct that. Along the way I lost track of the conversations in the Bitcoin community.
As Bitcoin and Ethereum continue to coexist, I note that the original ideals that drew so many of us to Bitcoin are less prominent but not less relevant. Although the blockchain landscape has expanded significantly, the core principles of self-sovereignty, transparency, censorship-resistance and decentralization remain important as guiding principles.
If there are deviations from those principles there needs to be very good reasons. At least, that was my thesis for a long time. This recent cycle could be a nail in the coffin for idealism. People demanded speed and easy money, which doesn't require most of those ideals to be true.
In 2025, it seems like we may be in another vibe regime. The industry revolves around inflows to ETFs, regulatory changes in the US, plus the usual economic indicators of the US economy. This is a sign of maturity and indicates a further departure from the ideals of the early days. The principles that guided us to create better protocols seems no longer relevant. If the first vibe regime was 2009 - 2015, and the second 2015 - 2024, it could well be that a third regime started at the time the US approved spot Bitcoin ETS.
It is ironic that Bitcoin would have failed without it's ideals in the early days, but now it almost seems not to matter. The price of Bitcoin goes higher regardless. People build more products and protocols within the blockchain ecosystem, but it is a means to get paid rather than a means to build something that fits with the principles of the early days.