Bitcoin is energy ?
https://ift.tt/q7RgOsl
**Energy** is the potential to perform **labor**.
**Labor** is itself the practice of applying a **force** over a given **distance**.
These are the traditional Newtonian definitions.
These definitions may not fully account for recent knowledge that emerges out of nuclear physics, mostly over the last century. Furthermore, we should not expect these quantum things to become fully digested any time soon.
With a stash of Bitcoin being able to perform payments, we can indeed acknowledge a certain **similarity** with energy and labor.
In terms of mathematical structuralism, we could possibly try to approach this particular similarity as some kind of algebraic variety, abstract the common pattern out of both phenomena, and use it to **generalize the concept of energy-labor**.
This is based on the idea that words, in themselves, mean nothing. It is only because of their place in a particular structure that they acquire meaning.
Furthermore, it is very common for a structure to fail to commit its vocabulary to a single interpretation.
For example, the language of first-order logic is well known for this problem. In fact, first-order logic almost never commits a non-logical symbol to a single interpretation.
Thoralf Skolem hated that this property of first-order logic is generally considered to be a necessary consequence of his work:
> *https://ift.tt/9y7Lz6Q
> *Legend has it that Thoralf Skolem, up until the end of his life, was scandalized by the association of his name to a result of this type, which he considered an absurdity.*
**I kind of like Saylor’s hypothesis**, but I think it would be useful to try to formalize the similarity that he talks about. Doing so, requires quite a bit of work, and the devil will be in the details. Why doesn’t Saylor fund a small research project to help formalizing and disambiguating his views?
Cryptocurrency
