Decentralized Violence, Mass Adoption and Revolution

Part 9 of 12 — Blockchain: Decentralization of Money, Power and the State Originally written as a History BA thesis, academic year 2021–2022. Published online August 2026. Series index → · References & bibliography →

Decentralized violence

What is military and what is not is bound to change. A drone or a robot can be used for military purposes: who commands them, if there is no longer a state? If institutional hierarchies cease to exist, how can military ones exist? A robot, as a machine, needs a login, a user and a password; or, to return to cryptography, it needs a private key and a public key. Those who have access to the private key can command robots and give them instructions. Small robots are populating our homes: some, camouflaged with the furnishings, show nothing but the features for which they were bought/sold; they clean the house or allow people to order things online. Much more complex robots, at all told low figures, are about to appear in our lives. It does not matter whether they will look like humans, or instead resemble discs that clean floors: they are robots over which one has no real control. What would happen if these robots were associated with smart contracts?

Association to a smart contract can also be made by humans-this is what we refer to in the Revolutions section. The common intent of a group of people, an intent that is difficult to achieve in a context where trust is required, will become easier to formulate and then to achieve. As the logics due to decentralization become understood by a significant proportion of people, there may also be likely to be violent processes: there are very few Silla who, once they have obtained power, voluntarily relinquish it. Those in political control, or those outside of it who maintain a status quo, would never want to dispose of it: those, however, who stand to gain by a change of currency would see a chance for real change in the world. This war, which is currently being waged by regulation, could also result in violent clashes. The monopoly of force, belonging to the state, could be used to thwart decentralized systems, in a reactionary and predictable manner.

Precisely because of the centralized and hierarchical nature of our social and political system, it is far more delicate than a decentralized system. The return of violence, although not desirable, seems to be foreshadowed the moment new emerging forces suffer attempts at repression.

It has already been seen how it is possible, in theory, to establish a decentralized state by creating a currency. This would be an incomplete state, not so much because it is decentralized: although distributed, the members of that state would still hold parcels of physical land. What would be needed would be a parastatal organization, whose goal would be to provide for what the state took care of before. It has also already been explained how it is possible to create the most imaginative rules regarding decisionmaking systems: a government can be formed by one person, to whom everyone delegates, or have forms of representativeness and forms of direct democracy. People can be drawn from among all citizens, or from all those with certain skills. The association of smart contracts and electronics can also envision dystopian uses, as described in the short article Smart Liens¹ by Nick Szabo, in which he theorizes about linking a kind of anti-pacemaker for the heart, inserted into the bodies of politicians, to smart contracts. In this way the people, according to the author, could always revoke their delegation of power and be the judge of their actions. This would not be all that different, as far as judgment upon completion of the mandate is concerned, from what was already done in medieval municipalities with the podesta: that is, a figure outside the city who was entrusted with political power and who, upon completion of the mandate, was subject to judgment on his actions. This example is cited precisely for its dystopian use. It is interesting to reflect on what is possible in terms of will: for example, the will of individuals becomes, with crowdfunding, the will of a collection of individuals; what was not possible because of complexity becomes possible because of ease. This ease in coordinating, in organizing to collaborate, will of course not only have lights: projects for humanitarian purposes that have emerged from below, are managed from below and experienced from below will be able to see the light of day; however, where there is dissatisfaction, frustration and ignorance-and in humanity this has never been lackingthere would also be movements from below with absolutely nobler purposes: what was possible in the past will be simplified in the future. The millions of deaths in the last century make one reflect on humankind's capacity to destroy even when at the height of material well-being.

Mass adoption and revolution

How can blockchain ecosystems hope to achieve mass adoption? The road to mass adoption is already underway; it is proceeding in institutions in a centralized way and among enthusiasts in a decentralized way. What is clear is that institutions have no intention of allowing a system that is decentralized at the logical level, and thus changes power relations, to survive. Decentralization, physical and geographic, is a plus for any power system because it ensures its own survival of revolutions. Those in the past who have struck at constituted power have often destroyed the documents by which that power legitimized its ties. In revolutions there is an attempt to overthrow power and, often, to replace it. As the first symbol of the annihilation of power there is the splitting of bonds and duties expressed in written form. And this is what happened during the French Revolution, a time when most documents related to the feudal era disappeared-a great loss for historians, but a great liberation for the people who lived through those eventful times.

Balaji argues how two leviathans have existed, guarding human action. The first was God, the second was the State, and now a third is being added, cryptography.² First one did not steal for fear of God, then one did not steal for fear of the State, and finally one does not steal because cryptography does not allow it. Beyond the simplification (and multiplication of Leviathans), what is interesting is the analysis that can be made of these Leviathans. Hobbes' Leviathan held political and religious power together, and was composed of all the individuals who signed the contract: the state, as it still is today, had a monopoly on violence; only the state can exert force-legally-on an individual. What will happen to violence in a blockchain context? It will follow the natural evolution of the network: the network moves, the network thinks, the network funds. It is no coincidence that the word crowdfunding originated in 2006, a time when the Internet was already underway: this term refers to mass, bottom-up funding following the presentation of an idea or project. Crowdfunding campaigns over the years have been numerous, going on to fund multi-figure business or humanitarian entities. What could happen with decentralized blockchain ecosystems would be contract-based violence. Currently, this is already the case in reality and on the Internet: it is no secret that, thanks to cryptography, which allows systems like Tor to work, it is possible to hire people on the dark-web to carry out criminal actions without detection.

Individual people, or teams of people, could sign a smart-contract independently, or participate in a selection in which case they would be forces institutionalized by the decentralized state. One would go on to create armies of contractors, that is, mercenaries-but not only mercenaries-in the service of a virtual community, that is, a decentralized state: state violence commissioned in collective terms. New ways of life could be programmed in a painstaking manner and thus applied: the main peculiarity of blockchain systems, that is, that they constitute trustless social networks, in which trust in other human beings is not necessary, would allow them to agree even on big issues. Indeed, trust must be placed in technology, particularly cryptography. This positivist expression is not unlike religious systems, in which the believer is required to have faith. However, this faith is written in a contract, is signed and cannot be torn up.

Planning the revolution

The very term revolution tends to attach great importance to a period or event in history, so much so that it therefore changes its course. Revolution is for so many people a goal, a life purpose, yet how many of them have actually seen or will ever see revolution? Often our social pyramid changes, just as it did with the French Revolution, which saw the rise of the modern bourgeoisie and the decline of the nobility and clergy. As digital life mixes with analog life, making the former increasingly unrecognizable from the latter, many activities that were once done live will be facilitated by computers. Revolutions will be able to be programmed in a decentralized way and start as soon as there are sufficient conditions: this is essentially a self-triggering process. Smart contracts, which are triggered when certain conditions are met, could also be applied in what concerns revolutionary activity. An analog revolution can only happen when a certain number of people are willing to make it: this motivated minority, if spontaneous, often has very big problems in coordinating and agreeing, succeeding in the intent only by adopting hierarchical principles that, until proven otherwise, have always led only to a reshuffling of the pyramid. If the revolution is piloted by other powerful countries, as has happened so many times in contemporary times, it is nothing but imperialism, often propagandized with an attitude of peacewashing. In both cases the term 'revolution' loses its meaning: what change can a change of helmsman bring, if not marginal? A smart contract, that is, a program written on the blockchain and unchangeable, could enable unbreakable agreements. Anyone who wanted the revolution could choose their own, posing a proactive rather than an adversarial attitude. Exactly as we choose to install the application of a particular payment system instead of another (Stripe, Paypal, Satispay, just to name a few), it will be possible to install the ecosystem to which one wants to give value. The companies just mentioned owe their great value to the very large user base present, just as is the case with social networks. Users believe in Paypal, they believe in the Facebook entity, just as they believe in the dollar, in a religion or in their own state: it does not matter whether the object of trust is a store of value or social. Even people who would like to do without using the tools of the world's largest companies in terms of revenue on a daily basis are forced to do so. Yet if, overnight, there were a migration from centralized to decentralized social networks, these large companies would cease to exist. Signing up for an ethical, decentralized social network these days allows people to voice dissent, but in an almost futile way, often leading to a cut-off from digital sociality because of the small user base.

How to make this revolution happen? Let's see it with a practical example.

Imagine being opposed to these very large digital monopolies and simply clicking on a button that could migrate you to a more ethical social network (decentralized, one that does not steal data, etc.). The migration, which would be meaningless in case you are the only one who wants it, thus finding yourself in an infrequently used social network, would only begin the moment a congruent number of people join. The technical details, environmental and economic sustainability (any programmers, social network administrators, computational resources and electricity) would be minutely planned upstream by the community. It would consist of all those people who voluntarily wanted to take charge of solving these problems. Decisions, made collectively and without the possibility of veto (in fact, there is always the possibility of a fork), would enable concrete actions in decision-making, allowing anyone to build their own world. One morning we will get up, the smart contract will be activated, and the revolution will happen: whether it is a simple change in the infrastructure behind a social network, or a paradigm shift in society, the world from that moment will be different.

The revolution just a click away

It is not utopian to imagine a phone application, or what other device will be used in the future, on the screen of which the following question will appear: 'Do you want to have a revolution?' It will be enough to click 'Yes' or 'No,' and then specify, as in any online form, whether the revolution we are interested in is democratic, communist, socialist, anarchist, liberal, or what other ideology we are interested in or has already been invented. One can, of course, also create one from scratch! In all likelihood, the political systems mentioned will be obsolete, and the conceptual categories of political philosophy will change. Unlike revolutions in the past, humans will not have to trust each other, but simply fill out, transparently and collaboratively, a new constitution on smart contracts. It will be like founding a state! Contracts, whether between individuals or between nations, serve to objectively establish a commitment, rights and obligations between two parties. The sayings 'Verba volant, scripta manent,' or 'clear covenants and long friendship' sum up very well the intent of these written agreements. Contracts, like any other rule or law, are also useful when both parties want to abide by them, and that is when one finds oneself in the position of having to abide by them. It is no secret that contracts sanctioned in the past, even the most important ones, have been subject to backsliding by contractors as the balance of power changed. Imagining a signed contract between people who do not know each other and have never seen each other was unthinkable until recently, but it is already the norm the moment one accesses an app or website. What will happen is the creation of platforms that will allow complete strangers to agree in a concise and non-misinterpretable manner. Currently, a contract is often written with the intent of providing cues to lawyers so that they can then, at their leisure, use or cancel it. Instead, the written code is executed by a machine always in the same way, there is no personal interpretation, and perhaps this would have finally made Leibniz happy and the friends of the person who said, "For enemies laws are applied, for friends they are interpreted." a little more unhappy. This is a famous phrase attributed to Giolitti and which, blatantly, highlights a problem: laws are not objective. In a world in which blockchain becomes commonly used, and culturally there is knowledge of the technical workings and social implications, we would also see new revolutionary scenarios, perhaps quite different from what we have already seen in history, but whose roots spring from the seed of injustice. A revolution that is by no means spontaneous, prepared down to the last detail and accepted by individuals, is thus possible. Anonymity would guarantee that one could agree with other revolutionaries or coup makers, without knowing each other at all and without ever necessarily having to expose oneself. It is possible to imagine a kind of poll conducted digitally: would you like to adopt shells as the new currency? If only a few people click yes at that instant, nothing would happen. If, however, more people were to join, and upon reaching a certain threshold, that is when the contract could be activated and there would be no chance for the signatories to change their minds. A smart contract, that is, a contract saved on the blockchain and distributed among all the nodes would be a guarantor of the agreements and any penalties.

Revolutions on blockchain can take shape in many different ways, difficult to analyze all of them. However, it is important to know how simply creating immodifiable contracts allows decisions to be locked in over time, preventing overwriting of subsequent agreements. It is not yet clear whether some virtual currencies will prevail over others (see Bitcoin and Ethereum above all), nor which protocols will be used, nor whether logical decentralization will have a way of imposing itself. What is certain is the potential of digital, which, thanks to its great speed and with the help of cryptography will allow the creation of algorithms that could be used to lay the foundations of new societies. Even when using centralized cryptocurrency systems, such as those proposed by the various national and international institutions (CBDC), information technology would enable a quick transition to a decentralized form through a system of digitally signed contracts and which, through redirections between various specially created platforms, could resemble a Chinese box system.

Reaction

To make an analysis of the possible revolutionary actions allowed at the technical level, without also providing for reactions, would be to see only one side of the coin. Every empire, and by this term we mean here a kingdom extending over a vast territory, has had a phase of growth and a phase of decline. Centralization of power occurs during the growth phase, and there is hardly any relinquishment of the exercise of power, or renunciation of a status quo by the ruling class. It has already been explained several times what a fork is, how in blockchains there can be soft forks or hard forks, depending on whether the change made by some of the nodes is compatible with the rest of the nodes or whether there is an actual split. From a political perspective a soft fork can be seen as the creation of a 'current' within a political party, while the hard fork as the splitting of a party in two. When we talk about domination and power, it is easy to hear the saying divide and rule: we usually refer to the creation of internal divisions within a group, and how the resulting quarrels can serve to destabilize what would otherwise be a compact and, therefore, much stronger enemy. There are, however, other forms of divide and rule, slightly different but leading to the same result. Oedipus himself, as well portrayed in Pasolini's film, runs pursued by multiple enemies, who, however, grow weary and, from being the group they were, become individual combatants, over whom Oedipus succeeds in gaining the upper hand. When we talk about blockchain and consensus, we have to consider a kind of democratic functioning, in which the majority always wins. The minority must therefore choose whether to accept defeat and remain part of the system or to walk away from it, rejecting it. However, the majority also has an interest in ensuring that the minority does not remain dissatisfied, as the minority may abandon it: this is the way to remain united.

← Previous: Internet of Value, Social Credit and Rewinding Time · Series index · References · Next: Decentralized States: Governance, Traditions, Faith and Nations →