Abstract
This paper explores the bitcoin genesis block as a pivotal artefact, marking the intentional creation of blockchain technology, which challenges traditional evolutionary thought. By introducing a ‘trans-evolutionary’ perspective, it argues that blockchain’s development was and is not a product of evolutionary forces, but rather a deliberate act of human ingenuity with real non-random social, cultural, and economic implications. The genesis block exemplifies purposeful technological innovation, combining mathematical precision with visionary economic design to address the challenges of centralization, trust, and sustainable scalability in the digital era. Furthermore, this paper situates blockchain technology within broader discussions of decentralised systems, adaptability, and governance, highlighting its transformative potential across a wide range of industries. By embracing trans-evolutionary thinking, this study underscores the importance of human agency in shaping technological advancements, offering a framework to understand blockchain’s new, yet already meaningful impact on finance, society, and politics.
Keywords
Blockchain, Genesis Block, Innovation, Invention, Evolution, Revolution, Development, Extension, Emerging Technology, Priority Rule, Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin
Genesis Block and Trans-Evolutionary Thinking
The discussion about whether blockchain represents an evolutionary or revolutionary breakthrough has generated considerable interest. Many commentators agree that bitcoin and blockchain possesses transformative potential, capable of disrupting a variety of industries, including finance, governance, and supply chains. In this paper, we aim to shift the discussion towards a ‘trans-evolutionary’ understanding of bitcoin and blockchain technology.
Instead of framing blockchain as a sudden, radical innovation, we argue that it is a trans-evolutionary step in the larger trajectory of decentralised technologies, reflecting an observable progression in human technological development (cf. Narayanan & Clark, 2017). ‘Trans-evolutionary’ here refers to a paradigm of technological, social, or cultural development driven by intentional human design and purposeful innovation. It emphasizes contemporary and practical time frames rather than gradual, random processes rooted in distant historical eras.
The term ‘genesis block’ refers to the beginning of a blockchain, the first block in a digital accounting and information transacting ledger. Through coding and design, it marks the inception of a new digital economy and decentralised system of verifying assets. The bitcoin blockchain’s genesis block represents not just a technical artifact, but also an intentional human creation that embodies a practical economic philosophy. Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, was the architect of this pivotal block, which, though it stands as a singularity in blockchain technology, has profound implications for both the future of digital currency and the way we understand technology and money in human society.
While we still do not know Satoshi’s real identity, whether he is an individual or perhaps a small group, the significance of his work is already beyond dispute, even if it is not completely understood, nor its implications yet entirely clear. Nakamoto’s groundbreaking white paper, titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” was published online on November 1st, 2008 (or October 31st, depending on time zone). The first block, known as the genesis block, was ‘mined’ on January 3rd, 2009. What happened in between, and in the first few weeks after Jan. 3rd, 2009, is largely, though not entirely, unknown.
These two foundational events - the publication of the white paper and the mining of the genesis block - cannot be properly understood through the lens of traditional evolutionary theories, such as those found in the natural-physical sciences. These theories often use methodologies that assume randomness, lack of direction, or purpose. Evolutionary models focus on processes driven by external factors, acting without specific agents or conscious intention. However, the creation of the bitcoin blockchain was not a random or passive event, and it did not happen ‘gradually’ in a sense of ‘over generations,’ or even over more than a couple of years. Rather, it was the result of intentional human design, driven by specific goals and actions by an unknown individual, perhaps with a small team of knowing or unknowing helpers, who we now know as “Satoshi Nakamoto.” This was not simply an ‘evolutionary’ creation; it was the work of deliberate innovation over an extended period.
The term ‘revolutionary’ might even be applied to Nakamoto’s invention (Casey & Vigna, 2015; Buitenhek, 2016; Künnapas, 2016; Tapscotts, 2016; Fenwick, Kaal & Vermeulen, 2017; Chakraborty, 2018; Demirbas, Gewald & Moos, 2018; Halaburda, 2018; Town, 2018), given its potential to disrupt traditional systems of finance and global economic structures. However, the historical emergence of bitcoin cannot be understood merely by calling it a ‘revolution’ either. While it signifies a profound technical achievement, the product of careful thought, planning, and, most significantly, human innovation, the notion of ‘revolution’ is typically linked to impact, of which we arguably haven’t yet seen on a mass scale in the bitcoin and blockchain space.
Jamie Redman, in his retrospective reflection on the genesis block, highlighted its importance as “the starting point for the bitcoin blockchain on its path to becoming a revolutionary network for peer-to-peer transfers of value.” (2017) This characterization of the genesis block encapsulates its significance: it was not merely a technical achievement, but also a major intervention in the world of finance, one that offered a challenge to existing systems of centralized financial control. However, while Redman’s statement speaks to the potential social and economic impact of bitcoin, this paper’s focus is not on its broader societal effects, but rather on the historical, technical, and foundational aspects of the genesis block and their implications for understanding new blockchain business development.
In the domain of science and technology studies, the placement of blockchain in the Gartner ‘hype cycle’ offers another lens through which to view its development trajectory. Initially, blockchain technology was not even included in the hype cycle; it was only associated with terms like ‘cryptocurrencies’ and ‘cryptocurrency exchange.’ By 2017, however, blockchain had entered the cycle just past the ‘peak of inflated expectations,’ signaling a growing recognition of its utility. By 2024, Gartner had separated Web3 and blockchain into their own specific hype cycle, reflecting the growing maturity and application of blockchain technology beyond speculative interests. This trajectory – from speculation to significant technological development – raises an interesting question: Does blockchain technology reflect an ‘evolution’ driven by external pressures, or is it the product of focused, intentional development?
Figure 1. “Hype Cycle for Web3 and Blockchain,” Gartner (2024)
The answer, from the perspective of trans-evolutionary thinking, is clear. The creation of the genesis block was a conscious act of human ingenuity, not a process of random evolution, either natural, cultural, or social. This is particularly evident when we consider that Satoshi Nakamoto not only wrote the white paper and coded the protocol, but also enabled mining the 21 million bitcoins as part of the block creation process. This was not the result of blind evolutionary forces; rather, it was a trans-evolutionary phenomenon, one that has intentionally shaped the future of digital currency. The same holds, however, for every transaction that an individual user makes on a digital blockchain ledger, which contributes to the overall realm and reach of digital currency.
The choice of the term ‘trans-evolutionary’ (Sandstrom, 2016) is purposeful, as it underscores the distinction between unguided evolutionary processes and intentional innovation, as most easily evident in the notion of ‘human extension’ (Sandstrom, 2010), which first drew on the work of Marshall McLuhan in culture, technology and media studies, before applying it more widely in social sciences and humanities. The distinction between ‘evolutionary’ and ‘trans-evolutionary’ suggests that the creation of bitcoin and its blockchain are a human-driven phenomenon (Sandstrom, 2017, 2021) that transcends traditional evolutionary thinking (Wilson, 2007; Wright, 2018), which often ignores the role of human agency in technological development for more externalistic explanations.
Some proponents of evolutionary theories in blockchain (Rose, 2015; Easley, O’Hara, & Basu, 2017; ElBahrawy et al., 2017; Hegadekatti, 2017; Trujillo et al., 2017; Dhaliwal, 2018; Douthit, 2018; Hedera Hashgraph Team, 2018; Narayanan, 2018; Sahlstrom, 2018) tend to view blockchain’s development as part of a larger, strictly natural process. These views typically fail to account for the intentional choices and actions made by those developing blockchain technologies, as well as the rationale they give for their choices and actions in doing so. Blockchain is, of course, not an organic, spontaneous phenomenon that simply emerged from the environment; it is instead the result of human creativity and innovative vision. Nakamoto’s invention of the genesis block demonstrates that bitcoin and blockchain technology are deeply tied to human decision-making and intentional programming that is linked to the social, economic, and political world around us.
Furthermore, understanding the role of timestamping in blockchain technology is crucial for recognizing the intentional, human-driven character of bitcoin’s creation. Timestamping serves to verify the completion of blocks, ensuring the immutability and integrity of the blockchain. As Nakamoto stated in the original bitcoin white paper (2008), “A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash.” This method not only serves to validate the blockchain, but also eliminates any speculative claims about the technology’s track record, and in the case of bitcoin, also the digital currency’s origin. The technique of timestamping proves that the creation of bitcoin, starting with the genesis block, was a deliberate act, not a random event, which could be verified through a kind of public accounting.
One unique feature of the genesis block is that, unlike all subsequent blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, it does not reference a previous block. This reinforces the idea that the genesis block is the origin, the starting point of the blockchain. Its isolation from other blocks emphasizes its foundational role in the bitcoin network. This feature of the genesis block is also significant because it aligns with the larger argument against evolutionary explanations for the origin of bitcoin and blockchain. If blockchain technology ‘evolved’ into existence, that would imply there was no intentional starting point to it; the genesis block would simply be another unplanned step in a long emergent evolutionary process. Instead, the genesis block stands as the unique one-of-a-kind product of a conscious decision on a short time scale to create something new and potentially revolutionary with P2P electronic cash, digital currency.
Though Nakamoto introduced the concept of a ‘block’ in the bitcoin white paper, he did not use the term ‘genesis block’ to describe the first block of the chain. This term, along with the concept of a ‘blockchain,’ was coined later, underscoring the updating and growing history with decentralised ledger terminology. However, the core idea of the genesis block remains unchanged: it is the first block in a chain of verified transactions on a shared ledger, and the product of intentional economic or information value transfer action.
The significance of the genesis block extends beyond technical topics involving blockchain and reaches into broader philosophical and cultural discussions. One of the key issues raised by the genesis block is the challenge it poses to the notion of ‘evolutionary’ thinking in technological development. Bitcoin and blockchain technology are the products of human choice and intentionality, not evolutionary forces acting without direction or purpose. The development of bitcoin cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of ‘evolution’ because it was driven by Satoshi’s vision, decisions, and actions. As blockchain technology continues to be developed, it is essential to recognize the role of human agency in its development. Without the genesis block, there can be no blockchain, i.e., no decentralised ledger, no bitcoin.
In this sense, blockchain technology represents a clear rejection of purely evolutionary explanations for technological progress. Evolutionary models often downplay or ignore the role of human agency, instead attributing technological advancements to environmental pressures or unintentional mutations. The term ‘evolution’ has been so widely used and often abused in certain fields of study, such that it has come to mean almost everything (Wilson, 2007; Ridley, 2015), and therefore nothing much of anything of value at all, as Smith (2018-2022) and Maung (2024) have revealed in challenging the subfields of ‘evolutionary psychology’ and ‘evolutionary psychiatry’ as ‘impossible.’ Thus, we can state with even greater economic sociological confidence that bitcoin’s creation was not the result of an unguided evolutionary process; it was the result of concentrated, thoughtful action by Satoshi Nakamoto. As such, the genesis block serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of human intention in shaping the technologies that define our world.
The challenge, then, is not merely to recognize that the genesis block represents an intentional act of creation, but to acknowledge the broader implications of this recognition, and the understanding that comes with it for how we think about technological innovation in society and culture. In the context of bitcoin and blockchain, can we move beyond the outdated and misaligned framework of evolutionary thinking and embrace a new model of trans-evolutionary change? This would require recognizing the role of intentional, purposeful human action in shaping the development of technologies like blockchain and understanding that the path forward is not one of blind or wasteful evolution, but rather of deliberate extension seeking sustainable innovation.
Trans-Evolutionary thinking about Blockchain Technology
In our exploration of the genesis block and its significance in the context of blockchain technology, it is crucial to expand on the term ‘trans-evolutionary.’ This new concept invites a reconsideration of the very character of technological development. In contrast to traditional evolutionary thinking, which often reduces innovation to random selection and natural progression, trans-evolutionary thinking recognizes the active role of human design, choice, and purposeful invention in social and cultural change and stability. This shift in perspective aligns well with the creation of blockchain, a disruptive technology that has its origins in a carefully constructed, deliberate act, i.e., the mining of the blockchain’s first block, the ‘genesis block.’ The bitcoin blockchain, and any ‘blockchain’ following it, starts in this way as a public artefact with a (its) genesis block.
Trans-evolutionary thinking does not simply acknowledge that human beings are involved in technological creation, invention, innovation, and usage. Rather, it invites us to rethink how we view the overall general and specific trajectory of technological progress and its purpose, as well as the development process itself. In the case of bitcoin and blockchain, the somewhat common narrative of ‘technological evolution’ as a gradual, undirected, random process of change-over-time in a ‘struggle for survival’ or ‘survival of the fittest’ approach now seems impossibly inadequate, or at best incomplete. Instead, the creation of the genesis block itself represents a decisive break from conventional evolutionary thinking and invites us to rethink technology in more intentional, forward-looking, user-centric terms. In a blockchain system, “the user is the content,” as Marshall McLuhan once suggested (Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder, 1976). Blockchain technology can thus best be understood not merely as the result of unpredictable changes in the social environment, but rather as the product of a deeply thoughtful intervention by its creator(s), who sought to address the challenges of centralization, trust, and security in digital transactions for digital currency users around the world.
One of the most significant aspects of blockchain technology, and a reason it resonates so deeply with proponents of trans-evolutionary thought, is its rejection of centralized control. The decentralization of blockchain ecosystems is one of their defining features. This means that each node in the network is an independent entity, working together to validate transactions without relying on any central authority. In many ways, this decentralization can be seen as a manifestation of trans-evolutionary thinking. While traditional systems are built around centralized command structures, blockchain represents a measured break from that model, opting instead for an ecosystem economy in which trust is distributed, not concentrated around a single authority. This change in organisational structure reflects a larger shift in the way we now understand technology, which is no longer seen as the product of deterministic environmental forces alone. Rather, many people now see technology as a creative human-driven innovation layer in societies that often challenges the ‘natural’ status quo, even as it seeks to improve efficiency ‘technically’ through logistics, new tools and equipment, and opportunities for time-saving automation.
Externalist evolutionary theories of blockchain, which often equate technological advancement to a Darwinian process of ‘natural selection,’ would instead diminish the role of human agency in the creation and development of blockchain technology. Such theories may even suggest that Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin, was merely a passive observer of a broader evolutionary trend, rather than an active agent shaping the course of technological history. This perspective aligns with the notion that “we are all Satoshi” (Project Prometheus), which, while inspiring as a community mantra, at the same time obscures the unique individual trailblazing contribution Nakamoto made, alone or as part of a small group.
A more accurate understanding of blockchain’s origins recognizes the intentional and deliberate actions of individuals building technology. Satoshi Nakamoto, through their coding and innovative design, brought bitcoin into existence. This act of creation was not an agentless event, due to a kind of historical determinism, but rather a free product of human ingenuity and perseverance, as was Nakamoto’s willingness to answer questions about it and brainstorm solutions with other developers for the next two years. The subsequent development of blockchain technology has similarly been driven by the concerted efforts of countless developers, researchers, and entrepreneurs who have learned from Satoshi’s contribution of the bitcoin blockchain.
Rather, in saying that everyone counts as their own ‘Satoshi,’ this serves to challenge the foundational logic of the entire ‘evolutionary’ theory of bitcoin and blockchain origins. Did the surrounding environment alone technologically determine and result in the invention and innovation of blockchain? Or was it the individual mind and will of Satoshi Nakamoto, or of someone else specific, who over a period of several months sat down, rolled up their programming sleeves, and coded bitcoin? The so-called ‘priority rule in science’ (Strevens, 2003) seems to likewise also apply to the invention of bitcoin, such that we are still asking about the ‘Arago effect’ of who was the first to make the big advance in the field of digital currency, following the likes of Adam Back and Wei Dai, both mentioned in the white paper, as well as others like David Chaum and Nick Szabo, who had previously made attempts that had failed or not fully been built.
If we do not wish to dehumanize Satoshi, then we won’t claim that bitcoin ‘evolved into existence’ without any human guidance or planning. Likewise, we cannot in good faith contend that Satoshi had little part in the process of creating bitcoin, but rather that he was the driving and directing force behind blockchain technology. Thus, our Arago effect trailblazer is and always will be ‘Satoshi Nakamoto,’ whoever he/they is/are.
Acknowledging ‘trans-evolutionary change’ allows us to help protect the rightful identity of inventors and innovators, and thereby to avoid the logically unappealing and dehumanising dilemma of a having to agnostically posit a ‘creator-less creation.’ This type of agnosticism makes sense with ‘human extension’ (Sandstrom 2010, 2021), which reveals and involves the nexus of human choices resulting in actions. The process of trans-evolutionary change can be measured by human extension in the case of blockchain technology, first, through Satoshi’s invention and innovation, then through the immutable on-chain (public) record that extends from all the transactions that occur on a blockchain. Thus, instead of focusing on a ‘unit of selection’ in terms of ‘evolutionary change,’ we can centre our attention on choices and (trans)actions as units of trans-evolutionary change that drive the longest chain, i.e. shared ledger for information and currency.
As Satoshi wrote in the white paper, (honest) “[n]odes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it.” Thus, in this sense we include Satoshi as an ‘extension thinker,’ and the bitcoin blockchain as an example of an extension service through the timestamp server. To rephrase the once controversial title by Theodosius Dobzhansky about the modern evolutionary synthesis in biology (1973), adapted with different language for technology, we can now say that nothing in blockchain makes sense, except in the light of extension (services), which is shown most directly by timestamping*.*
Incorporating trans-evolutionary thinking into the discourse involving blockchain technology also requires a re-evaluation of the role that institutions and governments play in social and technological innovation. One of the most striking aspects of blockchain ecosystems is their relative independence from traditional financial and governmental systems. The decentralising and recentralising feature of blockchains with ‘public’ ledgers (cf. triple entry accounting) allows them to operate outside the direct control of any one single entity, thereby creating a new type of cross-border interdependent ‘sovereignty’ that we are only on the verge of learning what it means at mass scale. This new interdependence means that blockchains do not exist in isolation; rather, they function as part of a larger ecosystem in which governments, financial institutions, and private actors all have a stake in the technology’s development, directed focus for local problem solving, and eventual mass deployment.
As blockchain technology solutions continue to emerge, governments and institutions will increasingly need to adapt to the new digital economic circumstances and opportunities they pose. The rise of decentralised finance (DeFi), for example, presents a direct challenge to established financial systems, raising questions about regulation, taxation, fiscal, and monetary policy. While blockchain is often celebrated for its potential to disrupt traditional systems of finance, the technology’s growth obviously has not been symmetrical across multiple jurisdictions and will require new forms of governance and regulation to suit local conditions. Trans-evolutionary thinking suggests that these challenges can be addressed not through top-down government control alone, but via competitively collaborative citizen-led efforts and decentralised communities (e.g. decentralised science; DeSci) that balance innovation with regulation, creating a new more symbiotic model of digital era information governance that is both decentralised and responsive to individuals recentralising in the ecosystem.
The potential for blockchain to facilitate new forms of teamwork, management, and more sustainable organizational structure is one of the most exciting aspects of the technology. Whether through decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs), still in their infancy, or other potential forms of distributed governance, blockchain technology offers new ways of thinking about how decisions are made and how power is distributed. This possibility for new governance structures reflects the trans-evolutionary character of blockchain technology. Rather than simply evolving in response to external pressures, blockchain allows for the intentional creation of new nodes, communities, and decentralised ecosystems that are better suited to face the challenges of the electronic-information era.
The decentralising and recentralising feature of blockchain technology usage has far-reaching implications for the coming future of democracy, national sovereignty, and governance. As blockchain technology continues to mature and be used for solving problems, it has the potential to reshape how societies operate, how people interact with each other, how we vote, and how resources are allocated. By providing a means for individuals and communities to broadcast their voices, alert others, and to govern themselves without relying on central authorities, with blockchain we now have the power to create more transparent, accountable, and equitable systems if we can harness the right attention and focus our efforts on building and achieving common goals.
The notion of a ‘genesis’ (‘in the beginning’) block taken into context can thus be recovered as a ‘trans-evolutionary’ aspect of the digital economy, verifiable by timestamps in the case of blockchains. We are not compelled to inevitably suffer from an ideology that has become damaging and that divorces human reality from personal participation in it, with such a perspective having significant consequences involving our social responsibility and actions. It is understood that recognising this suggests over-turning one of the main analogous ideas about society and change that a considerable number of scholars have held and believed in their entire careers. In other words, without the genesis block, there can be no blockchain. Therefore, the only way there could possibly be an ‘evolutionary’ explanation of the origin of the genesis block is if there is none and never was any person ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ because ‘blockchain evolved into existence without a creator.’
The genesis block, as the artefactual starting point of the bitcoin blockchain and all subsequent blockchains, puts to rest this tired and irresponsible suggestion. It represents not just a technical milestone, but a general conceptual discovery for human understanding and practical application. It also displays what here was framed as a direct act of trans-evolutionary thinking that challenges evolutionary models of technological development, now stuck in seemingly outdated ideas. By embracing a forward looking trans-evolutionary perspective, we can better understand the active responsible choice-driven potential of blockchain and its ability to revolutionize not just finance, but the way we think about governance, power, and trust in society and culture. The genesis block and blockchain built by Satoshi Nakamoto thus marks what we consider as a trans-evolutionary event of major significance in human history, surely to be celebrated as both a monumental achievement and considerable challenge with profound economic and social effects for the foreseeable future.