Digital currency, under the wider blockchain application, has been known to demystify certain misconceptions about its user and technical capabilities. The definition, history, and uses of blockchain technology are discretional and opaque. The digital currency debate has had various interpretations, and questions asked on its efficiencies and role in major economies. The rhetorical questions in digital currency emanate from a wider discussion on blockchain technology and its rhetorical position in establishing its use. Therefore, various criteria such as momentum, design, functional requirements, and trust are effectively conceptualized to understand digital currency.
Technology’s momentum is the comprehensive and considerable commitments of money, expertise, pride, political power, and other supporting technologies (Bellinger, 2018). However, a user case may depend on the blockchain’s momentum to explain Bitcoin and whether they understand the purpose of the blockchain’s momentum. The public is unaware of the creator of Bitcoin and thus does not understand the true purpose of the technology. Therefore, the public is putting itself at risk of digital currency risks and something that could have maliciously been created. Further, it could culminate into an initial technological variation of momentum, thus revealing more dependable origins and possibly isolating malicious cases.
Blockchain design is a further consideration for a rhetorical understanding of digital currency. The technological design process varies among various uses, and the rhetorical component is highly discussed. Language is a major consideration for the comprehension of blockchain design. Authors discuss a design to facilitate a particular outcome (Belllinger, 2018). Sometimes, concepts are not effectively explained on how necessary blockchain is. Additionally, the blockchain concept does not effectively deal with future eventualities.
Functional requirements are tied to the users and technical requirements. Users depend on the technicalities of the blockchain as they rely on experience, technical knowledge, and affinity. Blockchain use assumes the intended user. However, functional requirements are sometimes not within the technical grasp of the user (Baldwin, 2018). Consequently, issues of misuse and training arise for regulatory and societal changes. Further, if a user trusts the technology blindly for processes to be completed, it will be hard to note the real expectations of blockchain.
Trust also constitutes a fundamental concept of rhetorical analysis of digital currency. It is critical in the decentralization promise of blockchain. Technological advocates assert that trust is the primary concern with centralized systems. However, they note that blockchain forms the solution due to its intrinsic capability to achieve trust. It is argued that mistrust can be costly enough, thus leading to crises. When blockchain comes into the discourse, it is assumed that its technology will be key in replacing centralized and traditional business processes because it is built for that particular purpose. Furthermore, blockchain’s technological components, distributed record-keeping, and algorithmic consensus are trustworthy (Bellinger, 2018). However, the two have a distinctive form of trust they rely on. Consensus trust is based on a non-entity governing the process, while record-keeping trust is immutable. Also, if one component is not effectively working, it is impossible to validate a transaction. Therefore, trust cannot be used to understand blockchain since that is entirely up to the user and the application.
Conclusion
Generally, understanding digital currency needs facts and the demystification of known myths over the years. Its definition has been utilized to assert that anyone can access it based on the technical capabilities of the design. However, the end user does not pose any issue in this case. Rhetorically, the public could be highly technical in comprehending blockchain and its components. Therefore, this would mean that individuals do not realize that blockchain is also a database. However, technology is yet to ensure redesign or trust with its developmental route.
References
Baldwin, J. (2018). In digital we trust: Bitcoin discourse, digital currencies, and decentralized network fetishism. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1–10.
Bellinger, M. C. (2018). The Rhetoric of Bitcoin: Money, Politics, and the Construction of Blockchain Communities (Doctoral dissertation).
write