When Infinite Players Play Finite Games
Infinite players do not avoid finite games. To avoid all finite games in the course of one’s life would be virtually impossible. However, because of the difference in frame of the infinite player, their play in finite games can differ from the play of a finite player.
“Infinite players do not eschew [...] finite play. On the contrary, they enter into finite games with all the appropriate energy and self-veiling [the necessary suspension of the awareness that the game is a finite game, and optionally played], but they do so without the seriousness of finite players. They embrace the abstractness of finite games as abstractions and therefore take them up not seriously, but playfully.” (p 14)
When infinite players engage in finite play, like the BTC digital gold or influence games, they do so without the seriousness of finite players and instead with an often unexpected open playfulness.
“To be playful is not to be trivial or frivolous, or to act as though nothing of consequence will happen. On the contrary, when we are playful with each other we relate as free persons, and the relationship is open to surprise; everything that happens is of consequence. It is, in fact, seriousness that closes itself to consequence, for seriousness is a dread of the unpredictable outcome of open possibility. To be serious is to press for a specified conclusion. To be playful is to allow for possibility whatever the cost to yourself.” (p 15)
This playfulness can confuse finite players who don’t understand how another player could be behaving in such a manner when, for them, the stakes seem much higher. The stakes may indeed be high, but for the finite player the stakes seem higher only because they are committed to a specific outcome. Remember, the finite player often forgets that they can choose not to play and that there exist bigger (both finite and infinite) games.
An example used by Carse is of someone playing the finite game of being a lawyer. They can at any moment choose to stop playing lawyer, however, if they wish to remain playing the role of lawyer there are constraints and boundaries on their behavior. The lawyer that decides he must continue to play this role will close himself off from open possibility. The lawyer that is open to the unpredictable may find that sacrificing his role as lawyer is a potential move available that's advantageous to another game.
Returning to BTC, take for example the thought leader/potential Master Player. He avoids the unknown as he needs a specific conclusion, most likely for his digital gold to earn him more dollars. If as a thought leader he is indeed a Master Player, this conclusion will be as-if prior knowledge for him. Meanwhile, the infinite player might embrace the unknown. For the infinite player engaged in a finite game like BTC digital gold or dollar accumulation, the outcome of each distinct game is not paramount. So long as the infinite player is able to continue playing their larger infinite game, the specific conclusion of that finite game is of less importance. The outcome, whatever it is and regardless of how surprising, will catalyze the next move in their continued play. If playing the finite game of dollar accumulation, an infinite player might see the existence of a move like selling all of their digital gold at a loss and exiting the game. Or maybe they will exit the digital gold game and begin a new game by buying another asset like Bitcoin. Where could this surprising decision lead?
For the finite player, the unknown is a restrictive boundary, something that must be avoided. But what to a finite player is a boundary, to an infinite player is a horizon, something generative and to be played with.
“A boundary is defined by opposition [...]. One cannot move beyond a boundary without being resisted [...]. A horizon is a phenomenon of vision [...]. There is nothing in the horizon itself, however, that limits vision [...]. One never reaches a horizon [...]. To move towards a horizon is simply to have a new horizon.” (p 57)
The embrace of the horizon and the ability to play with boundaries is indicative of the nature of play for infinite players. Since there is no end to the infinite game, there can be no winner; since there can be no winner, there is no end.
“All limitations of finite play are self-limitations.” (p 12)
When we think of boundaries and limitations in the context of BTCs finite games, we can think literally in terms of the technical block size limit. Like all limitations in finite play, this is a self-limitation. The growth of BTC’s dataset is something restricted such that all play occurs within the boundary. When the suggestion is made that this literal boundary ought to be removed, we see an example of infinite players playing with literal boundaries. Today, in Bitcoin (BSV), these boundaries are routinely something to be played with, extended, and never reached. Each move towards the horizon generates the creation of the next horizon.
How that new horizon is played with (with the embrace of surprise, openness, playfulness, and vulnerability) is the decision of the infinite players.
Law was once a respected boundary by virtually all players within the BTC games. The rule of BTC was that code is law and that capital L Law was not to be introduced into the games. In recent months, Craig Wright took this boundary and made it a horizon. To many finite players of the BTC games this was unthinkable. How could Law be introduced? It’s not a part of the game! For Wright, it is a part of his game, and his new horizon is impacted by the outcome of these legal battles. The legal battles themselves are finite games that Wright is engaged in. Their outcome isn’t yet known, but like with their introduction, the surprising conclusion of the games will catalyze the next move made by Wright.
Craig Wright has entered into these legal games with an openness and vulnerability distinct from his finite playing opponents. Crypto podcaster and “thought leader” Peter McCormack appears much less open to the outcome of these battles. He needs them to proceed in the manner he has laid out, with his complete vindication and the conclusion that Wright is a fraud. Wright has shown more open playfulness in regards to the outcome. In an interview shortly after a seemingly negative ruling in his ongoing court case with Ira Kleiman over upwards of $10 billion worth of bitcoin, Wright demonstrated this embrace of surprise when discussing the possibility that he would be ordered to pay his opponent 500,000 BTC. When asked about how the ruling against him would affect his plans, Wright said “[...] the judge ordered me to send just under 500,000 BTC over to Ira. Let’s see what it does to the market. I wouldn’t have tanked the market. I’m nice.” What may have seemed like an indication of the loss of a finite game to a finite player, to Wright seemed like the introduction of his next move as an infinite player.
———————
Bitcoin is an Unbounded Tool For Infinite Players
Finite players consumed with seemingly unexitable finite games like BTC’s digital gold game or influence game will likely not understand the usefulness of Bitcoin. However, infinite players similarly engaged in the finite game of dollar accumulation may find their way to Bitcoin as a superior strategy for that finite game. Furthermore, perhaps as a new and surprising horizon, infinite players may also come to understand the usefulness of an unbounded tool like Bitcoin for an infinite game.
The recent history of Bitcoin, and its various forks like BTC, is mired in discussion of rules. Can rules be changed or are rules “set in stone”? Carse’s framework provides some insight.
“Although the rules of an infinite game may change by agreement at any point in the course of play, it does not follow that any rule will do. It is not in this sense that the game is infinite. The rules are always designed to deal with specific threats to the continuation of play. Infinite players use the rules to regulate the way they will take the boundaries or limits being forced against their play into the game itself [...]. The task is to design rules that will allow the players to continue the game by taking these limits into play-even when death is one of the limits. It is in this sense that the game is infinite. This is equivalent to saying that no limitation may be imposed against infinite play.” (p 10)
The rules are subject to change during the course of play. However, if the rules contribute to the end of the game, thus rendering it a finite game with a winner and loser, the rule change will be subsumed into the game itself. The infinite player will take this new boundary and turn it into a horizon with which he can continue play.
In Bitcoin, we have seen this phenomenon occur. The potential for the end of play in BTC comes largely from inappropriate changes to the protocol which broke miner incentives. The BTC finite player has no sound solution to the looming disappearance of the block reward and thus no solution to the inevitable discontinuation of BTC itself. For the finite player who plans to exit the game with Carse’s “terminal move” this is not a primary concern, and deeply considering it is not a move useful in winning their finite digital gold game. To the infinite player interested in Bitcoin’s continual usefulness, this is a restriction and boundary to be played with. Accordingly, Bitcoin forked off (is forking a move within the rules of finite BTC play?) and changed the rules to avoid this inevitability.
Paradoxically, the rules in Bitcoin were changed to a state where, ostensibly, the rules can no longer be changed. This was done with the goal of allowing the continuation of play with Bitcoin as a tool. However, this “set in stone” approach of Bitcoin’s protocol is still subject to rule changes, just not in a manner that will end play like previous changes from BTC. As Carse emphasizes, “The rules are always designed to deal with specific threats to the continuation of play.”
The technical block size limit and the problem of miner incentives are trivial examples and abstractions of a larger reality. The infinite player expects to be surprised. It is the reason to continue playing.
“Surprise causes finite play to end; it is the reason for infinite play to continue. Surprise in infinite play is the triumph of the future over the past [...]. Because infinite players prepare themselves to be surprised by the future, they play in complete openness. It is not an openness as in candor, but an openness as in vulnerability. It is not a matter of exposing one's unchanging identity, the true self that has always been, but a way of exposing one's ceaseless growth, the dynamic self that has yet to be.” (p 18)
As a tool, Bitcoin is useful to infinite players because of this perpetually changing and unbounded nature. All the horizons of Bitcoin are things that will continue to be played with and things that will never be reached. There are no limits. This endless dynamism of Bitcoin reflects the dynamism of the future. And Bitcoin is a tool that can endlessly grow with the future.
A future emergent through unencumbered capitalism (not crony capitalism) is similarly dynamic. Successful capitalists playing finite games (“businesses”) will incorporate surprise and boundaries within their game. Like Bitcoin, capitalism is a creative tool for the infinite player.
“Death, in finite play, is the triumph of the past over the future, a condition in which no surprise is possible [...]. Death in life is a mode of existence in which one has ceased all play; there is no further striving for titles. All competitive engagement with others had been abandoned.” (p 21)
The infinite playing capitalist understands that work and value are infinite (unbounded). For him, competitive engagement will not be abandoned, as there are always more moves to make in continuation of an infinite game.
“There is but one infinite game.” (p 149)
This final sentence of Carse’s book comes as a surprise! (Are you playing with it?) Carse conceals this point throughout the book by referring to “infinite games” in the plural. However, the singularity of THE infinite game has far reaching consequences.
Bitcoin is not the infinite game. Bitcoin is, however, an exceptional tool (like capitalism) for the infinite game. As we move forward into the Bitcoin enabled future we can leverage Carse’s framework to help us discern which games we are playing and how we want to play them. Discerning and prioritizing one's games appropriately (perhaps in a manner that benefits infinite play) will help one understand their position as they move forward in their play.
———————
Conclusion
If one wants to win a finite game, they ought to understand which they are actually playing. If you are playing BTCs digital gold games or thought leader game is this really the game you want to be playing? If you’d rather play dollar accumulation, what other strategies beyond the boundaries of those BTC games might be superior?
If one wants to understand the actions of opponents in a finite game, they ought to consider potential moves made by infinite players. Is Craig Wright crazy or an infinite player (within the strict confines of a finite game are these the same thing?)? What boundaries that restrict some in BTC might be horizons for infinite players focused on other games?
If one wants to play the infinite game, they ought to consider the strategies and tools available to ensure its continuation. They ought not try, in vain, to win. Instead, they ought to find ways to reach and continue to expand their horizons. This approach will likely embrace surprise, openness, playfulness, vulnerability, and creation. How can bitcoin be this tool? How can you use it to ensure continued play?