You are now warned, and can see how this speech act has created a reality that reflects exactly what has been said/written.  

Thus, the speech act has been performative in nature, and you consequently can't deny that you've been warned.

If this makes you sad I could, of course, say:

"I console you."

But does that make you feel any better...?  

If not, then this is probably because the verb “to console” is not part of the category that is imbued with the power to create reality in such a way.

Consequently, this speech act was not performative in nature.

Now, wherein lies the parallel with the bitcoin protocol?

Is it possible at all, within the virtual realm of zeros and ones, to conjure up an actual fact pertaining to the human meatspace?  

In order to answer that, we'll have a look at some essential features of language, and the powers it lends to its speakers.

Let's take a step back then to state that "I warn you!" is primarily just information. It consists of symbols that represent the speech sounds found in the real world. Among the speakers of the same language there is consensus about the meaning of this particular combination of sounds.  

What I did in the beginning was transmitting pure information, by virtue of agreed on symbols that created an explicit reality at the same time through that very process.  

After all, you're still warned and will remain so indefinitely unless I give the all-clear to lift it.  

That this reality is not taking any physical form does not imply that it is less real. Just like your name is absolutely real, as well.

Hopefully, the similarity between natural language and bitcoin is becoming a bit more evident already. Symbols whose meaning is agreed on, describe a reality that only comes into existence through that very description.

Let's look at the concrete example of the bitcoin genesis block from January 3, 2009 to get a better impression:

• In the beginning there was nothing. No reality and no information. Just a few rules of what valid information needed to look like.

• Into this informational void, on a harddrive in Satoshi Nakamoto's computer, the solution to a cryptographic puzzle was written. That puzzle was solved through the expenditure of energy in the form of CPU cycles, by an entity uniquely identified through the bitcoin address 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa.

• According to the protocol, the 50 BTC that were created out of nothing (yet only through the expenditure of said energy) got rewarded to that entity as unreserved property. This very information was already written into the block as it was created.

• Thus, the first block was mined, and immediately broadcast to the remaining (still very small) network, so that every node in it could verify the solution to the cryptographic puzzle.

• The first bitcoins became reality as soon as consensus on the correctness of the process according to the rules of the protocol was reached.

  
  

Those bitcoins are pure information which could only have been generated through the expenditure of energy in the physical world. The information in and of itself constitutes the so-called proof-of-work.

As soon as 50 more blocks were mined in this way on top of the genesis block, the entity was free to transfer the property rights to the entire reward, or just parts of it, to any other conceivable entity.  

The only prerequisite for this authority over the reward is the provable knowledge of a secret that played a central role in the creation of the entity that is transacting. (Thus: Not your keys - Not your coins)

Let's contrast the concept of authority (i.e. the control over private cryptographic keys) within the bitcoin network, with the situation we find for natural language:

Regardless of whether you're taking me seriously as a threat, the warning I gave earlier is still in place and factual. Any speaker can warn, proclaim, apologize or recommend at any time. No permission or authority is needed for that. Where there weren't any warnings or recommendations before... now there are.  

However, there is another group of performative verbs where the situation is fundamentally different. In order to appoint someone as successor, principal or ambassador, a certain authority is required that is linked to the speaker and/or situation.  

Otherwise I could just roam the streets and pronounce random couples husband and wife. What an unceremonious approach...

The performative verbs of this second category not only express their meaning in a self-referring way, but also have a declarative component through which the authority is exercised. Rather than just putting something new into the world, some essential properties of the existing world are being changed.  

It’s the same at the opening of a yet unvisited amusement park, as at a baptism where the child to be baptized is integrated into the community under its given name. An eventual future excommunication would require a comparable authoritative speech act.

Both varieties of performative speech acts can be identified in the principles of the bitcoin protocol (the language of energy expenditure if you will) as well.

When a bitcoin miner expends energy to create a new block, this performative 'writing act' on the blockchain ascribes the property rights to the newly created coins (+ transaction fees from the network) to the entity specified in that block.  

That's it.  

Once the block is accepted and confirmed through network consensus, it becomes reality without the miner needing permission at any point in time.  

Putting in the energy and conforming to the rules suffice at this point.  

However, once somebody wants to assert such a claim that is documented somewhere on the blockchain in order to change the ownership situation, a proof of authority is indeed required. The authority does not depend on external factors, like an ordination to the priesthood, a birth right, or a work contract. It derives from the knowledge of a secret and unguessable number — the private key.

Accordingly, the creation of a new reality requires work. Because bitcoin is open (source) and permissionless, anyone can put in energy to maintain and secure the network — without license, permission or authority. Such authority, i.e. the unreserved property right, is only necessary to effect changes to the recorded ownership situation.

In this way bitcoin — in contrast to natural language — enables its users to exert property rights without the need for a higher-ranking entity to grant, recognise or enforce the required authority to do so.  

Whoever holds the secret key to a bitcoin amount (UTXOs) won't need anybody's permission to do with it as they please.

It's that last point that in my eyes truly transcends the performative aspects of natural language.  

To channel arbitrarily large amounts of energy by virtue of knowing a series of secret words sounds to me like a good definition of true magic that ties the worlds of language, mathematics and physics together. The notion of Magic Internet Money is more than just a funny meme.

For everyone who already protects their life's energy with a protective cryptographic spell from non-consensual access, I hereby lift my warning.