To find a dispute where there is none can be rewarding, but it has nothing to do with the art of reason, it is driven by simple human bias. To have a stance in favour of either of two separate niches, has no impact on those niches, they exist regardless of that.
Memes do not have to be detached from proof, the function of a "sceptic/believer dichotomy" is still just social stratification. Trust is human, in the way it is used. The ability to trust memes has been defined as "executive function" in psychiatric science since half a century, while other animals may have simple cultural intelligence, they have nothing like the humans capacity for trust or "meme-processing executive function".
Yes humans and other animals have other conditions than trust.
Yes humans have herd instincts, they also have more recently evolved idea-based intelligence that stands out from other animals. The cognitive system for that is defined as "executive function", a system to "mentally play with ideas".
The sceptic/believer dichotomy as a meme has as its only function to form social stratifiction, I would guess it is endemic to coercion based societies, that you cannot find it in a society based on voluntary organization.
To separate Bitcoin from conscious actors is just storytelling, it isn't true. It's a social technology, the idea that bots could run it and build the machines and have their own civilization is a fantasy. It may be possible in the future, but not now.
The Nakamoto consensus is a mechanism for social popular vote, by humans. That proof-of-work happened to be used first is because it did not need a more complex technology stack than a simple hash function. It is based on machine consensus in the proof-of-work, but that proof is then used in a social context. In proof-of-vote, the Pseudonym Pairs event, “social work”, social consensus, is doing the equivalent of what proof-of-work did with solving hash puzzles, machine consensus. Bitcoin only used machine consensus because that was the easiest way to implement popular vote, it is a social mechanism, even with proof-of-work the proof itself is a social mechanism.
Yes neural network computer algorithms exist, like SHA3 computer algorithms exist. They are computer algorithms, not how the human brain works.
If a neuron has 1 billion transistors, that is a completely different system than if a neuron is a cellular switch. You can easily see just from the size of neurons, that nature would have selected for a molecular switch rather than a cellular one, neurons are 1000x larger than transistors you use to read this, while tubulin are about the exact same size, 4.5x8 nm, organized into lattices, microtubules.
That the brain works within the confines of information theory invented by humans, sure, possible. Microtubules as simple chemical computers with tau proteins as the data addressing system seem like they could use that type of computation.
The estimates for how near that future is, have by most people been based on the neuron-transistor analogy. I like cybernetics, exponential rates of evolution of technology, hybrid intelligence, and all that. But I also like natural science. There are cult-like beliefs about the advances of AI that while they do model the advances pretty well, they underestimate the human condition, and AI is defined based on human intelligence.