Paralelní Polis

Imagine a visitor who has heard of Bitcoin but never used it. At Prague’s Paralelní Polis, a simple starting point was ordering coffee and asking how to pay. This was neither a bank nor an exchange. People gathered around technology, art and a question: how much could they organise for themselves? Ztohoven opened the building at 43 Dělnická in Holešovice in October 2014, working with the hacker community, including Slovakia’s Progressbar. Here, hackers also meant people who explore and adapt technology, not automatically people attacking computers. [2] [4]

Different parts of the building offered different ways into the same conversation. Bitcoin Coffee introduced people to payments. Paper Hub provided coworking: a workplace shared with others. Workshops and a hackerspace supported joint technical experiments, while the Institute of Cryptoanarchy hosted talks, discussions and practical sessions. Someone could move from a cup of coffee to wondering how a wallet works or who can see their internet traffic. A Bitcoin wallet is a tool for receiving payments, checking a balance and sending bitcoin. The café, educational programme and operator were nevertheless different things, each with its own role. [4] [3] [13]

It is easy to discuss Bitcoin solely as a number on a price chart. Buying coffee brought the focus back to a practical task: I have a wallet, a merchant wants a certain amount, and I need to send it correctly. Staff helped beginners gain that experience. For years the café accepted only cryptocurrencies, although the exact options and rules changed over time. A successful payment did not make Bitcoin’s price stable or every project labelled “crypto” trustworthy. The experiment let people encounter the technology in an ordinary situation. [2] [4]

Václav Benda wrote Parallel Polis in 1978 within the circle of Charter 77, the civic initiative defending human rights in communist Czechoslovakia. He proposed independent structures for education, culture and information: places, for example, where people could discuss and circulate writing without official permission. The Prague project borrowed that idea for another era and different tools. Benda was not writing about Bitcoin, and Ztohoven did not invent the original concept. The connection lay in building a usable alternative through one’s own efforts instead of only waiting for change from above. [12] [1]

Here, cryptoanarchy meant the idea that encryption and decentralised networks can make more room for voluntary cooperation and privacy. Encryption helps protect a message’s contents; the Tor network makes some internet activity harder to trace to a user. Different tools solve different problems. Bitcoin itself is not anonymous: transactions are public and can sometimes be associated with a person. A VPN carries a connection through an encrypted tunnel between the device and a VPN server, which forwards the traffic. Neither a VPN nor Tor removes every trace or risk. Talks explored what these tools could and could not do; they did not promise complete safety. [2] [3] [14]

The label state-free expressed an intention to operate without public grants. Private supporters and members contributed, and services generated income. Rent, energy and work still had to be paid for each month. Cofounder Martin Leskovjan described this model in a 2016 interview. It was a choice about funding and the relationship with the state, not a territory where contracts or laws stopped applying. Such practical questions exposed the distance between an appealing idea and keeping an institution running over time. [4]

Hackers Congress Paralelní Polis, or HCPP, became a prominent international meeting about digital freedom, privacy and decentralisation from 2014 onward. The café offered a first encounter; the congress took discussions and technical subjects much further. Recordings preserve particular speakers’ views at a particular time: an invitation to speak is no technical guarantee of their projects. The final edition in the original Prague building took place in 2024. Reading its history means distinguishing the event, its organisers and the venue’s year-round operation. [11] [6]

The example also inspired communities in Bratislava, Vienna and Barcelona. Local groups explored similar subjects while adapting them to their own people and resources. The Vienna initiative, for instance, describes visits to Prague events as its inspiration. Sharing a name does not make these places branches of one company or establish common management, funding or legal responsibility. An old website is not confirmation of present opening hours either. For a particular community, look for its current programme and its own contact details. [9] [10]

After HCPP in October 2024, Prague’s Paralelní Polis ended in its existing form. Second Culture took over the space with a focus on coworking. Bitcoin Coffee was to remain as part of it, and card payments were introduced. Roman Týc and Kateřina Mareková spoke about the transition. The black building looked familiar, but the same walls did not mean the same programme. The association, original experiment, new operator and building owner must be distinguished; one operation closing does not establish what legally happened to all those parties. [6]

An e15 report dated 25 March 2026 said Second Culture had also stopped operating that month and the building had been emptied. Owner Richard Balous then announced plans for a gallery. La Fabrika’s website now lists LAFA Gallery at this address. This is a new cultural use for the building, rather than a revival of the original project. The address 43 Dělnická should therefore not be recommended as an operating Prague Paralelní Polis. Its place in Bitcoin history remains: people could learn through a purchase, a conversation and their own experiment. Continuing communities and new events need individual verification, rather than assumptions based on the old name. [7] [8] [15]