Most of the research done so far has failed to recognize the specific legal nature of the Bitcoin protocol. This paper argues that as per the Indian Contract Act 1872 the Bitcoin’s protocol should be seen as an umbrella agreement: that is essentially a framework through which a set of organizational obligations can be generated by conduct. For example, a node operator who installs and runs the software that is in agreement with the consensus, in fact agrees to the protocol’s rules just like an individual agrees with the standard terms of a contract at a typical web-site on the Internet. This paper further examines chose in action categorization through three objections: (a) uncertainty of contract terms, (b) absence of intention to create legal relations, and (c) no consideration, and demonstrates that each one does not work when tested against Indian law. The Section 29’s determinability standard, the conduct-based acceptance acknowledged by the Information Technology Act, and Chinnaya v. Ramayya’s supporting third-party consideration all are indicative of the same line of thought. The upshot is that Bitcoin’s legal recognition can be founded on a doctrinally coherent basis which neither calls for legislative intervention nor deviation from established civil law principles and which can be followed by other common law jurisdictions as a model.In legal terms, participation of full nodes in a blockchain network may therefore be conceptualised as an organisational commitment to apply and uphold the system’s validation rules. As for the Bitcoin network, it arises from an offer, defined as in the Whitepaper, and full nodes join it through implied conduct by installing the software. Thus, Bitcoin may be generally qualified as an umbrella agreement, with protocol rules as essential terms governing future transactions within a technologically enforced coordination mechanism.