In a dialogue on X, Jason Lowery debated the viability and way forward for Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) networks—notably whether or not nations would possibly try and create competing proof-of-work techniques. The dialog was sparked by an inquiry from Rabbit Gap Investor (@rabbitholeinvst) directed at Lowery, an astronautical engineer, Main within the US House Drive, and creator of the “Softwar” thesis. Lowery’s thesis emphasizes Bitcoin’s strategic significance for US nationwide safety.
Can Nation-States Struggle Bitcoin With Their Personal PoW Community?
Rabbit Gap Investor requested Lowery, “Do you see a future the place different reusable proof of labor networks are created for different purposes?” Lowery responded by referencing questions he beforehand obtained from the White Home Workplace of Science & Expertise Coverage.
He acknowledged that whereas he can’t predict the long run with absolute certainty, he believes there will probably be a dominant RPoW community that positive aspects common acceptance in a lot the identical manner that TCP/IP turned the worldwide customary for knowledge transport: “This was one of many questions I obtained from the White Home Workplace of Science & Expertise Coverage. […] My instinct is {that a} single dominant Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) community will emerge as the first customary—very similar to how TCP/IP turned the common protocol for knowledge transport […] In RPoW, community dimension immediately interprets to safety. […] This consolidation of all RPOW purposes into one RPOW community […] is a strategic necessity.”
He elaborated on how RPoW’s safety scales with computational energy and vitality expenditure, making a “reinforcing cycle” that naturally incentivizes contributors emigrate to the biggest and most safe community. Lowery pointed to what he calls “Mutually Assured Preservation,” the place even adversarial nation-states (e.g., NATO and BRICS) would successfully develop into “frenemies” on the identical RPoW community. In response to his evaluation: “The price of attacking both facet will increase to such an extent that they develop into ‘frenemies,’ every strengthening the safety of the opposite’s pursuits on the identical community.”
Lowery’s stance leans strongly towards Bitcoin because the dominant RPoW protocol. Whereas he doesn’t label himself a “Bitcoin Maximalist,” he makes it clear that Bitcoin is the de facto world PoW customary on account of market forces and community results.
Thomas Younger, Managing Companion at RUMJog Enterprises, additional probed Lowery’s thesis by asking about particular person Bitcoin possession and the monetization potential for BTC in a world the place nation-states deal with the community as “The Normal”: “Will or not it’s sensible for people to personal privately held BTC? … Particularly, would nation states ‘hire’ privately held BTC to misattribute or create diversification or will they merely wish to personal their very own BTC?”
Lowery replied: “I’m a subscriber to the assumption that if Bitcoin turns into a world unit of account, its buying energy will naturally improve as humanity grows extra productive. This makes the necessity to chase yield out of date—pointless, even. Bitcoin itself is the yield.”
He then shared a cautionary perspective on the guarantees of yield in a future the place governments would possibly undertake government orders to grab custodial BTC. In response to Lowery: “If I had been a nefarious president or nation, I’d lure individuals into giving up self-custody of their BTC by dangling the promise of yield… Then, with a easy government order, I’d nationalize NYDIG, Coinbase, and MSTR’s Bitcoin… For this reason I don’t personal MSTR. MSTR’s Bitcoin is a future president’s honeypot… When the subsequent EO6102 inevitably comes, it is going to be extensively supported.”
One other consumer requested Lowery whether or not sovereign entities would possibly create their very own networks—as an example, sidechains or drivechains pegged into the primary Bitcoin community—beneath their sovereign management. Lowery responded by contrasting PoW and Proof of Stake (PoS) when it comes to centralization: “If the objective is sovereign management over a community, then PoS is a much better design than PoW… A nation (or any entity) might merely pre-mine the tokens, distribute them to itself, and implement a vote-based PoS system… This construction would be sure that management stays centralized… whereas nonetheless sustaining the (false) look of a decentralized system.”
He acknowledged {that a} nation might create an RPoW community with centralized administrative management, however he considers this strategy extra complicated and fewer environment friendly in comparison with an easy proof-of-stake system for attaining centralized governance: “PoS presents a extra direct and sensible strategy to obtain centralized management over a digital asset community with out the computational and energy-intensive necessities of PoW.”
The overarching theme of Lowery’s commentary is that game-theoretic pressures—each amongst people and nation-states—are likely to favor consolidation round a single, most safe PoW community. He argues that Bitcoin’s sheer scale and entrenched place give it a near-insurmountable lead. In the meantime, nations looking for management would possibly experiment with various protocols, however finally face a steep uphill battle competing towards what has already been embraced by “the free and open market.”
At press time, BTC traded at $95,937.
Featured picture created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com