Will Nations Fight Bitcoin With Competing PoW? Game Theory Explained

by

In a rather spirited exchange on the platform known as X, one Jason Lowery, a man of many hats—astronautical engineer, Major in the US Space Force, and author of the “Softwar” thesis—found himself embroiled in a discussion about the future of Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) networks. The inquiry, posed by the ever-curious Rabbit Hole Investor (@rabbitholeinvst), sparked a conversation that could only be described as a delightful mix of intellect and absurdity. After all, who doesn’t love a good debate about whether nations might concoct their own competing proof-of-work systems? 🍵

Can Nation-States Fight Bitcoin With Their Own PoW Network?

Our inquisitive Rabbit Hole Investor asked Lowery, “Do you foresee a future where other reusable proof of work networks are created for other applications?” To which Lowery, with the air of a sage, referenced questions he had previously received from the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. Because, of course, when in doubt, consult the government! 🤔

He went on to say, with a hint of uncertainty that would make even the most confident of fortune tellers blush, that while he cannot predict the future with absolute certainty, he believes a dominant RPoW network will emerge, much like TCP/IP did for data transport. “This was one of the questions I received from the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. […] My intuition is that a single dominant Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) network will emerge as the primary standard—much like how TCP/IP became the universal protocol for data transport […] In RPoW, network size directly translates to security. […] This consolidation of all RPOW applications into one RPOW network […] is a strategic necessity.”

Lowery elaborated on how RPoW’s security scales with computational power and energy expenditure, creating a “reinforcing cycle” that naturally incentivizes participants to flock to the largest and most secure network. He even coined the term “Mutually Assured Preservation,” suggesting that even adversarial nation-states (think NATO and BRICS) would become “frenemies” on the same RPoW network. According to his assessment: “The cost of attacking either side increases to such an extent that they become ‘frenemies,’ each strengthening the security of the other’s interests on the same network.” Ah, the beauty of diplomacy! 😂

Lowery’s stance leans heavily toward Bitcoin as the reigning champion of RPoW protocols. While he shies away from labeling himself a “Bitcoin Maximalist,” he makes it abundantly clear that Bitcoin is the de facto global PoW standard, thanks to the whims of market forces and network effects. Who knew economics could be so dramatic?

Thomas Young, Managing Partner at RUMJog Enterprises, further probed Lowery’s thesis, asking about individual Bitcoin ownership and the monetization potential for BTC in a world where nation-states treat the network as “The Standard.” “Will it be practical for individuals to own privately held BTC? … Specifically, would interested nation states ‘rent’ privately held BTC to misattribute or create diversification or will they simply want to own their own BTC?”

Lowery replied, “I’m a subscriber to the belief that if Bitcoin becomes a global unit of account, its purchasing power will naturally increase as humanity grows more productive. This makes the need to chase yield obsolete—unnecessary, even. Bitcoin itself is the yield.” A profound thought, indeed! Or perhaps just a clever way to avoid the complexities of financial planning?

He then shared a cautionary perspective on the promises of yield in a future where governments might adopt executive orders to seize custodial BTC. “If I were a nefarious president or nation, I’d lure people into giving up self-custody of their BTC by dangling the promise of yield… Then, with a simple executive order, I’d nationalize NYDIG, Coinbase, and MSTR’s Bitcoin… This is why I don’t own MSTR. MSTR’s Bitcoin is a future president’s honeypot… When the next EO6102 inevitably comes, it will be widely supported.” A rather vivid imagination, wouldn’t you say? 😅

Another user inquired whether sovereign entities might create their own networks—perhaps sidechains or drivechains pegged into the main Bitcoin network—under their sovereign control. Lowery responded by contrasting PoW and Proof of Stake (PoS) in terms of centralization: “If the goal is sovereign control over a network, then PoS is a far better design than PoW… A nation (or any

Read More

2025-02-25 02:43