Hard disagree. Semantics and narrative are not what this fight is about. Its a very real power struggle and acknowledging that is not a psyop. His thesis is a net benefit imo

Here’s why I at least listen to what he has to say, bear with me…

- What made me realize Proof of Stake was a sham was - what if someone did a 51% attack, what do you do? One group needs to start lobbying and politicking to try and slash that other group, there is no physical power resource that can be a fail safe and this has no bearing to reality. It’s just a dumb construct.

- Because of Proof of Work, you need to have physical miners to expend energy to do that work, there is this tie to the physics of the world. So if someone was going to attack the network, you could at the very least have the ability to attack their miners with brute force energy and get them off the grid and restore balance.

This is a bit barbaric to think about, but this is the way nature works, it’s fucking brutal and it’s survival of the fittest. We as humans don’t want to get to a place where we are behaving with our basest nature, but I feel like we will always need that last resort option because after all we are part of nature and the Earth. That last resort option is what actually will keep the system in check.

The ideal is that bitcoin is so decentralized this is not an issue at all and the system stays in balance.

This might be a hot take, but I offer this perspective for the community to ponder. I will say I haven’t read his thesis so I’m not sure of all his details, but this is my understanding currently. Open to learning more.

I also feel conflicted about Major Lowery’s framing. I haven’t read his thesis, perhaps I will, but if the central point is to drive hyperbitcoinization through nation-state adoption to wield as hegemonic power, is it in the interest of plebs to usher in that adoption?

I prefer Knut Svanholm’s nuclear shield analogy to #bitcoin rather than a weapon. 🛡️

Curious what #plebchain thinks 🤔