I listened to Jason Lowery speak for 10+ hours so that you don't have to. https://blog.lopp.net/critique-softwar-concepts/
Discussion
I just finished reading your post. Very well summarized and you covered some issues that I was previously unaware of.
And now I need nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev to read your summary to me so I don't have to
Thank you. I’ve tried multiple times, but my brain always stops paying attention after the first 35-45 minutes during these long ass podcasts he’s in.
#[2] ⬆️
"I pose to you that, should Lowery's claims be accepted and adopted by the American military, the "cure" could be worse than the disease. Let's approach Lowery's proposed future adversarially. In a worst case scenario, government miners could operate at a huge (taxpayer-funded) loss and effectively bankrupt privately funded miners all around the world. The only way a nation state can ensure that blockchain data is not censored or overwritten is to control a majority of the network hashrate. But, by doing so, they would be destroying one of Bitcoin's major strengths of its game theory - that hashpower is distributed sufficiently and incentives are aligned such that no entity has a majority of the network hashrate."
"By focusing on hashpower, he implies that thermodynamic security is the fundamental aspect of the Bitcoin network's security model. This is incorrect and lacks nuance. There are lower levels of Bitcoin's security: the nodes that form the peer-to-peer network and the humans who collectively organize to agree upon what code they will run to secure the network.
This is why Bitcoin is fundamentally not protected by electricity, hashing machines, or even the "logical security" of nodes. Bitcoin is backed by a volunteer militia. The antifragile nature of Bitcoin as an ecosystem is because it's an open source project without a central coordinator."
"Cyberspace is an extension (or layer on top) of meatspace, not a completely parallel universe. Just as how Neo could act like a god with little consequences while in the Matrix, if the Sentinels found him in meatspace, it was game over."
"I like the story arc. I don't buy the conclusion. In fact, the entire thing appears to be a giant non sequitur. That is to say: just because you string together a huge number of valid premises, that does not mean that your inferences are logical.
Perhaps it doesn't matter what I think; I'm not the target audience. However, it is worth considering the implications of what might happen if his target audience accepts and adopts this thesis."
Cyberhornets
TYFYS
Interesting essay. But password and biometrics as cybersecurity strongholds? Ufff …just in recent years the pipeline in Southern US was hacked causing massive chaos. It’s a long list of hacks agains strategic systems. Anyway, interesting essay
Very sound criticisms. You articulated clearly a number of the points from the recent podcasts I’ve heard him on, where something just seemed to be missing. Especially around “securing data” that isn’t Bitcoin data.
I am curious as to your thoughts in the closing paragraph, “However, it is worth considering the implications of what might happen if his target audience accepts and adopts this thesis.”
Anything in particular you’re concerned about?
Thanks for the thoughtful review 🤙
"What if Lowery's thesis itself is a denial of service attack?"
lol, I'm glad someone else pointed out how TEDIOUS it is to listen to Lowery speak. I've heard some of the podcasts and I never saw the connection between Bitcoin's proof-of-work consensus, cyberwarfare, and the securitization of non-Bitcoin data. I do think power projection will change under a Bitcoin standard, but not in the manner that Lowery suggests, where Bitcoin will somehow become a new frontier of warfare. In fact, I think it's a wholesale misnomering of the physical aspect of proof-of-work
I particularly appreciate you pointing out the specific ways some have argued with him that also didn't feel spot on. As one whose arguments I've personally failed to grok and couldn't invest the time, I now feel appropriately briefed! Thanks! Zapped
Still too long to read. TLDR it
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis
This made me think about Derek Siver's "Your Music
and People"
He argues that marketing is all about being considerate. It might not be nice to get critiqued but the fact that you spent so much time listening to all of his arguments and taking the time to critique him is very considerate of you. I am still trying to get my head around these theories and this was a great write up thank you!
I read Jameson Lopp's summary for 10 minutes so you don't have to. TL;DR reasonable IQ, but thoroughly discredits himself with trivially false claims, and his inane, lengthy pontifications may themselves be the objective as a sort of DDoS.
Thank god. You are a saint.
Good read, other discussion I've heard/read have been a little vague
Interesting read, I struggled with the arguments made during the WBD chat. Especially when he was pushed on how bitcoin’s PoW is to be used for universally “securing” data. When in face for the most part it was based on DDoS sustained attack prevention. Or exhibit costs for certain functions/interactions (zaps etc.).
Wasn’t able to put my finger in why I wasn’t 100% onboard with the thesis. Appreciate you articulating this.
On a side note I think the evolution prey/hunter arguments are potentially over simplification of biological adaptation history. Not all successful evolutionary traits are a result of being able to exert power and dominate other animals that share an ecosystem. It is all about genes getting proliferated and sometimes that means that adopting social traits, that are not about “power”, increases the likelihood of genes getting proliferated.
Also I reject the idea that we have finite resources to the extent that it is argued in the WBD interview. The work by David Deutsch, for example, proposes that almost anything can be converted into a “resource” just by the act of us humans conceiving and developing ways in which that thing is used. Therefore our resources are truly only limited by our ability to construct ideas in which those thing become useful. Anyway that is more a philosophical point but need to be considered when we use the framing “this is a constant battle for resources that are scares”.
The idea of the US government appropriating hash for the sake of protecting digital territory is absurd to me. Bitcoin's incentives run counter to this type of appropriation by encouraging free enterprise. If anything, hashing should replace taxation, and in effect, institutions like the IRS and Fed Reserve entirely.
Good point bringing up Lowery's oversimplification of biology and his Malthusian undertone, it reminds me of how the manosphere would use evo psych to prop terrible dating advice
Good write up, this is how I was feeling after hearing him rant about how a lock on your front door is "power projection" for 2+ hours on wbd. I mostly listen to stuff in the car/doing my rounds so this saves me from spending any more of that time on lowrey. I feel like we need a more pointed criticism of his work thus far though, something like
-his argument is based on asymmetric costs imposed in the real world
-existing technologies like encryption and airgapping provide a cohesive method for this
-lowrey fails to connect how bitcoin could replace these technologies to secure data that isn't the bitcoin ledger itself
I like the free speech vs weapon bit and totally agree with it, but I think this and other points you make should be addressed separately
Listening to his power projection hammer swing at every nail.
The Lord’s work. 🙏
He sort of got you on social points with the somewhat hidden link to pdf though. I wonder if that was premeditated.
No actual link. It's quite clear that no one searching for pdfs or links would find it.
Glad you could see the “you haven’t read the thesis!” nonsense argument coming a mile off. It’s pathetic, shallow, and shows Lowery is more about engagement farming and self-promotion than actual ideas. Disappointing to see so many Bitcoiners fall for it and come to his defence with the same garbage line of reasoning.
I’m not merely sceptical of his claims “that it's desirable for governments to participate in bitcoin mining” as you are, and I disagree that his background shouldn’t lead to dismissal for the following reasons.
Bitcoin was conceived to separate money and state. Specifically in the backdrop of the 08 GFC which was instigated by the US financial sector in cahoots with the US Government which had worldwide impacts because of the USD’s role as global reserve since Bretton Woods. Therefore it’s fair to say Bitcoin was targeted to destroy the USD hegemony.
Lowery’s background working for the US Armed Forces lead him to his worldview and thus conclusions. Saifedean would never have come up with these arguments with his background, nor would Knut for example - you can’t disentangle things like you’ve tried to and fair enough if you don’t like that it turns ad hominem, but his background is why **he** is apparently advising The White House and saying other branches of US Gov aren’t capable of dealing with Bitcoin, and not some crypto anarchists.
So his background is fair game in my opinion, particularly when he’s then advocating for US Gov involvement in mining.
The system was setup to get away from the USD and thus the US Gov & Armed Forces which his whole power projection point is about - the USD only holds its position today due to that force projection.
Bitcoiners should entirely oppose US Gov involvement for this reason - that’s the final boss. That’s who we seek to defeat through hyperbitcoinisation.
We can argue the merits of Bhutan mining Bitcoin or El Salvador, there are real world practicalities Bitcoiners need to accept (we have to live somewhere, some friendly jurisdictions is good) in that case.
However we must outright reject the US Gov’s involvement and he’s only making the case because of his job and background.
Glad you took the time to write it up and I’m heartened by reading all the comments here versus on Twitter. You got some well earned Sats here and some actual thoughtful replies, Twitter proves once again to be useful at disseminating the message initially and falls entirely flat in having a two-way dialogue.
Excellent examination. Thank you for posting. Truly.
finally. thank you. it's been on my mind but I won't buy his thesis and I listened to one podcast before I abandoned the idea lol
Bless you, good sir.
His response appears to be that 10 hours of time invested is not enough, serious critics need to part with money, personal details and get a book into their homes.
Good read. Sums up a lot about what’s lacking in his thesis.
I’ve heard enough of his podcasts and read enough of his thesis to not need to hear him lay anymore groundwork about evolutionary power projection.
Lots of tasty “bread” around evolution that is all facts we know and accept, but as you point out, the “meat” around cybersecurity is skimpy at best.
Figured I'd leave this here. In my opinion it didn't exist before yesterday. Or it was private before then. But nobody knew about it.
That was the page that links to the actual book. The link of the actual book also wasn't ever picked up before. Took an extra day to get found by the archive. But it happening twice makes it less likely to be a coincidence, imo.
🎯🤝
He's advocating for the military branch of the federal reserve to accumulate enough hashpower to kill Bitcoin by mining empty blocks.
Governments can make anything into a weapon
nostr:note1t32mlyn5xjta9end5jfrxvxw38wehu0cy77uvdvn9rfkuwsvwkcqxc4wch