Confused by Softwar on page one.
Jason says (paraphrasing) , 'I've come up with this new framework for thinking about Bitcoin, theres this thing called power projection, very scary, it allows people to secure data more better, this is a threat somehow, I call this softwar' , right , or something along those lines, you can correct me if I'm way off the mark. Here's what I don't get:
How is securing data a 'threat' and why refer to it as 'war'?
#AskNostr
#Softwar
#JasonLowrey
#Bookstr
#Bitcoin
IMO he only makes any sense if you assume that bitcoin will be the only widely accepted currency in the future, the threat is other people not mining transactions that are linked to you, so nation states if they can’t be anonymous will want miners. I don’t think there is any more to his thesis than that.
Aside from the above, I think his whole thing about using bitcoin to secure “certain control actions” and using energy as being better than logic for security just misunderstands how computer security and Bitcoin work.
But I’d be more than happy to find examples of some computer security thing that disproves that.
Shit man, I haven't even gottent to that bit yet.
My first impression from the first page is that there seems to be a lot of technobabble ( 'electro-cyber' for instance ).
Right so the threat is other people NOT mining transactions linked to you. Okay right, so one nation state, if they control a sizable portion of the hashrate can 'nerf' the other nation states transactions? Is that the thesis yeah?
I had the same strong technobabble impression, so I only ever read portions, could totally be wrong, but yeah. And the thing is, bitcoin is censorship resistant lol, so you don’t even really need to start mining until your enemies are really unified and control a LOT of the network. Even having profit motivated miners control 1% of the network is probably more than enough 😂
But I totally grant the possibility that maybe it sounds insubstantial is because of top secret redactions… idk.
Thanks for info man.
when i first listened to his thesis, the way it took shape in my mind, was something along the lines of....
the more the world aligns with the concept of bitcoin, the more influence or potential each satoshi will represent. therefore, those who hold the most satoshis will command the most power / influence / control in the world.
from a national security type persepctive, the threat or attack vector would be the potential of your adversary to hold more satoshis than you, thus weilding more power / influence / control over you.
it's a decidedly militaristic framing.... but personally I don't think it's necessarily a total departure from the realities of life on planet earth...
So it's economic warfare? o.O?
By having superior money, you incentivise people to co-operate with you in order to access it, wasn't that how venice became a political power back in the renaissance or whenever it was? The venetian florentine was the most salable good, so everything flowed into venice.
I get that idea, but I don't see it as inherently antagonistic.
Isn't it 'a priori' to assume that power will lead to attack?
I need to read more of the book though.
I think his justification for the framing was that he was pitching it to his superiors, and as far as he was concerned, being military folk, they saw the world through a very particular lense... i.e. that of power, subjugation, and control...
For the same reasons that they take pains to stand up a functional navy, even during times of peace, he contends that they will need to apply the same rationale, within the emerging landscape of cyberspace...
I don't doubt that you could make an equally compelling case, in terms of framing Bitcoin as a vehicle for world peace, however I believe his contention was that had he taken that approach, his superiors would likely have dismissed him... and ultimately, his objective was to encourage them to partake of the orange pill...
Shit man, that makes total sense.
I forgot he wrote it for the MIC and not us peace loving orange pill hippies.
