Subnostr

I agree, but that’s all about the reduced revenue side of private money. He seems to be saying that the state itself benefits from owning and mining bitcoin… somehow. Emphasis on this somehow part

[ARCHIVED] Jay 2y ago

His idea is simply that the properties of Bitcoin and the fact that, when properly custodied, it requires extreme amounts of energy to steal or spoof make it an attractive addition to warfighting technologies.

Right now, we use that property to hold Bitcoin as an asset that can be sold in the future; as money. It benefits everyone to have a little in case it's the only money left standing.

In the realm of cybersecurity, a theoretical computer that is hardwired to operate only if a specific transaction is seen on chain becomes immune to all forms of software hacking. You can't hack the blockchain. And you can store the signing device in a nuclear vault.

I'm not saying we know exactly how Bitcoin can be used for cybersecurity, but the possiblity exists. Because the possibility exists, we have to make an attempt to adopt it for that purpose before anyone else does. Because historically, dismissing new technology is the losing strategy. Adopting it is risky and time consuming, but I don't see how anyone can argue that investing time in finding new uses for Bitcoin is a bad opportunity cost.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mark tyler 2y ago

It sounds like a good idea, but I think once you get into the details it’s just the same thing with more steps, except worse.

Specific transactions existing on chain is what happens when a wallet signs a transaction, and that message is broadcast with enough fee to get incorporated.

If you can hack the wallet, you can make the super secret and secure thing do the thing. What did we just do then.. we separated a successful hack (or leak) of the wallet from the action by a set amount of time? We presumably have hardware control of the super secret and secure thing, so there’s no reason we need bitcoin’s time chain to accomplish this - we can use local hardware.

Further, dismissing new technology is actually a vital part of not wasting resources.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t spend a few minutes realizing the above, but I don’t see any hint of power-monopolizing potential of some Bitcoin controlled logic that would create some huge first mover advantage. If nothing is at stake from ignoring it, then we absolutely should ignore it to focus on stuff with stakes.

Saying we can’t just dismiss tech (and thereby invoking AI take off, nukes, the machine gun, drones, etc. in the minds of the listeners - which are all technologies which were actually power monopolizing) isn’t enough in of an argument in this case, making it as far as I can tell an initially exciting but actually disappointing distraction.

[ARCHIVED] Jay 2y ago

You make a good point. Only the people who have something to lose should research the softwar theory. The rest should ignore it.

Lowery is making his audience the US military and convincing them that they have something to lose if they dismiss or ignore it.

mark tyler 2y ago

I guess what you’re saying is: he’s saying they should investigate whether it’s possible to lose something by sitting out. And yeah that sounds like a good recommendation. Maybe it actually is too much to expect him to include the ways they could possibly lose in his thesis. Sounds sassy but I mean that haha. Especially if it’s theoretically possible but hard to come up with the way since it doesn’t currently exist.

[ARCHIVED] Jay 2y ago

I think that's exactly it, which is why I'm interested in it. It doesn't cost anything to keep it in the back of my mind as a possibility and watch what comes out of it in practice.