I'm still digging through what there is to be found on this particular topic. The book 'Softwar' was suggested to me by a fellow pleb that I happen to know IRL. After sloughing through the book, I realized - in a more intimate manner - how subtle bitcoin really is. Booth emphasizes it being a protocol, and I certainly agree with that. However, I'm now willing to step out beyond that point.
Jason had the opportunity and background to bring a different approach to the table. He's definitely not as articulate as others when it comes to making his point. Though, that's likely due to his current situation. My younger brother is military, and he is restricted greatly in his communications (verbal, written, etc). That specific point gets addressed by Lowery. I believe he does so with the intention of letting everyone know that he can't say what he wants.
Pushback is absolutely necessary. The practice of steel-man/straw-man in any debate is how everyone in the "audience" becomes more familiar with the argument. If no one questions you, that's called tyranny. None of us who mean well would want more of that.
I'm sure I put too much emphasis on the doomer side of things. That is a character flaw of mine; one that I get better at combatting over time. However, the world does seem to take all kinds in order to progress. Mainly, I want people to take life more seriously than they do. I've had the privilege of meeting and getting to know many wonderful (and not-so wonderful) people in my life. Too many are just floating along, willingly oblivious to what is actually happening. Just look at the fraction of Nostr users compared to Legacy users.
As for why the book was pulled, I agree with you. In fact, I'd wager it has everything to do with what I can see in the points he's tried to make. This really is a novel development that we don't understand. This is how all major revolutions happen, and I don't mean the "uprising" kind. Think: personal literacy, Arabic numbers, etc.
Now... I'm going to do my best to address the warfare references without turning into a warmonger or doomsayer...
People come from all different places, and have many paths before them to walk. Jason's happens to be national security. Just like you or I can't help but process life in terms that we're most familiar with, Jason - and every other person in the world who regularly engages in that realm - must do the same. The problem that arises in the view I just shared is this:
"...and every other person in the world who regularly engages in that realm..."
The fact of the matter is that people like Putin exist. Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Kim Jong and all those who came before or after are all very real. They see weapons, warfare, and other similar things where we see stuff like bitcoin. Their daily lives consist of behaving like all the scary stuff (or whatever we may call it) is normal. It isn't just those at the top of the many hierarchies either. Anyone who's day demands that they entertain those sorts of ideas is subject to what I'm saying.
Cyber security that involves physical involvement is almost always reserved for the most extreme use cases. For example, nuclear silos utilize this type of scheme. For good reason. Bitcoin, if I can call it that, is one of these structures by virtue of what it actually is doing: harnessing fuels of all kinds for the purpose of keeping the network going.
What would happen if governments decided to start pouring into the hashrate? I know it's just a what-if. My point there though is this: the book was pulled. Why? I may not know precisely why, but I'm more than willing to make an educated guess informed by all of recorded history.
I could keep rambling but I won't.
Keep up the good work of witnessing to the world about the innovation that is BTC. We all need more people like you, even if We don't know that yet. 🫂🫡
