Jason Lowery’s “Softwar” thesis is quite honestly a mess. It jumbles up cyber security arguments with a hodgepodge of outdated discussions—topics that veterans in the space dissected long before Lowery became a familiar name.
Let’s dissect the idea that nation-states might start mining as a form of “defensive weaponry.” This isn’t a groundbreaking revelation from Jason; it’s been a part of the conversation since 2011-2013. Anyone deeply engaged with Bitcoin knew that if it gained global traction, countries would inevitably dive into mining. It’s common sense, really. Governments regulate significant commodities like gold, oil, and gas, so why not Bitcoin if it becomes geopolitically crucial?
Now, claiming Bitcoin secures data is simply misleading. Sure, it can timestamp data, but that doesn’t equate to protecting it from unauthorized access or data breaches. All blockchain data is public, open for inspection by anyone with a node. Imagining Bitcoin as a gatekeeper for information is just beyond the pale. Its founding principle is transparency—everything is out in the open to ensure verifiability.
Moving onto the buzzwords—paywalls, APIs, and “digital energy.” The suggestion that using Bitcoin for API calls enhances security is a stretch. Access restrictions serve two purposes: managing resource use and authorizing specific individuals. Bitcoin might slightly aid in the former, but it does nothing for the latter. Even charging Bitcoin for API access doesn’t shield against DoS attacks; packets can still inundate your systems without payment, necessitating conventional security measures like packet rerouting.
In terms of access control, broadly accessible money like Bitcoin doesn’t restrict system access to select individuals. That’s what cryptography and passwords are for. These existing technologies, independent of Bitcoin, provide security. Successful server protection comes from well-implemented security systems, not from Bitcoin’s involvement. Poor implementations and system flaws are cybersecurity’s real challenges, and Bitcoin doesn’t solve these issues. Its contribution here is nonexistent.
The notion that Bitcoin could prevent wars by encouraging mining competition among nations is, frankly, absurd. Bitcoin mining won’t sway geopolitical struggles over land, resources, or strategic positions. It’s a sheer fallacy.
In essence, Lowery lacks a solid thesis. What he presents is a disjointed array of incoherent ideas masked behind a singular realization that countless Bitcoin enthusiasts recognized long before he did. Buying into it suggests a lack of critical thinking and an unfamiliarity with the topic at hand.
As always, these opinions are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the views of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
