Jason Lowery’s Softwar “thesis” is a complete joke. It is a mix of incoherent, and subtly so, argumentation about cybersecurity and a repackaging of old topics of discussion that were thoroughly explored a decade before Jason Lowery became a name that anyone was familiar with in this space.

First let’s look at the nation state mining “defensive weaponry” nonsense. Nation states being incentivized to mine, or support mining in their jurisdictions, is not some novel idea of Jason’s. It is a widely discussed dynamic going as far back as 2011-2013. Essentially every Bitcoiner since that time period who has been involved enough in this space to study and discuss where things were going in the long term has considered the dynamic of nations getting involved with mining if Bitcoin was actually successful in its growth long term.

If Bitcoin ever became geopolitically relevant at a global scale, nation states were always going to take an interest in the mining sector. Nation states have an involvement in regulating all major commodities and their production, from gold to oil and natural gas. This is not some novel thesis or notion, it is common sense that was obvious to every random nerd who was in this space over a decade ago.

The aspect of Bitcoin securing data however is patently absurd and incoherent. Bitcoin does not “secure” data. It can timestamp data, but that is not a magic guarantee of security. It does nothing whatsoever to protect data from exfiltration (being accessed by unauthorized people and copied), nor does it guarantee integrity or accuracy. All data on the blockchain is publicly accessible to anyone running a node. The idea of Bitcoin being useful for controlling access to information is just absurd. By its very nature any data put on Bitcoin is accessible by literally anyone. That is the entire bedrock it is based on, everything being open and transparent so that it can be verified.

So let’s talk about paywalls, APIs, and nonsense gibberish like “digital energy.” Lowery’s next big jump is that charging in bitcoin for API calls somehow improves security. This is complete nonsense. Restricting access to an API is done for two reasons, 1) to manage resource use and stop them from being wasted, or 2) to only allow specific individuals you have authorized to access the API. Bitcoin can help with the former slightly, but does nothing whatsoever to help with the latter.

Even monetizing an API with bitcoin doesn’t really help resource management protecting against DoS attacks. People can still send packets to your machine without a payment. Those packets still have to be diverted or managed by traditional DoS systems, which typically work by blackholing packets, or redirecting them away from your system. Bitcoin payments do nothing to get rid of the need to do such things.

A money that anyone can get their hands on does nothing to restrict access to a system to only specific people that you want to access that system. Cryptography does that. Passwords do that. Technologies that already exist completely independently of, and have no need for, Bitcoin. Not to mention that even with such systems properly implemented, the hardware and software on the system being secured is ultimately what secures that system. People don’t fail to breach a server because “Bitcoin is protecting it,” they fail because the security systems on that server are properly implemented.

Bitcoin, and even proper cryptography without Bitcoin, does nothing to keep a system secure when implementations are done incorrectly or flaws exist in those systems. That is the root of cybersecurity, and Bitcoin does absolutely nothing to change it. It does not help hardware be free from flaws, or security software be free from bugs. This entire aspect of his “thesis” is totally incoherent gibberish, that makes no logical sense at all. It’s a con to sucker in people who do not understand these things and build a reputation by hiding incoherence and incompetence behind clueless people cheerleading.

And the whole “Bitcoin will stop wars” nonsense because nation states will compete with mining against each other? Laughable. Bitcoin mining will not change the geopolitical competition over agricultural lands, natural resources, tactical military positions, or anything that nation states go to war over. It is pure delusion.

Jason Lowery does not have a “thesis”, he has a pile of incoherent garbage taped together around a single observation that an uncountable number of Bitcoiners had a decade before he ever entered this space. It’s a complete joke, and anyone buying it demonstrates they have zero critical thinking skills or familiarity with the relevant subject matter.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

As I’ve explained previously, I don’t think Donald Trump actually gives a damn about Bitcoin; at best, he’s a shitcoiner who wants in on the scam. Having said that, it is fair to say that Trump adopted a pro-crypto stance during his campaign. And indeed, his promise at Bitcoin 2024 to fire Gary Gensler on “day one” of his presidency seems to have already resulted in the SEC chairman announcing his resignation.

An optimistic scenario (as for example suggested by Trey Walsh) is one in which the Democrats now (also) adopt Bitcoin as part of their party platform. But given how many other seemingly neutral topics get unnecessarily politicized (the COVID vaccines are perhaps the best recent example of this), I wouldn’t be surprised to see the opposite happen.

As the upcoming Trump administration is gearing up to establish a regulatory landscape facilitating full-on anything-goes multicoinery, and with Gary Gensler gone, we could well see the most atrocious scam coins proliferate and soar— before they inevitably implode. And as people over the next four years get rug pulled, dumped on, and otherwise defrauded, I could also easily imagine a political response from the other side of the aisle that fails to recognize the distinction between Bitcoin and the World Liberty Financials of the world altogether. They could turn against all of cryptocurrency even more than they already have— Bitcoin not excluded.

Of course, this is all speculation; I have no crystal ball here. But in a few years from now, bitcoiners might find themselves in between polarized positions from both major American political parties. Nocoiners to the left of me, shitcoiners to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

As someone who has used Microsoft products my whole life, it pains me to see they are fumbling the bag on Bitcoin. The company’s $78 billion in cash reserves are losing value daily. Meanwhile, they stubbornly refuse to follow MicroStrategy’s proven winning strategy — convert those melting dollars to scarce Bitcoin!

Microsoft announced a couple of months ago that it would buy back shares up to $60 billion; it seems like this did nothing to increase the stock price. Imagine if they had bought Bitcoin instead. That money would have been much more powerful if allocated to Bitcoin. The company would likely have added hundreds of billions in market cap.

Just look at MicroStrategy. In just four years, they turned their $1 billion company into $100 billion by adopting Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset. They are now the most compelling and successful story in corporate finance, with the best-performing stock in the last four years, beating every US company – even NVIDIA.

Yet Microsoft clings to an outdated financial strategy, destroying shareholder value. Microsoft should follow its technology instincts, not faulty financial logic. There is no long-term viability in holding cash.

I was listening to X Spaces yesterday, during which MicroStrategy’s CEO Michael Saylor revealed that he offered to explain Bitcoin’s benefits privately, but Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella rejected the meeting. Now, he is making a last-ditch appeal by presenting a 3-minute Bitcoin proposal to Microsoft’s board.

Earlier, the board already advised shareholders to reject assessing Bitcoin’s potential upside. Nonetheless, I am interested to see how this meeting will turn out. Saylor is a great educator, so you never know.

They should realise that no corporate treasury asset like Bitcoin can enhance enterprise value. Even a small $5 billion Bitcoin allocation could add tens of billions in market cap.

Look, Microsoft, the choice is clear – hoard melting dollars or embrace uncensorable digital gold. Your shareholders are begging you to buy Bitcoin. It’s time to listen before that $78 billion completely disappears. This is your fiduciary duty as Bitcoin continues mass adoption.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.