Also found on LinkedIn as a follow up:
"Why frame Bitcoin as a nuclear deterrence mechanism for your thesis?"
You know how 99% of the computer networks we use today enjoy free, atomic-level precision navigation & timing from a constellation of space-born atomic clocks called GPS? Ever wonder how/why that started? Nuclear deterrence. US needed a way to deliver a credible second strike against Moscow in case USSR shot first (mutually assured destruction). The solution was to hide submarines in the ocean to shoot back if our homeland was destroyed (we still do this). But we had a problem: no way for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, sitting underwater for more than a month, to know where they were in relation to Moscow if we needed to shoot (inertial navigation was only accurate for a few hours). No credible threat of second strike because we were 90% likely to miss the shot. So we finally got the approval to build GPS constellation because of nuclear deterrence. Only after did we realize how useful GPS is at other stuff besides nuking Moscow with nuclear-tipped tridents.
Ever wonder how/why we eventually got to TCP/IP? Nuclear deterrence. We needed a different way for different computer networks to preserve comms, particularly in case of nuclear strike, so we could mutually assure the destruction of USSR. Eventually, DoD literally forced everyone to use TCP/IP. Only after did we realize how useful TCP/IP is at other stuff besides preserving nuclear comms.
Bitcoin is reverse. Commercial figured out its utility first (well done!), now DoD needs to understand how useful/inevitable it is as a nuclear deterrence mechanism because of new doctrine I call mutually assured preservation.
No need for kinetic warfare when we finally have a perfect 1-for-1 functional surrogate to war where nation states can hash it out (pun intended). Bitcoin is digital violence. It obsoletes messy, analog physical violence and is the ultimate "peacekeeper" missile.
If bitcoin becomes base-layer collateral for all global currencies (which game theory says is in the best interest of all countries to do, even authoritarian ones) and western allies mass adopts it first (which we now have the lead on, thanks China!), we benefit disproportionately AND we get the built-in strategic deterrent benefits of mutually assured preservation.
A war between two bitcoin-anchored nations is a war without winners. It would be a "kinetic 51% attack" that everyone would be incentivized NOT to do. Plus the winner has no ability to steal/co-opt reserve currency, no ability to cheat global btc node network to gain illegitimate claim to chain of custody, and very little to gain if the loser can (for the first time ever) can no-kidding take their wealth to the grave. Schelling point becomes to preserve your opponent, compete your values in the free market & through your bitcoin digital army of miners.
IDK just spit balling. Please attack so I can make sure I have a sound argument.
You can get bonuses upto $100 FREE BONUS when you:
💰 Install these recommended apps:
💲 SocialGood - 100% Crypto Back on Everyday Shopping
💲 Maiar - DeFi For The Next Billion
💲 CryptoTab Browser - Lightweight, fast, and ready to mine!
💰 Register on these recommended exchanges:
🟡 Binance🟡 Bitfinex🟡 Bitmart🟡 Bittrex🟡 Bitget
🟡 CoinEx🟡 Crypto.com🟡 Gate.io🟡 Huobi🟡 Kucoin.