"But wait..."
Softwar Thesis: Objections Addressed
Common criticisms of Bitcoin energy use, power projection, and proof-of-work — with honest responses. The thesis doesn't shy away from hard questions.
Isn't Bitcoin just money?
Think of it like gunpowder. People first used it for fireworks, but the real power was as a weapon. Bitcoin looks like money, but the thesis says it's actually a defense system.
Money was the first use case, just like 'medicine' was for black powder. The thesis argues the real function is physical security for information. The 'coin' in Bitcoin is a misnomer that causes people to evaluate it through the wrong lens.
Lowery argues (pp. 370-376) that framing Bitcoin as a monetary instrument constitutes a categorical error. The 'coin' suffix is a hypostatization, treating an abstract metaphor as concrete reality. The thesis repositions Bitcoin as a physical cost function protocol whose primary value-delivered function is physical empowerment and balance of power, not medium of exchange or store of value.
What about the energy waste?
Antlers are heavy and hard to grow. But without them, deer can't compete fairly. Bitcoin's energy use is its antlers. That's what makes it real and fair.
The energy IS the security. Criticizing Bitcoin for using energy is like criticizing antlers for being heavy. The cost is the feature. It's what makes the system physically grounded rather than abstractly controlled. Without the energy expenditure, there is no physical power projection.
The thesis argues (pp. 302-303) that Bitcoin is 'reverse-optimized computing,' deliberately designed to be more physically constrained and thermodynamically restricted than conventional computing. Eighty years of computing optimization aimed at reducing energy costs per computation. Bitcoin intentionally inverts this, because the energy expenditure IS the security mechanism. Computational efficiency would destroy the physical grounding that distinguishes PoW from abstract consensus.
What about Proof-of-Stake?
Proof-of-Stake is like saying 'I'm the strongest kid because I SAY so.' Proof-of-Work is like actually arm-wrestling. One is pretend, one is real.
PoS is abstract power (trust-based, rank-dependent). PoW is physical power (real watts, no trust needed). They are fundamentally different security models. The thesis argues PoS is structurally identical to the exploitable hierarchies it critiques, calling it 'proof-of-imaginary-power.'
Lowery's analysis (pp. 323-339) classifies PoS as 'proof-of-imaginary-power' or 'proof-of-rank,' drawing a structural parallel to the God-King model described in Chapter 4. Validators function as gatekeepers within an exploitable belief system. At time of writing, 60% of Ethereum 2.0 blocks were OFAC-compliant (censored), empirically demonstrating the concentration of abstract power PoS produces.
This sounds like war propaganda
Softwar means war WITHOUT fighting. Nobody gets hurt. It's like arm-wrestling instead of a real fight. You still find out who's stronger, but everyone walks away fine.
Softwar is specifically NON-lethal and NON-destructive. It's the opposite of traditional warfare. It achieves the same benefits (resource security, dispute resolution, hierarchy establishment) without bloodshed. The argument is for replacing kinetic conflict, not promoting it.
The thesis distinguishes between kinetic warfare (forces displacing masses, causing injury and destruction) and non-kinetic warfare (charges passing across resistors, imposing energy costs without physical harm). Softwar (pp. 340-357) is explicitly positioned as a substitute for, not complement to, kinetic conflict. The Mutually Assured Preservation framework (pp. 358-369) argues that electric power competition produces positive-sum outcomes where kinetic competition produces zero-sum or negative-sum outcomes.
Why should I care?
Everything you own online (your photos, your messages, your game accounts) is protected by promises. Not locks, not walls, just promises from companies. What if those promises break?
Every app you use, every dollar you save, every bit of data you own lives in cyberspace, protected by nothing but promises from admins you've never met. The thesis argues this is an existential vulnerability that proof-of-work can address.
The thesis identifies six fundamental security challenges in software-controlled systems (pp. 257-272), arguing that all logical (software-based) security mechanisms are ultimately controlled by administrators with extraordinary asymmetric abstract power. The cumulative effect is recursive vulnerability: every additional security layer adds another administrator who must be trusted. Proof-of-work offers an alternative grounding mechanism rooted in physical rather than abstract constraints.
Isn't this just a pro-Bitcoin pitch?
This is a school paper from MIT that looks at Bitcoin like a scientist looks at a new discovery, trying to figure out what it actually IS, not whether you should buy it.
This is one theoretical framework from an MIT thesis by a US Space Force officer. It presents an argument about power projection and national security, not financial advice. The thesis invites scrutiny and debate; judge the reasoning on its merits.
The thesis is a master's research project submitted to the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, supervised by academic faculty. Lowery explicitly frames his argument as a theoretical contribution to power projection literature, drawing on established frameworks from thermodynamics, game theory, and military strategy. The thesis makes no financial claims or investment recommendations.
Why should I trust a military perspective?
Most people don't think about security because they've never had to. It's like asking a fish about water. They don't notice it. Military people think about security all day, so they notice things others miss.
The thesis argues that less than 2% of people have warfighting expertise. The security implications of new technology are a blind spot for most. Military and strategic analysis provides a perspective that financial analysts, economists, and technologists may lack.
Lowery argues (pp. 4-8) that the dominant analytical frameworks applied to Bitcoin (monetary economics, financial theory, computer science) systematically overlook its power projection implications because those disciplines lack warfighting expertise. The thesis draws an explicit parallel to historical cases where military innovations were initially evaluated through inappropriate frameworks: Constantinople evaluating cannons through a diplomatic lens, the British Royal Navy evaluating torpedoes through a naval traditions lens.