My TLDR for anyone living under a rock: Lowery considers Bitcoin to be a power-projecting cybersecurity system rather than merely a monetary system. He believes Bitcoin settles disputes in an egalitarian, trustless, permissionless manner by having participants project power in a similar fashion to how deer settle disputes using antlers. Bitcoin maybe be a modern alternative to kinetic warfare. The author predicts that nation states will not just fight over Bitcoin, but they will fight using Bitcoin's proof-of-work function.

Lopp [1] criticises Lowery's thesis primarily for its focus on one aspect of Bitcoin's defence mechanism, the proof-of-work function, when it relies on many others such as independent node operators, the economic majority, open-source developers, and social consensus.

Warner [2] separates the roles of digital signatures and proof-of-work within Bitcoin: digital signatures provide authentication whereas proof-of-work provides arbitration to determine an absolute order of transactions. He indirectly criticises Lowery's thesis dismissing the possiblity of nation states fighting over Bitcoin, or fighting using Bitcoin's proof-of-work function. Instead, he believes Bitcoin must remain a smaller, but significant decentralised alternative to centralised systems.

[1] https://blog.lopp.net/critique-softwar-concepts/ [2] https://github.com/micah541/btc

A lot of theater. That's why I unsubscribed from 99% of btc twitter

"Softwar: A Novel"