Inspiration
Einstein theorized that mass is swappable with energy. Assuming, he’s right, this would imply that nations could one day learn how to swap some of their mass-based (i.e. kinetic) defense systems with energybased (i.e. non-kinetic defense) systems for applications related to physical security and national defense. Modern militaries already utilize both cyber and electronic defense systems, but perhaps there is some other type of defense technology that could combine electric and cyber defense systems together into an electro-cyber form of defense technology. If true, then perhaps one day society will learn how to utilize this special type of technology as a “soft” form of warfare to resolve international policy disputes, establish dominance hierarchies, defend property, rebalance power structures, or even mitigate threats associated with “hard” warfighting, such as nuclear escalation.
"We cannot abolish war by outlawing it. We cannot end it by disarming the strong. War can be stopped, not by making the strong weak but by making every nation, weak or strong, able to defend itself. If no country can be attacked successfully, there can be no purpose in war”
-Nikola Tesla-
Electro-cyber warfighting is not a new idea; it's at least 123 years old. In 1900, Nikola Tesla hypothesized that society would eventually develop such destructive kinetic power that humanity would face a dilemma and be compelled out of existential necessity to fight their wars using human-out-ofthe-loop "energy delivery" competitions. He believed humans would eventually invent intelligent machines that would engage in electric power competitions to settle humanity's disputes, while humans observe from afar. Other titans of the American industrial revolution had complementary ideas about using electricity to mitigate the threat of war.
In 1921, Henry Ford (while reportedly standing with Tesla's rival, Thomas Edison) claimed society could eliminate one of the root causes of warfighting by learning how to create an electric form of currency that bankers couldn't control.
Both Tesla and Ford saw potential in the idea of using electricity to either eliminate a root cause of warfare
or eliminate a root cause of warfare's associated destruction and losses. However, neither were successful at building the technology required to test or validate their hypotheses. This could have been because both theories predated the invention of "intelligent machines" a.k.a. general-purpose, storedprogram computers.
Both Tesla and Ford's theories predate the popular theoretical framework we call "computer science" and the development of the abstraction we call "software."
This thesis was inspired by the following question: what if Tesla and Ford were both right, and they were both describing the same technology? What if Ford's theory is valid, and it is indeed feasible to mitigate a root cause of warfare by converting electricity into monetary and financial information? What if Tesla's theory is valid, and the future of warfare does indeed involve “intelligent machines” competing
against each other in human-out-of-the-loop energy competitions? Would this technology not reduce casualties associated with traditional kinetic warfighting? If it did, would this technology not be worth every watt? Assuming Tesla's theories were valid, then what might "soft" warfighting technology look like? How might this technology impact or re-shape agrarian society's social hierarchies and power structures after spending well over 10,000 years predominantly fighting "hard" or kinetic wars? If Tesla's "intelligent machines" are in fact computers, then wouldn't their power competition be dictated by a computer program? Maybe humanity's "soft" and futuristic form of electro-cyber warfare would take the form of an open source "softwar" computer protocol. And because nothing like it has ever been seen before, maybe nobody would recognize it. This concept is illustrated in Figure 2.
A "softwar" protocol could theoretically utilize society's internationally-dispersed, global electric power grid and existing internet infrastructure to empower computers to impose severe, physically prohibitive costs on other computers in, from, and through cyberspace. It could combine Tesla's and Ford's ideas together and serve as both a "softwar" protocol and a monetary network. There's no logical reason to believe it couldn't serve both functions simultaneously, considering how the development and expansion of all technologies need financing - especially defense industrial complexes.
Here's an even more compelling idea: Maybe "softwar" technology already exists and nations are already starting to adopt it.
Maybe this new form of power projection technology is already demonstrating how it can empower every nation, weak or strong, to physically secure their interests like never before, thus fulfilling Tesla's prediction.
Perhaps this electro-cyber warfighting technology is hiding in plain sight, but people don't recognize it yet because they are mistaking it for a peerto-peer electronic cash system.
Finally, perhaps all it will take for society to recognize that they're entering a completely new and transformational paradigm of non-lethal warfighting is simply a different point of view.
To that end, the author presents this thesis.
This image illustrates the bottom line of this thesis, which is that Bitcoin isn’t strictly a monetary protocol. Instead, Bitcoin appears to be emerging as a cyber power projection tactic for the digital age. While most software can only logically constrain computers, Bitcoin can physically constrain computers and impose severe physical costs (as measured in watts) on belligerent actors in, from, and through cyberspace. Bitcoin’s global adoption could therefore represent a revolutionary approach to cyber security and could dramatically reshape how modern society secures their most valuable digital resources.
There are five different ways that machinery can be used to impose severe physical costs on others in, from, and through five different domains. The image at the bottom shows the specialized machinery that is currently being used to keep special bits of information called “Bitcoin” secure against belligerent actors.
Figure: Five Ways to Impose Severe Physical Costs on Attackers in Five Different Domains
Bitcoin could represent a strategically vital national security technology for the digital age. However, the American public may not understand why Bitcoin has the potential to be so strategically important because they don’t appear to understand the complexity of (1) the computer theory behind the design concept called “proof-of-work,” (2) modern power projection tactics, (3) the function of militaries, or (4) the profession of warfighting. If the theories presented in this thesis prove to be valid, then the American public’s lack of understanding about these core concepts could jeopardize US national strategic security.
The future of US national strategic security hinges upon cyber security, and Bitcoin has
demonstrated that “proof-ofwork” functions as a new type of cyber security system.
Nations appear to be waking up to the potentially substantial strategic benefits of Bitcoin and learning that it could be in their best strategic interest to adopt it (hence Russian’s recent 180-degree pivot to supporting Bitcoin). Another cold war could be kicking off, except instead of a space race, it could be a cyber space race. As is often the case with the emergence of any new power projection technology, speed of adoption may be critical.
If the US does not consider stockpiling strategic Bitcoin reserves, or at the very least encouraging Bitcoin adoption, the author believes the US could forfeit a strategically vital power projection technology lead to one of its greatest competitors and set itself back in global power dominance.
The current approach that US leaders are taking to analyze the potential risks and benefits of proof-of-work technologies like Bitcoin could therefore represent a threat to US national security. It is particularly concerning that US policymakers have arbitrarily chosen to categorize Bitcoin as “cryptocurrency” and tacitly allow institutions with conflicts of interest to claim to be experts in proof-of-work technology. These institutions could use their misperceived expertise to influence public policy making efforts for their own benefit, compromising US national strategic security in the process.
Computer scientists have been researching proof-of-work protocols for over 30 years –that’s more than twice as long as Bitcoin has existed. Since the beginning of this research endeavor, it was hypothesized that proof-of-work protocols could serve as a new type of
cyber security system that could empower people to keep computer resources (namely their most valuable bits of information) secure against hacking and exploitation simply by imposing severe physical costs (in the form of computer power) on belligerent actors trying to access or interfere with that
information. In other words, computer scientists rediscovered what military officers have known about physical security for thousands of years: to stop or deter bad guys from doing bad things, make it too physically expensive for them to do those bad things.
While academia theorized via formal academic channels about how proof-of-work could work, software engineers and “doers” like Adam Back, Hal Finney, and Satoshi Nakamoto designed, built, and deployed several operational prototypes via informal, non-academic channels. Today, Bitcoin has emerged as by far the most globally-adopted proof-of-work cyber security system to date.
Bitcoin is so physically powerful in comparison to other open-source proof-of-work protocols that a popular mantra has emerged, initiated by technologist Michael Saylor (MIT ’87): “There is no second best.”
But what could Bitcoin possibly have to do with warfare? To understand this connection, one must recall the primary function of militaries.
Sovereign nations have a fiduciary responsibility to their people to protect and defend access to international thoroughfares (e.g. land, sea, air, space) to preserve freedom of action and the ability to exchange goods with other nations. When a nation intentionally degrades another nation’s freedom of action or ability to exchange goods across these thoroughfares, that activity is often considered
to be an act of war. Militaries exist explicitly to protect and defend people’s access to these thoroughfares. The way militaries accomplish this is by imposing severe physical costs on those who try to deny access to these thoroughfares or impede a population’s ability to exchange goods across them.
Military branches are categorized based on the thoroughfare they assure access to and preserve freedom of action in. Armies assure access to land. Naval forces assure access to the sea. Air forces assure access to the sky. Space forces assure access to space. Regardless of the domain to which access is secured, each service effectively works the same way: preserve the nation’s ability to utilize each thoroughfare by imposing severe physical costs on anyone who impedes or denies access to it. Physical power is used to stop and deter belligerent activity in, from, and through these thoroughfares.
The more physically powerful, motivated, and aggressive a military is, the better it usually performs. The more a military service can utilize technology to project power in clever ways, the more effective it is at its primary value-delivered function.
One of the most strategically important thoroughfares of the 21st century is colloquially known as “cyberspace.” It is of vital national strategic Interest for every nation to preserve their ability to exchange a precious resource across this thoroughfare: valuable bits of information. Just like they already do for land, sea, air, and space, sovereign nations have both a right and a fiduciary responsibility to their people to protect and defend their access to this international thoroughfare called cyberspace. If a nation were to intentionally degrade another’s freedom of
action or ability to exchange valuable bits of information in cyberspace, that activity would likely be interpreted as an act of war, as it would in any other domain.
Until Bitcoin, nations have not had an effective way to physically secure their ability to freely exchange bits of Information across cyberspace without resorting to kinetic (i.e. lethal) power.
This is because they have not had access to technology which enables them to Impose severe physical costs on belligerent actors in, from, and through cyberspace.
This appears to have changed with the discovery of open-source proofof-work technologies like Bitcoin – a complex system which empowers people to physically restrain belligerent actors. This technology works, and adoption has already scaled to the nation-state level. Thanks to proof-of-work protocols like Bitcoin, nations can now utilize special machinery to impose severe
physical restrictions on other nations in, from, and through cyberspace in a completely nondestructive and non-lethal manner. This capability has the potential to transform cyber security by enabling computer networks to
run computer programs which don’t give a specific group of users special or unimpeachable permissions over the computer network and entrusts them not to exploit those permissions.
With the ability to impose severe physical costs on users through cyberspace, zero-trust computer
networks (and a new type of internet) can now be designed where users can have their special permissions physically revoked if they abuse or exploit them. The first computer network to prove this design concept appears to be the network of computers utilizing Bitcoin. Bitcoin is proof that proof-of-work works.
At its core, Bitcoin is a computer network that transfers bits of information between computers using a zero-trust physical security design.
As previously mentioned, bits of information can represent any type of information, including but not limited to financial information that might be used to support international payments and financial settlements. It makes perfect sense that a proof-ofwork computer network’s first use case would be to physically secure the exchange of vital financial bits of information, but that is clearly not the only
use case. This technology could have far wider-reaching applications, as there are many other types of precious information that society would want to physically secure in the information age.
To that end, Bitcoin could represent the dawn of an entirely new form of militarygrade, electro-cyber information security capability – a protocol that people and nations could utilize to raise cyber forces and defend their freedom of action in, from, and through cyberspace.
The bottom line is that Bitcoin could represent a “softwar” or electro-cyber defense protocol, not merely a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. The author believes proof-of-work technology could change the future of national strategic security and international power dynamics in ways that we have barely started to understand.
Copyright © [2023] Jason Lowery. All rights reserved.
