In his controversial book Softwar: A Novel Theory on Power Projection and the National Strategic Significance of Bitcoin, US Space Force officer Jason Lowery presents Bitcoin, not as money or a market asset, but as a weapon of national defense. According to Lowery, proof-of-work (PoW) is not simply a consensus mechanism—it is a new form of power projection that turns kinetic force into digital deterrence.
He proposes that nations, especially the United States, should strategically adopt Bitcoin to deter cyber threats and assert power without violence. In his view, Bitcoin’s decentralized and energy-intensive protocol could offer a non-lethal form of control similar to traditional military presence—like “antlers in the animal kingdom,” where physical display deters without needing to kill.
From an Austrian economics standpoint, this interpretation raises major concerns. The Austrian School—following thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek—sees Bitcoin’s value in its spontaneous emergence as a decentralized monetary good. To reframe it as a strategic tool of coercion is to betray the very logic that gave Bitcoin life.
Lowery claims that not deploying Bitcoin strategically would leave the US vulnerable. But this mindset risks turning a tool of individual sovereignty into another arm of the state—a kind of “digital conscription” where hash power becomes taxpayer-funded weaponry. The military rhetoric around “securing the protocol” can easily drift into centralized control, even if unintentionally.
The Austrian tradition emphasizes liberty, voluntary cooperation, and the limits of state planning. As Mises warned, centralized power—even in defense—tends to expand beyond its intended bounds. And as Hayek showed, every concentration of control under the guise of safety leads us closer to serfdom.
Bitcoin’s power lies in its permissionless nature—not in being wielded by geopolitical superpowers. Turning it into a “national strategic asset” undermines its very essence. As Rothbard would say, state appropriation, even under the banner of defense, is still coercion. If Bitcoin is to remain a tool of freedom, it must resist becoming a tool of empire.
One would have to wonder what theory of money that this Lowery has in mind when he poses his ideas. Money in its exchange value and in its store of value attributes has nothing to do with military, or strategic military objectives or even uses. I think that people would move off of BTC into another forking of the protocol if something like this control mechanism were ever to be put in place. You would see the value of the BTC plunge into nothingness and total abandonment by the people who are involved in BTC at this moment. I think this Lowery is well indoctrinated military idiot, what about you? What do you think of this crackpottery?