The “Softwar” theory proposed by Jason Lowery has been met with considerable skepticism and criticism. Many argue that his exposition on cybersecurity is far from groundbreaking, but rather, a reiteration of old concepts that were extensively scrutinized years before Lowery became a recognized figure in the field.

Let’s delve into his assertion about the potential role of nation states in Bitcoin mining as a form of “defensive weaponry.” The idea that nation states would be motivated to mine or support mining within their territories is not a fresh viewpoint introduced by Lowery. This concept has been a topic of conversation among Bitcoin enthusiasts as far back as the years 2011-2013. It has always been anticipated that if Bitcoin gained global geopolitical relevance, nation states would invariably show interest in the mining sector.

Nation states have a long history of regulating major commodities and their production, from gold to oil and natural gas. The idea that they would regulate Bitcoin mining if it became successful isn’t a novel thesis, but rather, a logical conclusion that was evident to tech enthusiasts who were involved in this space since its early days.

Lowery’s suggestion that Bitcoin can secure data, however, has been widely criticized as nonsensical and incoherent. While Bitcoin can timestamp data, it doesn’t inherently provide any security measures. It doesn’t prevent unauthorized access or ensure data integrity or accuracy. The notion that Bitcoin can control access to information is flawed as any data put on Bitcoin is accessible to anyone. This transparency is a fundamental principle of Bitcoin, which allows for data verification.

Moving on to the topic of paywalls, APIs, and the concept of “digital energy,” Lowery suggests that charging Bitcoin for API calls could enhance security. This assertion is highly debatable. Restricting API access is typically done to manage resource use or to permit only authorized individuals to access the API. While Bitcoin might marginally assist with resource management, it doesn’t contribute to restricting access.

Moreover, monetizing an API with Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily safeguard against DoS attacks. Traditional DoS systems that work by diverting or managing packets are still essential. Bitcoin payments don’t eliminate this necessity.

Lowery’s claim that Bitcoin can prevent wars by encouraging nation states to compete in mining is also met with skepticism. The geopolitical competition for resources, agricultural lands, and strategic military positions won’t be influenced by Bitcoin mining.

In conclusion, Lowery’s “Softwar” theory is seen by many as a disjointed collection of ideas strung together around a single observation that countless Bitcoin enthusiasts had made long before he entered the field. Critics argue that those who accept his theory lack critical thinking skills or a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and may not represent the views of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.