Can Nation-States Fight Bitcoin With Their Own PoW Network?

In a discussion on X, Jason Lowery debated the viability and future of Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) networks—particularly whether nations

Astronautical engineer and Major in the US Space Force, Jason Lowery, recently engaged in a discussion on Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) networks, specifically addressing the possibility of nations attempting to create competing proof-of-work systems.

The conversation was initiated by a question from Rabbit Hole Investor (@rabbitholeinvst) directed at Lowery, who is also the author of the “Softwar” thesis that highlights Bitcoin’s critical role in US national security.

Can Nation-States Counter Bitcoin With Their Own PoW Network?

Rabbit Hole Investor asked Lowery, “Do you see a future where other reusable proof of work networks are created for other applications?” In response, Lowery shared some questions he earlier received from the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.

While he stated that predicting the future with absolute certainty is not possible, he shared his intuition that there will be one dominant RPoW network that gains universal acceptance, similar to how TCP/IP became the global standard for data transport.

According to Lowery’s assessment:

This was one of the questions I received from the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. […] My intuition is that a single dominant Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) network will emerge as the primary standard—much like how TCP/IP became the universal protocol for data transport […] In RPoW, network size directly translates to security. […] This consolidation of all RPOW applications into one RPOW network […] is a game-theoretic necessity.

He elaborated on how RPoW’s security scales with computational power and energy expenditure, creating a “reinforcing cycle” that naturally drives participants to migrate to the largest and most secure network.

Lowery pointed to what he calls “Mutually Assured Preservation,” where even adversarial nation-states (e.g., NATO and BRICS) would effectively become “frenemies” on the same RPoW network. According to his assessment:

The cost of attacking either side increases to such an extent that they become ‘frenemies,’ each strengthening the security of the other’s interests on the same network.

Lowery’s stance leans strongly toward Bitcoin as the dominant RPoW protocol. While he does not label himself a “Bitcoin Maximalist,” he makes it clear that Bitcoin is the de facto global PoW standard due to market forces and network effects.

Thomas Young, Managing Partner at RUMJog Enterprises, further probed Lowery’s thesis by asking about individual Bitcoin ownership and the monetization potential for BTC in a world where nation-states treat the network as “The Standard.”

Young’s question specifically explored whether individuals can practically own privately-held BTC and if interested nation states would “rent” privately-held BTC to misattribute or create diversification or prefer owning their BTC.

In response, Lowery shared his belief that if Bitcoin becomes a global unit of account, its purchasing power will naturally increase as humanity grows more productive. This development, in his view, renders the pursuit of chasing yield obsolete, as Bitcoin itself becomes the ultimate yield.

However, he also raised a cautionary flag regarding the promises of yield in a future scenario where governments might carry out executive orders to seize custodial BTC.

According to Lowery’s assessment:

If I were a nefarious president or nation, I’d lure people into giving up self-custody of their BTC by dangling the promise of yield… Then, with a simple executive order, I’d nationalize NYDIG, Coinbase, and MSTR’s Bitcoin… This is why I don’t own MSTR. MSTR’s Bitcoin is a future president’s honeypot… When the next EO6102 inevitably comes, it will be widely supported.

Another user asked Lowery whether sovereign entities might create their own networks—for instance, sidechains or drivechains pegged into the main Bitcoin network—under their sovereign control.

In response, Lowery highlighted the contrasting centralization aspects of Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) protocols.

According to Lowery’s assessment:

If the goal is sovereign control over a network, then PoS is a far better design than PoW […] A nation (or any entity) could simply pre-mine the tokens, distribute them to itself, and implement a vote-based PoS system […] This structure would ensure that control remains centralized […] while still maintaining the (false) appearance of a decentralized system.

He acknowledged the possibility of a nation creating an RPoW network with centralized administrative control but considers this approach more complex and less efficient compared to a straightforward proof-of-stake system for achieving centralized governance.

As the conversation progressed, Lowery maintained his line of argument, suggesting that game-theoretic pressures—both among individuals and nation-states—tend to favor consolidation around a single, most secure PoW network.

He argues that Bitcoin’s sheer scale and deeply-